2010 Airport Master
Plan Update

Prepared for:

The City of Chandler

April 2010

Prepared by:

Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc.

“The preparation of this document was financed in part through a planning grant from the State of Arizona
as approved by the State Transportation Board. The contents of this report reflect the views of the
Consultant, which is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data depicted herein, and do not
necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the State of Arizona. Acceptance of this report by the
State of Arizona does not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the State of Arizona to
participate in any development depicted therein, nor does it indicate that the proposed development is
environmentally acceptable in accordance with applicable public laws.”

PREFACE

In late 2005, the City of Chandler initiated a Master Plan Update for Chandler Municipal
Airport (CHD). With funding assistance from the Arizona Department of Transportation,
the City undertook the steps to complete the study according to Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) guidance. In early 2007, the City approved the draft Master Plan
for submission to ADOT and the FAA for their review and comment.
Through the review of ADOT and FAA comments on the draft documentation, additional
revisions were identified beyond the scope of the initial project. In 2010, an addendum
was implemented to address all final comments and submission to FAA and ADOT for
acceptance.
Based on the length of time that has transpired, it is important to recognize that the
base year utilized throughout the 2010 Chandler Municipal Airport Master Plan Update
is 2005. Airside data have been updated to reflect current conditions (April 2010) but all
other data is consistent with existing conditions as of late 2005/early 2006.

Preface
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
CHAPTER ONE: INVENTORY
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1-1
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................1-2
AIRPORT HISTORY ...............................................................................................1-3
AIRPORT LOCATION AND ACCESS.....................................................................1-4
AIRPORT ROLE .....................................................................................................1-8
AIRPORT ACTIVITY ...............................................................................................1-9
Aircraft Operations................................................................................................1-9
Based Aircraft .....................................................................................................1-10
EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES.........................................................................1-10
Airport Property ..................................................................................................1-11
Airfield Facilities..................................................................................................1-11
Runways and Taxiways ...................................................................................1-11
Heliport ............................................................................................................1-13
Lighting, Signage, and Navigational Aids.........................................................1-15
Aprons and Tie-Downs ....................................................................................1-16
Landside Facilities ..............................................................................................1-16
General Aviation Terminal ...............................................................................1-17
Fixed Based Operators ....................................................................................1-17
Airport Rescue and Firefighting........................................................................1-17
Aircraft Hangars ...............................................................................................1-17
Other Landside Facilities .................................................................................1-19
Chandler Air Service .....................................................................................1-19
Airport Business Center of Chandler, Inc ......................................................1-20
Aircraft Engine Specialist LLC.......................................................................1-20
Aquila Aerospace Services LLC....................................................................1-20
Chandler Aviation..........................................................................................1-20
Curtis Superior Valve Co...............................................................................1-20
Exec Avionics................................................................................................1-20
Hangar Café..................................................................................................1-20
Hangars Unlimited.........................................................................................1-21
Holmes Aviation ............................................................................................1-21
Quantum Helicopters ....................................................................................1-21
SoftComm Products, Inc ...............................................................................1-21
Tailwind Flight Centre....................................................................................1-21
Varga Enterprises, Inc...................................................................................1-21
Support Facilities and Equipment .......................................................................1-22
Utilities ................................................................................................................1-22
Surface Access and Parking System..................................................................1-22
Airport Access Roads ......................................................................................1-23
Table of Contents
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

I

Airport Parking Facilities ..................................................................................1-23
Airport Fencing and Security ..............................................................................1-23
Pavement Condition ...........................................................................................1-24
AIRSPACE AND APPROACHES..........................................................................1-24
Airport Traffic Pattern and Procedures ...............................................................1-25
Air Traffic Control Facilities and Procedures.......................................................1-25
Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center .................................................1-26
Phoenix Terminal Radar Approach Control .....................................................1-26
Aeronautical Radio Communications..................................................................1-26
Instrument Approaches and Equipment .............................................................1-27
Regional Airspace Considerations......................................................................1-28
Avoidance of Noise Sensitive Areas...................................................................1-32
CLIMATIC AND METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS ...........................................1-32
AREA LAND USE PATTERNS AND ZONING ......................................................1-34
AREA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA..........................................................................1-37
OTHER AREA AIRPORTS....................................................................................1-39
SUMMARY............................................................................................................1-40
CHAPTER TWO: PROJECTIONS OF AVIATION DEMAND
INTRODUCATION ..................................................................................................2-1
REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS ...............................................................................2-2
HISTORIC AVIATION ACTIVITY ............................................................................2-5
NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS .............................................................................2-7
General Aviation Overview ...................................................................................2-8
General Aviation Industry .....................................................................................2-8
Business Use of General Aviation ........................................................................2-9
FAA ACTIVITY FORECASTS ...............................................................................2-11
Active Pilots ........................................................................................................2-12
Active Aircraft Fleet ............................................................................................2-12
Active Hours Flown.............................................................................................2-13
Summary of FAA Forecasts................................................................................2-14
PROJECTIONS OF AVIATION DEMAND.............................................................2-15
Based Aircraft Projections ..................................................................................2-15
FAA Projected Growth Rate Methodology ..........................................................2-16
Regression Methodology ....................................................................................2-16
Trendline Methodology .......................................................................................2-17
Comparison of Based Aircraft Projections ..........................................................2-18
Projected Fleet Mix.............................................................................................2-21
Aircraft Operations Projections ...........................................................................2-22
Operations Per Based Aircraft Methodology.......................................................2-23
Market Share of FAA Hours Flown Methodology................................................2-24
Population Growth Methodology.........................................................................2-25
Comparison of Aircraft Operations Projections...................................................2-25
Projected Local/Itinerant Split .............................................................................2-28
Table of Contents
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

II

CRITICAL AIRCRAFT ...........................................................................................2-29
PEAKING ANALYSIS............................................................................................2-30
INSTRUMENT APPROACH FORECASTS...........................................................2-31
SUMMARY............................................................................................................2-33
CHAPTER THREE: CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................3-1
AIRFIELD CAPACITY .............................................................................................3-1
Factors Affecting Airfield Capacity........................................................................3-2
Peak Hour Capacity Analysis ...............................................................................3-3
Annual Service Volume ........................................................................................3-5
AIRSIDE REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................3-6
Runway Orientation ..............................................................................................3-6
Runway Length.....................................................................................................3-7
Runway Width ....................................................................................................3-10
Runway Strength ................................................................................................3-10
Taxiways.............................................................................................................3-11
Navigational Aids (NAVAIDs) .............................................................................3-11
Airport Design Standards....................................................................................3-14
LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS ..............................................................................3-19
Hangars ..............................................................................................................3-19
Aprons and Tie-down Areas ...............................................................................3-20
Total Storage Demand .......................................................................................3-20
Terminal Building................................................................................................3-22
Automobile Parking ............................................................................................3-22
Access Roadways ..............................................................................................3-23
Fuel Storage .......................................................................................................3-24
SUMMARY............................................................................................................3-25
CHAPTER FOUR: DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................4-1
SUMMARY OF AIRPORT REQUIREMENTS .........................................................4-1
ABILITY OF EXISTING FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE IMPROVEMENTS......4-2
Airfield ..................................................................................................................4-2
Runways ............................................................................................................4-2
Taxiways ............................................................................................................4-3
NAVAIDs............................................................................................................4-3
Landside ...............................................................................................................4-4
Hangars .............................................................................................................4-4
Apron .................................................................................................................4-4
Auto Parking ......................................................................................................4-5
IDENTIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ......................................4-5
No Action Alternative .........................................................................................4-5
Table of Contents
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

III

Transfer of Aviation Services .............................................................................4-6
Airside Alternative ..............................................................................................4-7
Taxiways ..........................................................................................................4-10
NAVAIDs..........................................................................................................4-13
Apron Expansion..............................................................................................4-15
Construct Additional Hangars ..........................................................................4-18
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES......................................................................4-18
Runways ..........................................................................................................4-18
Taxiways ..........................................................................................................4-25
NAVAIDs..........................................................................................................4-26
Apron Expansion..............................................................................................4-26
Additional Hangars...........................................................................................4-27
SUMMARY............................................................................................................4-28
CHAPTER FIVE: ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................5-1
NOISE .....................................................................................................................5-3
Noise Exposure Impacts.......................................................................................5-3
COMPATABLE LAND USE.....................................................................................5-6
SOCIAL IMPACTS ..................................................................................................5-7
INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS/CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ......................5-8
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS.................................................................5-8
AIR QUALITY..........................................................................................................5-9
WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................5-10
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT, SECTION 4(f) .............................5-11
HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL
RESOURCES .......................................................................................................5-12
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES/THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...........5-12
WETLANDS ..........................................................................................................5-13
FLOODPLAINS .....................................................................................................5-13
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND COASTAL BARRIERS .......5-14
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS................................................................................5-14
PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS ....................................................................5-14
ENERGY SUPPLY AND NATURAL RESOURCES ..............................................5-14
LIGHT EMISSIONS...............................................................................................5-15
SOLID WASTE IMPACTS.....................................................................................5-15
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ................................................................................5-17
SUMMARY............................................................................................................5-17
CHAPTER SIX: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................6-1
PHASING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.........................................................6-1
Phase I: Short-Term Development (0-5 Years) ....................................................6-2
Table of Contents
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

IV

Phase II: Mid-Term Development (5-10 Years) ....................................................6-4
Phase III: Long-Term Development (10-20 Years) ...............................................6-5
COST ESTIMATES .................................................................................................6-5
CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES .............................................................................6-7
FAA Funding.........................................................................................................6-7
State Funding .......................................................................................................6-8
Sponsor Funding ................................................................................................6-10
Airport Operating Revenues and Expenses.....................................................6-10
Projected Operating Revenues and Expenses ................................................6-11
Other Funding.....................................................................................................6-13
SUMMARY............................................................................................................6-14
APPENDIX A: AIRSPACE CONFLICTS ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... A-1
GENERAL AIRSPACE OVERVIEW....................................................................... A-1
Controlled Airspace ............................................................................................. A-2
Special Use Airspace ........................................................................................ A-10
Available VFR Airspace ..................................................................................... A-10
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL..................................................................................... A-12
Air Traffic Control Facilities................................................................................ A-12
Published Instrument Approaches..................................................................... A-13
CURRENT AIRSPACE ISSUES .......................................................................... A-17
Stellar Airpark .................................................................................................... A-17
Memorial Airfield................................................................................................ A-21
Stellar Airpark – Memorial Airfield ..................................................................... A-24
Williams Gateway Airport................................................................................... A-27
FUTURE POTENTIAL AIRSPACE ISSUES......................................................... A-30
Memorial Airfield................................................................................................ A-30
Class B Airspace Redesign ............................................................................... A-32
SUMMARY........................................................................................................... A-34
APPENDIX B: ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... B-1
BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... B-1
RELEVANT MASTER PLAN FINDINGS ................................................................ B-2
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS .......................................................................... B-4
Economic Impact at Comparable Airports ........................................................... B-4
Economic Impact of Jet Aircraft Operations......................................................... B-5
Economic Impact of Corporate Flight Departments ............................................. B-7
Benefits ............................................................................................................... B-8
SUMMARY............................................................................................................. B-9

Table of Contents
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

V

APPENDIX C: AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWINGS

Table of Contents
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

VI

LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER ONE: INVENTORY
Table 1.1 – HISTORIC AIRCRAFT ACTIVITY ........................................................1-9
Table 1.2 – HISTORIC BASED AIRCRAFT ..........................................................1-10
Table 1.3 – EXISTING RUNWAY FACILITIES......................................................1-13
Table 1.4 – EXISTING AIRFIELD LIGHTING AND NAVAIDS ..............................1-15
Table 1.5 – AIRCRAFT HANGAR STORAGE.......................................................1-18
Table 1.6 – CURRENT INSTRUMENT APPROACHES........................................1-28
Table 1.7 – HISTORIC REGIONAL POPULATION DATA ....................................1-37
Table 1.8 – HISTORIC EMPLOYMENT DATA......................................................1-38
Table 1.9 – EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (2000) CHANDLER
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MARKET AREA ............................................1-38
Table 1.10 – EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (1970-2000) MARICOPA
COUNTY...........................................................................................1-39
Table 1.11 – OTHER AREA AIRPORTS...............................................................1-40
CHAPTER TWO: PROJECTIONS OF AVIATION DEMAND
Table 2.1 – HISTORICAL POPULATION EMPLOYMENT AND
EARNINGS DATA ................................................................................2-3
Table 2.2 – TOP EMPLOYERS IN THE CITY OF CHANDLER ..............................2-4
Table 2.3 – PROJECTED POPULATION EMPLOYMENT AND
EARNINGS DATA ................................................................................2-5
Table 2.4 – HISTORIC BASED AIRCRAFT ............................................................2-6
Table 2.5 – HISTORIC AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS .................................................2-7
Table 2.6 – HISTORIC AND PROJECTED U.S. ACTIVE PILOTS BY
TYPE OF CERTIFICATE....................................................................2-12
Table 2.7 – HISTORIC AND PROJECTED U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL
AVIATION FLEET MIX .......................................................................2-13
Table 2.8 – ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AND AIR TAXI HOURS
FLOWN ..............................................................................................2-14
Table 2.9 – BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTION FAA PROJECTED
GROWTH IN ACTIVE GA AIRCRAFT METHODOLOGY ..................2-16
Table 2.10 – BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTION REGRESSION
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................2-17
Table 2.11 – BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTION TRENDLINE
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................2-18
Table 2.12 – COMPARISON OF BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS.................2-19
Table 2.13 – PROJECTED CHANGE IN U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL
AVIATION FLEET MIX .....................................................................2-21
Table 2.14 – PREFERRED BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX PROJECTION........2-22
Table 2.15 – AVERAGE OPBA .............................................................................2-23

Table of Contents
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

VII

Table 2.16 – AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS PROJECTION OPBA
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................2-23
Table 2.17 – PROJECTED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS MARKET
SHARE OF FAA HOURS FLOWN METHODOLOGY ......................2-24
Table 2.18 – AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS PROJECTION PROPULATION
GROWTH METHODOLOGY ............................................................2-25
Table 2.19 – COMPAIRSON OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
PROJECTIONS ................................................................................2-26
Table 2.20 – HISTORIC LOCAL AND ITINERANT OPERATIONS.......................2-28
Table 2.21 – LOCAL AND ITINERANT OPERATION PROJECTIONS.................2-29
Table 2.22 – AIRCRAFT CATEGORIES AND DESIGN GROUPS .......................2-29
Table 2.23 – PEAK ACTIVITY FORECAST ..........................................................2-31
Table 2.24 – INSTRUMENT OPERATIONS FORECAST .....................................2-33
Table 2.25 – SUMMARY OF PROJECTIONS.......................................................2-34
CHAPTER THREE: CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Table 3.1 – AVIATION DEMAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS.......................................3-5
Table 3.2 – AIRFIELD DELAY ANALYSIS ..............................................................3-6
Table 3.3 – WIND COVERAGE ..............................................................................3-7
Table 3.4 – RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT DESIGN ........3-9
Table 3.5 – PAVEMENT STRENGTHS.................................................................3-11
Table 3.6 – FAA DESIGN CRITERIA ....................................................................3-15
Table 3.7 – EXISTING RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES ....................................3-17
Table 3.8 – AIRCRAFT HANGAR STORAGE REQUIREMENTS .........................3-21
Table 3.9 – GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL BUILDING REQUIREMENTS......3-22
Table 3.10 – AUTOMOBILE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ...................................3-23
Table 3.11 – FUEL STORAGE REQUIREMENTS ................................................3-25
CHAPTER FOUR: DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
Table 4.1 – COMMON SOUND LEVELS ..............................................................4-21
Table 4.2 – RUNWAY UTILZATIONS ...................................................................4-22
CHAPTER SIX: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Table 6.1 – SUMMARY TABLE...............................................................................6-6
Table 6.2 – PHASE I (0-5 Years) ............................................................................6-7
Table 6.3 – PHASE II (6-10 Years) .........................................................................6-7
Table 6.4 – PHASE III (11-20 Years) ......................................................................6-7
Table 6.5 – ON-AIRPORT OPERATING REVENUES AND EXPENSES .............6-12
Table 6.6 – PROJECTED ON-AIRPORT OPERATING REVENUES AND
EXPENSES ........................................................................................6-13

Table of Contents
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

VIII

APPENDIX A: AIRSPACE CONFLICTS ANALYSIS
Table A.1 – INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES ................................... A-15
APPENDIX B: ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
Table B.1 – CONSTRAINED JET OPERATIONS FORECAST.............................. B-3
Table B.2 – AIRPLANES THAT MAKE UP 75% OF FLEET .................................. B-3
Table B.3 – ECONOMIC IMPACT AND FACILITIES AT COMPARABLE
AIRPORTS .......................................................................................... B-5
Table B.4 – ECONOMIC IMPACT OF JET AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ................. B-6
Table B.5 – 5,700-FOOT RUNWAY EXTENSION CHD CORPORATE
FLIGHT DEPARTMENT ECONOMIC IMPACT ................................... B-7
Table B.6 – TOTAL ANNUAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF A 5,700-FOOT
RUNWAY EXTENSION AND CHD CORPORATE FLIGHT
DEPARTMENT.................................................................................... B-8

Table of Contents
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

IX

LIST OF EXHIBITS
CHAPTER ONE: INVENTORY
EXHIBIT 1.1 – National & Regional Location ..........................................................1-6
EXHIBIT 1.2 – Airport Area .....................................................................................1-7
EXHIBIT 1.3 – Existing Airport Diagram................................................................1-12
EXHIBIT 1.4 – Chandler Municipal Wind Coverage ..............................................1-14
EXHIBIT 1.5 – Regional Airspace .........................................................................1-29
EXHIBIT 1.6 – U.S. Airspace Classifications.........................................................1-33
EXHIBIT 1.7 – Chandler Land Use Map................................................................1-35
EXHIBIT 1.8 – Other Area Airports .......................................................................1-41
CHAPTER TWO: PROJECTIONS OF AVIATION DEMAND
EXHIBIT 2.1 – Business Use of General Aviation Turbine
Aircraft ...........................................................................................2-10
EXHIBIT 2.2 – Based Aircraft Projections .............................................................2-20
EXHIBIT 2.3 – Aircraft Operations Projections......................................................2-27
EXHIBIT 2.4 – Aircraft Categories & Design Groups ............................................2-32
CHAPTER THREE: CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
EXHIBIT 3.1 – Chandler Municipal Wind Coverage ................................................3-8
EXHIBIT 3.2 – FAA Runway Protection Zones Design Standards ........................3-18
CHAPTER FOUR: DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
EXHIBIT 4.1 – Runway Extension...........................................................................4-9
EXHIBIT 4.2 – Taxiway Extension Full..................................................................4-11
EXHIBIT 4.3 – Taxiway Extension Partial .............................................................4-12
EXHIBIT 4.4 – MALSR System .............................................................................4-14
EXHIBIT 4.5 – Apron Expansion ...........................................................................4-16
EXHIBIT 4.6 – Apron Expansion ...........................................................................4-17
EXHIBIT 4.7 – 2005 DNL Noise Contours.............................................................4-23
EXHIBIT 4.8 – 2025 DNL Noise Contours.............................................................4-24
EXHIBIT 4.9 – Recommended Landside Alternative.............................................4-29
EXHIBIT 4.10 – Recommended Airside Alternative ..............................................4-30
CHAPTER FIVE: ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
EXHIBIT 5.1 – 2025 DNL Noise Contours...............................................................5-5

Table of Contents
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

X

APPENDIX A: AIRSPACE CONFLICTS ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT A.1 – Phoenix Area High IFR Routes ...................................................... A-3
EXHIBIT A.2 – Regional Airspace .......................................................................... A-5
EXHIBIT A.3 – Chandler Municipal Airport Class D Airspace ................................ A-7
EXHIBIT A.4 – Phoenix Area Low Altitude Routes................................................. A-8
EXHIBIT A.5 – Class D and Class E Airspace ....................................................... A-9
EXHIBIT A.6 – Phoenix Area Military Training Routes ......................................... A-11
EXHIBIT A.7 – Non-Precision Instrument Approach Procedure Chandler
Municipal Airport .......................................................................... A-14
EXHIBIT A.8 – Instrument Approach Procedures ................................................ A-16
EXHIBIT A.9 – Traffic Pattern Airspace................................................................ A-18
EXHIBIT A.10 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (CHD and P19)................. A-19
EXHIBIT A.11 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (CHD and P19)................. A-20
EXHIBIT A.12 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (CHD and 34AZ) .............. A-22
EXHIBIT A.13 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (CHD and 34AZ) .............. A-23
EXHIBIT A.14 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (34AZ and P19)................ A-25
EXHIBIT A.15 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (34AZ and P19)................ A-26
EXHIBIT A.16 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (CHD and IWA) ................ A-28
EXHIBIT A.17 – Existing Potential Airspace Conflicts (CHD and IWA) ................ A-29
EXHIBIT A.18 – Future Potential Airspace Conflicts (CHD and 34AZ)................. A-31
EXHIBIT A.19 – Proposed Phoenix Class B Airspace.......................................... A-33

Table of Contents
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

XI

CHAPTER ONE: INVENTORY
INTRODUCTION
The 2010 Chandler Municipal Airport Master Plan Update defines a concept for
development at Chandler Municipal (CHD) over the course of a 20-year planning period
and is prepared in collaboration with Federal and State agencies, local officials, and
interested Airport users. A goal of the study is to identify facility needs and evaluate
development alternatives in order to provide guidance for the future development of the
Airport based on conditions existing in late 2005 and 2006. The plan recommends
improvements in accordance with specific Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
criteria, taking into consideration anticipated changes in aviation activity and trends at
the local, regional, state, and national levels.
The primary objective of this Airport Master Plan for Chandler Municipal Airport is to
produce a comprehensive planning guide for the continued development of a safe,
efficient, and environmentally compatible aviation facility that meets the goals of the
Chandler Municipal Airport Commission, Maricopa County, Airport users and tenants,
and the surrounding Airport service area. The study focuses on aeronautical forecasts,
the need for and justification of development, and a staged plan for recommended
enhancements. Proposed airport development must adhere to standards that provide
for safe aviation facilities while accommodating future demand. The staged plan
typically looks at planning horizons of 0 to 5 years (short-term), 6 to 10 years
(intermediate-term), and 11 to 20 years (long-term). The first phase generally
addresses existing facility deficiencies or non-compliance to the FAA’s airport design
standards. The subsequent phases address the facilities and resources needed to
accommodate predicted growth based on reasonable assumptions. Additional goals
and objectives related to the Airport and the plan are described in a subsequent section
of this chapter.
The initial step in the planning process is to develop a thorough inventory of existing
conditions at the Airport, and in and around the Airport’s market area. This chapter
presents the data pertinent to the Airport and its service area necessary for subsequent
phases of analysis.
The inventory process incorporates a broad spectrum of information including goals and
objectives, data on landside and airside facilities, surrounding land uses, weather
conditions, area airspace, historical activity levels, and socioeconomic factors. Data
collected as part of the inventory effort establishes the foundation for the remainder of
the Master Plan. The information summarized in this chapter was obtained through onsite visits, discussions with Airport staff, review of previous Airport planning documents,
review of FAA records, and review of various local and regional planning documents.
Inventory data is presented in the following sections:

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-1

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Goals and Objectives
Airport History
Airport Location and Access
Airport Role
Airport Activity
Existing Airport Facilities
Airspace and Approaches
Climatic and Meteorological Conditions
Area Land Use Patterns and Zoning
Area Socioeconomic Data
Other Area Airports
Summary

This inventory data serves as a foundation for analyses conducted throughout the
planning process.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The 2010 Chandler Municipal Airport Master Plan Update was initiated in late 2005 to
update the last Airport Master Plan which was prepared in 1998. The earlier planning
effort identified several improvements for the Airport, many of which have been
completed since that time. The 2010 study is intended to update the analysis from the
previous plan, ensuring the Airport is developed to meet FAA and Arizona Department
of Transportation, Aeronautics Division (ADOT) requirements as well as the needs of
Chandler residents and businesses.
This Airport Master Plan Update process and all of its elements were conducted
consistent with the requirements of FAA and ADOT. Furthermore, the plan addresses
the goals, key issues, and objectives of the City of Chandler, the official Airport sponsor.
Specific goals established by the City and with input from the public and the study’s
established Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) related to the Airport included the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Manage and develop the Airport to provide maximum levels of aviation safety on
the ground
Work to develop airspace usage around the Airport to maximize aviation safety
Plan and develop Airport facilities to meet the needs of Airport users with an
emphasis on smaller general aviation aircraft users
Work to cultivate development potential on the Airport to achieve self sufficiency
Seek to maximize economic development potential for the community around the
Airport
Minimize environmental impacts to Chandler residents through the planning and
development of the Airport

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-2

The goal of the Airport Master Plan Update is to ensure that the plan provides guidance
on developing the Airport to meet these goals.
Specific issues to be considered in the planning process include:
•
•
•
•

Demand for aviation in and around Chandler region
Ability of Airport to accommodate projected demand
Alternative methods for meeting the needs of existing and future users
Funding and financing capability of Airport and ability to meet development
needs

Working with the City, Chandler residents and businesses, and the PAC established for
the Airport Master Plan Update, the master planning process will provide reasonable
recommendations for improvements to Chandler Municipal Airport so that the City of
Chandler can consider these in their decision-making efforts.
AIRPORT HISTORY
Chandler Municipal Airport was opened in 1948 with federal aid. The original site
consisted of a single runway (Runway 18/36). In 1960 the City constructed a new
runway with a northeast-southwest orientation (existing Runway 4L/22R). The entire
development at the Airport has been constructed and funded under the auspices of the
City of Chandler.
Key dates in the Airport’s on-going development include the following:
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

In 1948, the airport site was purchased from Roosevelt Water Conservation
District for $8,000.
In 1950, the City completed its first airport improvement project (Runway 18/36
and the drilling of a well).
In 1960, a new runway (existing Runway 4L/22R) and full parallel taxiway
measuring 2,610 feet in length were constructed. In addition to the new runway
and taxiway system, an apron area was constructed.
In 1961, Runway 4L/22R was equipped with lighting.
During the 1970s Runway 4L/22R and its parallel taxiway were extended 1,200
feet to the south. Additional runway lighting was installed on the runway
extension, visual approach slope indicators (VASI) were installed on both runway
ends, perimeter fencing was installed, and a new apron area was constructed.
During the mid 1980s, 116 t-hangars were constructed.
In 1982, a new Airport Master Plan was completed for the Airport.
In 1983, Runway 4L/22R and its taxiway were extended 600 feet to the northeast
and a new apron was constructed.
In 1984, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was conducted for the future
development of a new runway system.

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-3

•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

In 1985, the City purchased 55 acres of property for future expansion at the
Airport for $1.8 million. The expansion would be for a four-lane access road,
internal service roads on airport property, the relocation of the terminal building
and fuel farm, the realignment of the apron, vehicle parking lot, relocation of
shade hangars, the design of a drainage system, and the design of an apron and
taxiways to the new hangar area.
Between 1986 and 1988, the Airport acquired 175 acres of land for the new
runway system for over $9 million.
During the 1990s, an additional 137 acres of land were acquired for
development.
In 1994, the new runway (Runway 4R/22L) was constructed to 4,870 feet in
length. A new heliport was also opened for use.
In 1996, a new 5,500-square foot terminal building completed construction and
was opened.
In 1998, an air traffic control tower completed construction and was opened.
Additionally, the Airport’s master plan was updated.
In 2000, 86 privately developed t-hangars and 7 acres of new apron completed
construction and were opened.
In 2001, an additional 28 acres of land was purchased for hangar and apron
development.

Source: A History of the Chandler Municipal Airport, Renee Menard; Chandler Municipal Airport – Property Acquisition
Summary; and Airport Management Records.

Since the late 1980s, the City of Chandler has received in excess of $5 million from
ADOT-Aeronautics Division to improve the Airport. Over that same period, FAA airport
improvement program (AIP) monies account for over $18 million for airport improvement
projects at the Airport. Development projects funded within the past five years include
the construction of 86 privately developed t-hangars, a new apron area, an update to
the Airport’s master plan, relocation of the heliport, and the first phase of new executive
hangars.
The Airport’s historic and continuing development has allowed it to evolve to meet the
changing needs of its tenants, aviation users, and market area. Recent development
projects at the Airport include the relocation of the heliport area and construction of
three executive hangars. These facilities will be examined in more detail in the
inventory of existing airport facilities.
AIRPORT LOCATION AND ACCESS
As shown in Exhibit 1.1, Chandler Municipal serves the southeastern side of the
Phoenix metropolitan area. The City of Chandler is the sixth largest city in Arizona and
as of the 2000 U.S. Census, the City was one of the fastest growing cities in the United
States. The Phoenix metropolitan area encompasses approximately 23 cities and
towns. The Metro area elevation is approximately 1,117 feet and is located in the heart
of the Sonoran Desert and extends from Scottsdale in the northeast, to Glendale and
Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-4

numerous expanding towns in the west. In the heart of the Greater Phoenix area is
Tempe and to the east lies the City of Mesa. Desert mountains surround the area,
creating “The Valley of the Sun."
Communities surrounding the Airport and the local surface transportation network are
depicted in Exhibit 1.2. Interstates 10 and 17 provide major regional and national
ground transportation access to the Phoenix metropolitan area.
Easy access to
Interstates 10 and 17 from the Airport is provided via either State Highway 101 or 202.
Chandler Municipal is located approximately 20 miles southeast of downtown Phoenix
in Maricopa County. The Airport is located within the City of Chandler’s corporate limits.
Airport property is bounded by several roadways. The general boundaries of the Airport
site are as follows:
•
•
•
•

North Boundary – East Germann Road
South Boundary – East Queen Creek Road and South Cooper Road
East Boundary – South Gilbert Road
West Boundary – South McQueen Road and Airport Boulevard

Existing characteristics and planned future improvements of the local surface
transportation network and internal Airport circulation roads are examined in more detail
in a subsequent section.

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-5

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-6

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-7

AIRPORT ROLE
From the outset of the planning process, it is important to understand the role of
Chandler Municipal in the national aviation system, as well as the State of Arizona and
Phoenix metropolitan area. One goal of the master plan is to ensure that the Airport
has the necessary facilities to adequately accomplish the various roles that it may play
in the local, regional, and national transportation system.
At the national level, the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) identifies
airports that are significant to the national air transportation system. The NPIAS is used
by the FAA in managing and administering the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and
supports the FAA’s strategic goals for safety, system efficiency, and environmental
compatibility.
Airports included in the NPIAS are classified as having one of the following roles within
the national system:
•

•

•

•

Primary Commercial Service Airports – Publicly owned commercial service
airports that have more than 10,000 passenger boardings or enplanements each
calendar year and receive scheduled passenger service. Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport is the only primary commercial service airport in the area.
Other primary commercial service airports in Arizona include: Laughlin/Bullhead
International in Bullhead City, Flagstaff Pulliam in Flagstaff, Grand Canyon
National Park in Grand Canyon, Page Municipal in Page, Grand Canyon West in
Peach Springs, Tucson International in Tucson, and Yuma International in Yuma.
Nonprimary Commercial Service Airports – Publicly owned commercial
service airports that have at least 2,500 and not more than 10,000 passenger
boardings each year. Arizona has four nonprimary commercial service airports:
Kingman, Ernest A. Love Field, Show Low Regional, and Lake Havasu City.
Reliever Airports – Airports designated by the FAA to relieve congestion at
commercial service airports and to provide improved general aviation access to
the overall community. These may be publicly or privately-owned. Reliever
airports in the Phoenix region include: Chandler Municipal, Glendale Municipal,
Phoenix Goodyear, Falcon Field, Phoenix Deer Valley, Williams Gateway, and
Scottsdale.
General Aviation Airports – Airports included in the national system that are not
categorized as commercial service or reliever airports. General aviation airports
can be publicly or privately-owned. There are 38 NPIAS general aviation airports
in Arizona.

Chandler Municipal Airport is currently classified as a reliever airport to Phoenix Sky
Harbor International. Chandler Municipal plays an important role in supporting general
aviation for the Phoenix metropolitan area and the region by supporting local
businesses and residents as well as transient users. Historic airport activity statistics for
each component of overall airport activity are summarized in the following section.
Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-8

AIRPORT ACTIVITY
In addition to providing an understanding of the levels and types of aviation activity that
occur at Chandler Municipal, historic Airport activity can be used to identify recent
trends that may impact future activity levels. Historic data for the aircraft operations and
based aircraft components of Airport activity are summarized in the following sections.
These two components of Airport activity will be examined in greater detail in Chapter
Two, Projections of Aviation Demand.
Aircraft Operations
A common measure of airport activity is the number of aircraft operations occurring on
an annual basis. An aircraft operation is defined as either a landing or a departure. For
example, a touch-and-go operation, where an aircraft lands and takes off without
leaving the active runway, counts as two operations. Aircraft operations are categorized
in several ways, one of which is whether the operation is itinerant or local in nature.
Itinerant operations are those conducted by aircraft coming from outside the Airport’s
traffic pattern. Local operations are conducted by aircraft remaining in the local traffic
pattern, conducting simulated instrument approaches at the Airport, or by aircraft going
to or from the Airport and a practice area within a 20-mile radius of the tower. Touchand-go training activity is an example of local activity. Once categorized as itinerant or
local operations, aircraft activity is further categorized by the nature of the operator.
Transient aircraft operations are categorized into one of the following groups: air
carrier, air taxi, general aviation, or military. Local operations are categorized as either
general aviation or military.
A summary of total aircraft operations for Chandler Municipal for the period 2000 to
2005 is presented in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1
HISTORIC AIRCRAFT ACTIVITY
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

ITINERANT OPERATIONS
Air
General
Carrier
Air Taxi
Aviation
0
1,771
75,713
0
2,237
64,675
0
1,828
67,302
0
1,939
64,780
0
2,530
61,626
0
2,739
62,816

Military
25
20
12
10
41
34

LOCAL OPERATIONS
General
Aviation
Military
172,281
21
165,472
45
161,377
19
152,929
13
168,850
32
169,489
17

Total
249,811
232,449
230,538
219,671
233,079
235,095

SOURCE: Airport Management records
PREPARED: January 2006

As shown in Table 1.1, total aircraft operations at Chandler Municipal Airport have
fluctuated between 2000 and 2005. Much of this can be attributed to the events of
September 11th. Aircraft operation trends presented in Table 1.1 illustrate recent trends
in general aviation that are affecting Chandler Municipal Airport and many other airports
across the nation. Chapter Two, Projections of Aviation Demand, develops projections
Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-9

of future aircraft activity at the Airport and examines the recent and anticipated future
trends regarding general aviation which are also used to develop forecasts for each of
the components of Chandler Municipal’s aircraft activity.
Based Aircraft
A based aircraft is defined as an aircraft that is permanently stored at an airport,
typically in a hangar building or tied down on an airport apron area. Historic based
aircraft counts for the Airport taken from the FAA’s Form 5010 and Airport Management
records for the years 1998 through 2005 are presented in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2
HISTORIC BASED AIRCRAFT
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

Single
Engine
323
316
358
352
379
387
399
407

Multi
Engine
21
23
24
26
19
31
31
33

Jet
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

Military
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Helicopter
10
11
10
10
13
15
15
16

Other
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
354
350
392
388
411
433
445
457

SOURCE: FAA Form 5010 and Airport Management records
PREPARED: January 2006

The number and types of based aircraft at an airport typically fluctuate as aircraft
owners relocate and/or change the type of aircraft they own. In addition, on-airport flight
schools and charter services that may be provided by fixed base operators (FBOs)
frequently adjust their aircraft operating fleet to match the demand for their services.
Projections of the based aircraft operating at Chandler Municipal are developed in a
following task of the master planning process and facility developments required to
support future based aircraft are also identified.
EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES
An essential element of the master planning process at Chandler Municipal is identifying
the location and characteristics of existing facilities and ultimately determining their
ability to meet the future needs of the Airport and its users. The inventory of existing
facilities at Chandler Municipal Airport was completed through physical inspection,
discussions with Airport management and staff, and review of existing Airport studies,
airport layout plans, and related studies.
To facilitate the inventory process, existing airport facilities at Chandler Municipal are
categorized and examined in the following sections:
•
•
•

Airport Property
Airfield Facilities
Landside Facilities

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-10

•
•
•

Support Facilities and Equipment
Utilities
Surface Access and Parking System

These inventory categories comprise important components of the Airport’s
infrastructure. For the Airport to efficiently accommodate future demand, each
component must provide sufficient capacity while at the same time seamlessly integrate
with other infrastructure components to support general aviation, limited military
operations, and tenant needs.
Airport Property
Existing facilities at Chandler Municipal are located on approximately 542 acres
currently owned by the City of Chandler. Current Airport property is identified in Exhibit
1.3.
Airfield Facilities
Airfield facilities are those facilities that accommodate aircraft operations and support
the transitioning of aircraft from the air to the ground, and vice versa. At Chandler
Municipal, airfield facilities currently include the following: runways and taxiways,
lighting and signage, and aprons and tie-downs. Existing airfield facilities are
summarized in the following sections and other factors impacting the airfield are also
presented.
Runways and Taxiways
Chandler Municipal is currently served by parallel runways, Runway 4R/22L and
Runway 4L/22R, 4,870 feet in length and 4,401 feet in length, respectively. The
runways’ geodetic bearings and the magnetic variation of the area determine the
runway orientations and location of the runways relative to one another. The
dimensions, conditions, and weight bearing capacity of the two runways are
summarized in Table 1.3.

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-11

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-12

Table 1.3
EXISTING RUNWAY FACILITIES
Length
Width
Surface/Condition
Weight Limitations

Runway 4R/22L
4,870’
75’
Asphalt/Good
30,000 SWL*

Runway 4L/22R
4,401’
75’
Asphalt/Good
30,000 SWL*

*SWL = Single Wheel Loading
SOURCE: 1998 Airport Master Plan, Airport Management records, www.airnav.com
PREPARED: January 2006

The runway system at Chandler Municipal is supported by a network of taxiways. The
taxiways facilitate safe and efficient aircraft operations by allowing taxiing aircraft to
remain clear of the active runway. Each runway is supported by a full-length parallel
taxiway of comparable weight bearing capacity. A number of connector taxiways
provide access to and from the runway and other airport areas including the terminal
apron area, FBO apron areas, and transient apron areas.
Runway and taxiway system requirements at an airport are determined by a variety of
factors including the number of aircraft operations occurring at the airport, the types of
aircraft conducting those operations, the elevation of the airport, and the meteorological
conditions in the airport area. The capacity of the existing runway system and its ability
to accommodate the anticipated fleet mix at Chandler Municipal over the planning
period are examined in a later chapter.
Runway wind coverage for aircraft is defined in terms of allowable rated crosswind by
type of aircraft using the airfield. If the airfield is utilized solely by small aircraft the
critical crosswind component would be 12 mph. Where types of aircraft classified as
larger than utility (generally those aircraft weighing in excess of 12,500 lbs) are using
the facility, a crosswind component of 15 mph is used. Chandler Municipal Airport is
projected to continue to serve aircraft in excess of 12,500 pounds. Therefore, a
crosswind component of 15 mph is used for the wind analysis.
Exhibit 1.4 shows runway wind coverage based upon historical weather observations at
Williams Gateway Airport, which is the closest available long-term historical data
source. It is recognized that local variations in wind patterns do occur. However, this
reporting station is reasonably representative of the wind patterns present.
The analysis indicates that, under all weather conditions, crosswind velocities will not
exceed 15 mph 99 percent of the time for both runways.
Heliport
The Airport adopted a Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility
Study (Part 150 Study) in 1999. The objective of this study was to improve the
compatibility between aircraft operations and noise-sensitive land uses in the area. One
of the recommendations of this study was to relocate the heliport away from the

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-13

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-14

southwest side of the airfield. In 2005 the Airport relocated its heliport to the northeast
side of the airfield as a result of the noise abatement recommendations in the 1999 Part
150 Study. The helipad facility’s Final Approach and Takeoff Area (FATO) is 120 feet
long by 100 feet wide. Additionally, it is supported by a taxiway and a helicopter parking
apron.
Lighting, Signage, and Navigational Aids
Airport lighting and signage is important to supporting the control and movement of
aircraft in the airfield area. It also helps pilots visually identify their location relative to
the airport and the airfield area. Navigational aids, or NAVAIDS, are electronic or visual
devices that provide guidance to pilots during the landing or takeoff of an aircraft.
Existing airfield lighting and NAVAID equipment at Chandler Municipal is summarized in
Table 1.4.
Table 1.4
EXISTING AIRFIELD LIGHTING AND NAVAIDS
Runway 4R/22L
Runway 4L/22R
22L
4L
22R
MIRL
MIRL
MITL
MITL
Non-Precision
Basic
4-light PAPI
4-light PAPI
4-light PAPI
4-light PAPI
No, REILs
No, REILs
No
No
Yes, no lights
Yes, no lights
Yes, no lights
Yes, no lights
Non-Precision
Visual
Visual
Visual
Non-Directional Beacon, Global Positioning System, LORAN-C, VORTAC
AWOS-3
4R

Runway Edge Lighting
Taxiway Lighting
Runway Marking
PAPI
Approach Lights
Touchdown Point
Approach
NAVAIDS
Weather Aids

SOURCE: www.airnav.com; Airport Management records
PREPARED: January 2006

As shown in Table 1.4, both runways are equipped with medium intensity runway
lighting (MIRL). Runway 4R/22L has non-precision markings and Runway 4L/22R has
basic markings. The taxiways have medium intensity taxiway lighting (MITL). Other
airfield lighting and NAVAID equipment identified in Table 1.4, and their respective
functions, include the following:
•
•
•
•

PAPI – There are 4-light precision approach path indicators (PAPIs) on both
ends of Runways 4R/22L and 4L/22R. PAPIs provide visual guidance to pilots
during their approach.
REILs – Runway end identifier lights (REILs) are located on both ends of
Runway 4R/22L.
NDB – Non-directional beacons (NDBs) transmit non-directional radio signals to
assist pilots in determining bearings.
GPS – Global positioning system (GPS) uses satellites placed in orbit to
determine altitude, speed, and navigational information for pilots.

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-15

•
•
•

LORAN-C – A LORAN-C is a ground-based navigational aid utilizing transmitters
located across the United States. A LORAN-C can allow pilots to navigate to any
airport in the U.S.
VORTAC – Very high frequency omnidirectional range with TACAN capability
(VORTAC) provides distance and direction information to pilots.
AWOS-3 – An Area Weather Observation System (AWOS) is a system that
allows pilots to have the most accurate account of weather at an airport that is
available. This equipment transmits Airport-specific weather information and is
transmitted at frequency 128.325 MHZ or by calling (480) 814-9952.

The ability of existing airfield lighting and NAVAID equipment to efficiently
accommodate existing and future demand at Chandler Municipal is determined in a
subsequent chapter.
Aprons and Tie-Downs
Airport apron areas serve a variety of purposes and are generally classified based on
the users they are intended to support, the activities conducted on the apron area
and/or their location on the airport. Existing apron areas at Chandler Municipal, their
location, size, and function, are listed below:
•
•
•

Terminal Area Apron Area
FBO Apron Areas
Heliport Apron Area

These apron areas account for approximately 90,000 square yards of aircraft parking
which provide 251 aircraft tie-down spaces. The tie-down spaces are for based aircraft,
transient aircraft, and aircraft utilizing FBO facilities. The majority of aircraft parking
apron area is located in the terminal area on the main ramp. The ability of these apron
areas to accommodate anticipated future Airport tenant needs is examined in a
subsequent chapter.
Aircraft tie-down positions are located on each of the apron areas mentioned above.
These tie-down positions accommodate the parking of general aviation aircraft, both
based and transient, and are managed either by the City or the FBOs.
Landside Facilities
Landside facilities at airports consist of a wide variety of buildings and equipment that
support airport operations. For the purposes of this analysis, the following facilities at
Chandler Municipal Airport are categorized and examined as landside facilities:
•
•
•

General Aviation Terminal
Fixed Base Operators
Aircraft Hangars

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-16

•

Other Landside Facilities

General Aviation Terminal
The general aviation terminal has a total area of approximately 5,500 square feet and
houses administration, and pilot and passenger areas; the terminal was constructed in
1996. The terminal building consists of a pilot’s lounge, flight planning area, restrooms,
lobby, conference room, office space, and Airport administration offices. The old
terminal building is now occupied by Tailwind Flight Centre.
Fixed Base Operators
Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) support a variety of aviation activity at Chandler and are
the primary providers of services and facilities for general aviation operators at the
Airport. The majority of facilities at the Airport, including FBO facilities, is located to the
northeast of the general aviation terminal and apron areas. There is currently only one
FBO operating on the Airport, Chandler Air Service. Chandler Air Service provides
hangar and tie-down storage space, fueling services, aircraft maintenance, aircraft
rental, and flight training.
The FBO leases approximately four acres of land from the City of Chandler. The FBO
owns and operates two hangar buildings, an apron, and other various facilities that are
located on the leased ground.
Airport Rescue and Firefighting
There are no airport rescue and firefighting (ARFF) facilities in place at the airport.
Chandler Fire Station 1 is the closest fire station to the Airport. It is located 1 ¼ miles
from the Airport at the crossroads of Hamilton and Pecos. If for some reason Fire
Station 1 is unable to respond an emergency at the Airport, any of the other engine and
ladder stations are capable of responding to an emergency on the airfield. All of the
City’s engine and ladder fire stations conduct annual drills at the Airport to ensure they
are familiar with the facilities.
Aircraft Hangars
Aircraft hangar structures at the Airport currently include facilities that support the
activities of the FBO and general aviation operators. Two recently constructed
corporate (condo) hangar developments on the Airport are located southwest of the
terminal area and a third condo hangar development is under construction as of
January 2006. Hangar facilities at the Airport consist of conventional hangars, thangars, shade hangars, and condo hangars. All of the conventional hangars are
occupied by either the FBO or other specialized aviation service operators (SASO).
These facilities provide for 238 covered storage spaces for aircraft (see Table 1.5).

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-17

Table 1.5
AIRCRAFT HANGAR STORAGE
Name
City Owned
City Owned
City Owned
City Owned
City Owned
City Owned
City Owned
City Owned
City Owned
City Owned
City Owned
City Owned
Sub-totals
Hangars Unlimited
Hangars Unlimited
Hangars Unlimited
Hangars Unlimited
Hangars Unlimited
Hangars Unlimited
Hangars Unlimited
Hangars Unlimited
Sub-totals
Hangars Unlimited*
Hangars Unlimited
Hangars Unlimited
Hangars Unlimited
Hangars Unlimited*
Hangars Unlimited*
Hangars Unlimited*
Hangars Unlimited*
Sub-totals
F & G Hangars*
F & G Hangars*
Sub-totals

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

Building Label

Type

Alpha
Bravo
Charlie
Delta
Echo
Fox
Golf
Hotel
India
Juliet
Kilo
Lima

Lg. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr
Lg. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr

Mike
November
Oscar
Papa
Quebec
Romeo
Sierra
Tango

Sm. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr
Sm. T-hgr
Lg. T-hgr

Uniform
Victor
Whiskey
X-ray
Yankee
Zulu
Alpha-Alpha
Alpha-Bravo

Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional

Alpha-Charlie
Alpha-Charlie

Conventional
Conventional

No.
Hangar
Units
8
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
116
10
11
11
11
10
11
11
6
81
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
28
8
8
8

Typical Inside
Dimension

Total
Square Feet

54' x 45'
42' x 36'
42' x 36'
42' x 36'
54' x 45'
42' x 36'
42' x 36'
42' x 36'
42' x 36'
42' x 36'
42' x 36'
42' x 36'

14,674
11,628
11,628
11,628
14,674
11,628
11,628
11,628
11,628
11,628
11,628
11,628
145,628
12,920
12,240
12,240
12,240
14,280
12,240
12,240
12,007
100,407
6,578
10,200
8,500
8,360
7,840
7,840
7,840
3,780
60,938
14,400
8,000
22,400

44' x 38'
40' x 36'
40' x 36'
40' x 36'
44' x 42'
40' x 36'
40' x 36'
55' x 44'
86' x 44'
56' x 50
56' x 42
50' x 44
49' x 40'
49' x 40'
49' x 40'
45' x 42
60' x 60'
50' x 40'

1-18

Table 1.5, Continued
AIRCRAFT HANGAR STORAGE
Name

Building Label

Type

Venture Aviation
Chandler Aviation
Chandler Air Service
Chandler Air Service
Quantum Helicopters**
Sub-totals
Total

N/A
N/A
1
2
N/A

Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional

No.
Hangar
Units
1
1
1
1
1
5
238

Typical Inside
Dimension
80' x 80'
120' x 80'
50' x 40'
120' x 100'
60' x 60'

Total
Square Feet
6,400
9,600
2,000
12,000
3,600
33,600
362,973

*In design or construction at time data (August 2005) was compiled.
** Owned by City of Chandler, leased to Quantum Helicopters
SOURCE: Airport Management records
PREPARED: January 2006

It should be noted that the Airport maintains a 10-year waiting list for hangar storage
that requires a paid deposit. Additionally, the City is currently working with developers
to lease ground for the design, construction, and operation of additional hangars.
Other Landside Facilities
Chandler Municipal is home to a diverse array of tenants that utilize Airport facilities and
lease land and/or buildings from the City. The ability of the Airport to meet the current
and future needs of these tenants is an important consideration in the master planning
process. As of August 2005, there were 10 contractual agreements in place between
the Airport and entities wishing to conduct business on the Airport and/or provide
services to those using the Airport. A summary of existing Airport tenants located at
Chandler Municipal, both on Airport property and adjacent, is presented in the following
sections.
Chandler Air Service
Chandler Air Service is the Airport’s only full-service FBO and is located on the
northeast side of the terminal building. Chandler Air Service offers flight school training
that is FAA approved, general aircraft maintenance, aircraft fueling, aircraft rental, and
fuel sales. The FBO operates from two buildings. The first is a 12,000-square foot
maintenance/hangar storage building with 5,000 feet of office space and an additional
800 square feet for Hangar Café, the Airport’s only restaurant. It should be noted that
Hangar Café subleases its space from Chandler Air Service. The second building is a
conventional hangar that is approximately 2,000 square feet and is used for
maintenance and hangar space as well as office space.
Chandler Air Service also provides both AvGas (10,000 gallon above ground tank) and
Jet A fuels (12,000 gallon above ground tank). In addition to the storage tanks,

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-19

Chandler Air Service also operates fuel trucks for both fuel types as well as provides
self-service AvGas. Chandler Air Service maintains 36 tie-down spaces.
Airport Business Center of Chandler, Inc
Airport Business Center of Chandler, Inc. is a real estate business and leases office and
warehouse space to aviation businesses. Current tenants include Varga Enterprises,
Inc., SoftComm Products, Inc., Aguila Aerospace Services LLC, Curtis Superior Valve
Co., Inc., and Aircraft Engine Specialist LLC.
Aircraft Engine Specialist LLC
Aircraft Engine Specialist LLC specializes in overhaul and repair of Lycoming and
Continental aircraft engines and engine accessories. Aircraft Engine Specialist is
located adjacent to airport property.
Aguila Aerospace Services LLC
Aguila Aerospace Services LLC specializes in non-destructive testing. It should be
noted that Aquila Aerospace Services is located adjacent to airport property.
Chandler Aviation
Chandler Aviation provides a complete line of maintenance services, annual aircraft
inspections, sheet metal repairs, fabric repairs, and engine overhauls in a 120-foot by
80-foot conventional hangar (a total of 9,600 square feet). Chandler Aviation’s
operation is located just east of the terminal and is also located on the northeast apron
area. Additionally, Chandler Aviation maintains 16 tie-down spaces.
Curtis Superior Valve Co.
Curtis Superior Valve Co., Inc. is located adjacent to airport property. Curtis Superior
Valve is a manufacture of aircraft fuel and oil drain valves primarily for general aviation
and military aircraft.
Exec Avionics
Exec Avionics occupies 2,500 square feet of hangar space through a lease agreement.
They also maintain 600 square feet of office space. Exec Avionics provides full-service
avionics sales and repairs at the Airport.
Hangar Café
Hangar Café is the only restaurant at the Airport. The Café is open for breakfast and
lunch with outdoor seating available. As previously mentioned, Hangar Café sublets
approximately 800 square feet of space in Chandler Air Service’s larger hangar.
Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-20

Hangars Unlimited
Hangars Unlimited, a division of HU Inc., a Washington corporation, is a land leasehold
development system which builds and sells aviation storage hangars. The hangars are
built in blocks and a Condominium Association is formed which simplifies ownership for
the buyer. Currently, Hangars Unlimited leases 109 hangars in various stages of
development. The hangars are a combination of t-hangars and conventional hangars. It
should be noted that Hangars Unlimited offices are not located on Airport property.
Holmes Aviation
Holmes Aviation specializes in engine overhauls, repairs, and accessories. The
company also occupies space within the larger Chandler Air Service conventional
hangar through a sublease agreement.
Quantum Helicopters
As of January 2006, Quantum Helicopters is located on the western portion of the
airfield adjacent to the old heliport area, however, the company is in the process of
building new facilities on the eastern side of the airfield adjacent to the new heliport
area. Quantum Helicopters currently leases a 3,600-square foot hangar from the City
of Chandler. Quantum has 2,000 square feet of office space as well. Quantum provides
helicopter flight training and charter service.
SoftComm Products, Inc
SoftComm Products is manufacturer of general aviation headsets, intercoms, and flight
computers. The company currently sublets space from Varga Enterprises, Inc. It should
be noted that SoftComm Products is located adjacent to Airport property.
Tailwind Flight Centre
Tailwind Flight Centre provides the Airport with flight training and aircraft rental and is
located south of the existing general aviation terminal in the old terminal building.
Varga Enterprises, Inc.
Varga Enterprises is a mail order retail and wholesale aircraft parts distributor. Varga
Enterprises has a full-line instrument and hose shop. It should be noted that Varga
Enterprises is located adjacent to Airport property.

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-21

Support Facilities and Equipment
In addition to airside and landside facilities at the Airport, there are a variety of support
facilities and equipment that facilitate the operations of Airport users and tenants.
Depending on function, some specific facilities are owned by the City of Chandler while
others are owned and operated by individual tenants. In some cases, tenant-owned
equipment is stored on or within Airport-owned facilities. The specific support facilities
inventoried in this chapter include fuel storage and distribution.
The Airport’s fuel storage facility is located adjacent to the old heliport area. On this
site, the Airport maintains fuel storage tanks to support the fueling of AvGas fuel. The
fuel farm includes four underground storage tanks: two 8,000 gallon tanks, one 10,000
gallon tank, and one 12,000 gallon tank storing AvGas. As previously mentioned,
Chandler Air Service provides both AvGas and Jet A fuels. The City receives a fuel
flowage fee from Chandler Air Service in the amount of $0.10 per gallon of fuel pumped.
The City also operates a self-service AvGas fuel island located adjacent to Tailwind
Flight Centre. The fuel facilities provided by the City and Chandler Air Service comply
with Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) requirements. Further, the
City and Chandler Air Service are the only fuel providers at the airport.
Utilities
Utility services are provided to the Airport and its tenants by several local companies
and the City of Chandler. The existing utility infrastructure at Chandler Municipal Airport
is summarized as follows:
•
•

•

•
•

Water Service – Water Service is provided by the City of Chandler.
Sanitary Sewer Service – The City of Chandler provides sanitary sewer service
to the general aviation terminal building, the old terminal building, old heliport,
and condo hangars. Sanitary sewer for all other facilities at the airport is
accommodated through septic systems.
Electrical Power – Salt River Project (SRP) provides all electrical power to the
Airport. It should be noted that all power lines located on Airport property have
been buried underground except at the t-shade hangars and north of the Airport’s
property.
Gas Service – Natural gas is not currently available at the Airport.
Telecommunications – Qwest Communications provides telecommunication
services to the Airport. The terminal building is equipped with digital
telephone/data lines.

Surface Access and Parking System
The ability of Airport users to efficiently access the Airport via the Chandler area’s
surface transportation infrastructure is an important consideration in the master planning
process. Furthermore, Airport users require convenient access to parking facilities once
Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-22

at the Airport. An inventory of the Airport’s surface access and parking system is
presented in the following sections:
•
•

Airport Access Roads
Airport Parking Facilities

Airport Access Roads
Arizona State Highway 202 is the primary regional access roadway serving the Airport.
The highway is classified as an expressway and is a divided, six-lane highway
connecting the City of Chandler with Maricopa County and other suburban areas. State
Highway 202 serves as a primary route for traffic destined for Phoenix and other parts
of the eastern metropolitan area. State Highway 202 is a “loop” road that provides eastwest access to the area, including access to Interstate 10 to the west. Vehicular traffic
accessing the Airport can use State Highway 202, U.S. Highway 60, or a number of
secondary roads such as Gilbert Road, Germann Road, Queen Creek Road, and
McQueen Road.
Suburban development in the Airport area has helped to stress the ability of highway
structures to efficiently accommodate growing traffic demand. Increasing congestion of
these roadways has not impacted access to the Airport dramatically.
Airport Parking Facilities
The vast majority of Airport parking facilities support the terminal area and adjacent
FBO and tenant areas. The designated parking area in the terminal area can
accommodate 30 vehicles. The FBO and tenant areas account for approximately 200
additional spaces that are paved.
Airport Fencing and Security
The airport is surrounded by a commercial and residential real estate. Additionally,
major roadways are in the immediate vicinity of the Airport. Wildlife are often seen on
and adjacent to Airport property. These types of encroachment, especially on the
runways and taxiways, are a serious safety concern to aircraft. To protect the safety of
aircraft operations and provide security environment, a six-foot chain link fence topped
with barbed wire was installed around the airfield. There are several automatic vehicle
entry gates, manually operated swing gates, and pedestrian access gates installed
along the fence. In addition to the perimeter fencing and security gates, the Chandler
Police Department performs a facility check on a regular basis throughout the day.

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-23

Pavement Condition
A report entitled, “Chandler Municipal Airport – Pavement Management Report,” dated
October 2003 prepared by Applied Pavement Technologies, Inc. was obtained by the
Arizona Department of Transportation. This information provided the construction
history for airside pavements at the Airport and presented the detailed results of a visual
pavement condition survey conducted in January 2003.
For inspection purposes, each section was divided into sample units. Representative
sample units were then randomly chosen at the network level frequency within each
section for actual survey and data recordation.
The PCI (pavement condition index) is based on a number of distinct distress types,
quantities and severities commonly found on airport pavements. After all distresses for
each sample unit are measured and catalogued, the PCI is computed as a numerical
rating index between 0 and 100, with a PCI of 100 being a pavement in “Excellent”
condition.
The pavements at Chandler Municipal range from 57 to 95 upon inspection in
November 2003. It should be noted that the Airport is currently updating its Pavement
Management Report. The findings should be available by the end of 2006.
AIRSPACE AND APPROACHES
Free and unencumbered use of the airspace above and around Chandler Municipal
Airport is crucial to the safe and efficient operation of aircraft at the Airport. An
important consideration in the master planning process is the protection and
maintenance of navigable airspace. The following sections summarize existing
airspace characteristics on and around Chandler Municipal as well as the instrument
approach procedures at the Airport. Various aspects of the Airport’s navigable airspace
are summarized in the following sections:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Airport Traffic Pattern and Procedures
Air Traffic Control Facilities and Procedures
Aeronautical Radio Communications
Instrument Approaches and Equipment
Regional Airspace Considerations
Avoidance of Noise Sensitive Areas

These sections provide an understanding of the existing airspace characteristics of the
Airport and regional factors that impact aviation activity at Chandler Municipal Airport.

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-24

Airport Traffic Pattern and Procedures
The approach, departure, and taxiing of aircraft on the parallel runway system and
taxiways at Chandler Municipal is managed by the Airport’s Air Traffic Control Tower
(ATCT). Runway usage is determined based on the weather conditions at the Airport,
including wind direction and speed, and the amount of aviation activity occurring at the
Airport at any given time. When conditions and activity levels allow, Airport users are
typically directed to use the closest runway environment to minimize taxiing
requirements which during calm winds and ideal conditions is Runway 4L/22R.
As a result of prevailing winds and atmospheric conditions at the Airport, on an average
annual basis, the majority of aircraft operations occur to the northeast, with approaches
to and departures from Runway 4R and Runway 4L. The remaining annual activity
operates in a southwesterly flow with approaches to and departures from Runway 22R
and Runway 22L.
The centerlines of the parallel runways at Chandler Municipal Airport are separated by
approximately 1,750 feet.
There are no adverse effects to aircraft operating
simultaneously due to the separation between Runways 4R/22L and 4L/22R during
visual flight rules (VFR).
In VFR conditions, periods when there is at least 1,000 foot cloud base and 3 miles
visibility, general aviation traffic is typically assigned to Runway 4L/22R. Runway
4R/22L is also used to accommodate general aviation activity during peak periods of
activity.
During periods of instrument flight rule (IFR) conditions, those periods when weather
conditions do not meet VFR requirements, arriving IFR aircraft use NDB, VOR or GPS
approaches to Runway 4R.
Air Traffic Control Facilities and Procedures
The Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) at Chandler Municipal is in operation 15 hours a
day and is charged with controlling the movements of all aircraft within a four nautical
mile radius of the Airport up to an altitude of 3,000 feet MSL. In addition to the Chandler
Municipal ATCT, there are other entities that share responsibility in managing the
movement of aircraft during fight to and from the Airport as well as during approach and
departure procedures. The specific roles that each of the following has in managing
aviation traffic at Chandler Municipal are summarized in the following sections:
•
•

Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC)
Phoenix Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON)

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-25

Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center
The Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center (Albuquerque ARTCC) controls all
IFR aircraft and some VFR operations within controlled airspace across a multi-state
area, including the Phoenix metropolitan area. The Albuquerque ARTCC controls
aircraft movements at altitudes greater than 10,000 feet above ground level (AGL) and
is responsible for establishing the initial approach sequencing of aircraft and providing
adequate separation from all other known traffic. As enroute aircraft approach Chandler
Municipal Airport and get within approximately 25 to 40 mile radius of the Volunteer
VORTAC, they become the responsibility of the Phoenix Terminal Radar Approach
Control (TRACON). Typically, once an aircraft departing from Chandler Municipal
reaches 10,000 feet AGL they become the responsibility of the Albuquerque ARTCC.
Phoenix Terminal Radar Approach Control
The Phoenix TRACON controls aircraft under 10,000 feet AGL during their approach to
and departures from Chandler Municipal. It is the responsibility of the Phoenix
TRACON to provide separation for participating aircraft in the vicinity of the TRACON
boundary area and direct them to the Airport by instructing pilots to fly specific altitudes
and headings called radar vectors. This process is used for all IFR arriving traffic
regardless of its destination airport in the TRACON boundary. As aircraft approach the
Chandler Municipal airspace area, the TRACON “hands-off” or transfers control
responsibility to the Chandler Municipal Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT). This process
is reversed for aircraft departing Chandler Municipal Airport.
Aeronautical Radio Communications
Communications between pilots, controllers, and other FAA personnel in the environs of
Chandler Municipal Airport are facilitated by aeronautical radio communication
equipment. These pieces of communication equipment operate on assigned radio
frequencies and provide unique Airport-specific information related to air traffic guidance
and Airport-area weather conditions. Important radio communication facilities at
Chandler Municipal Airport are described below and their frequencies are on the
following page.
•
•
•
•

ATIS – The Air Traffic Information System (ATIS) equipment transmits a
continuous broadcast of recorded non-control information for certain terminal
areas. At Chandler Municipal this information is transmitted at 128.325 MHZ.
UNICOM – The UNICOM (Uniform Communications) frequency at Chandler
Municipal operates at 122.95 MHZ.
Phoenix Radar Approach/Departure Control – The Terminal Radar
Approach/Departure Control (TRACON) manages the arrival and departure of
aircraft in Chandler Municipal airspace on the 123.7 frequency.
Chandler Municipal ATCT – The takeoff and landing of aircraft at Chandler
Municipal is managed by Chandler Municipal ATCT personnel via communication

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-26

•
•

with aircraft on several frequencies depending on heading/location of aircraft and
the amount of activity in the Airport area. The primary frequencies used are
126.1 MHZ for aircraft north and west of the Airport, and 133.1 MHZ for aircraft
south and east of the Airport.
Ground Control – Chandler Municipal ATCT personnel also control the
movement of pilots and aircraft once they are on the ground at Chandler
Municipal with radio communications at 124.2 MHZ.
WX AWOS – This equipment transmits Airport-specific weather information and
is transmitted at frequency 128.325 MHZ or by calling (480) 814-9952.

Radio communication facilitated by these Airport facilities promotes safe and efficient
aircraft operations.
Instrument Approaches and Equipment
An instrument approach procedure is defined as a series of predetermined maneuvers
for guiding an aircraft under instrument flight conditions from the beginning of the initial
approach to a landing, or a point from which a landing may be made visually.
Instrument approaches rely on navigational aid (NAVAID) equipment to provide the
necessary guidance to pilots in flight. Available NAVAIDs at Chandler Municipal are
summarized in the previous Airfield Facilities section of this chapter.
Instrument approach procedures are classified as precision approaches or nonprecision approaches based on the guidance provided to pilots. Precision approaches
are procedures that provide both vertical guidance, typically via a glide slope, and
horizontal guidance, typically with a localizer, to aircraft. Non-precision approach
procedures and equipment provide only horizontal guidance to pilots. Instrument
approach equipment and available non-precision approaches at Chandler Municipal
include the following:
•
•
•

Area Navigation with Global Positioning System (RNAV (GPS)) – A nonprecision approach type utilizing radio signals from Area Navigation equipment
and/or radio signals from a network of navigational satellites.
Very-High Frequency Omnidirectional Radio (VOR) – A non-precision
approach that utilizes a radio signal from an on or off airport facility to aid in an
instrument approach.
Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) – A radio signal from an on or off airport facility
used for non-precision approach procedures. An NDB is considered an older and
less accurate system than a VOR.

It should be noted that the 1994 and 2001 Federal Radionavigation Plan outlines the
phase out of ground-based NAVAIDS, including NDBs. It is anticipated that their
primary importance will be replaced by Global Positioning Systems (GPS). The NDB
approach to Runway 4R is planned to be phased out by the FAA.

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-27

Instrument approaches at Chandler Municipal and their respective current decision
height and site distance minima are summarized in Table 1.6.
Table 1.6
CURRENT INSTRUMENT APPROACHES
Runway End
4R
4R
4R

Approach Type
RNAV (GPS)
NDB
VOR

Decision Height (MSL)
1,680’
1,780’
1,680’

AGL
437’
537’
437’

Site Distance
1 mile
1 mile
1 mile

SOURCE: U.S. Terminal Procedures, August 4, 2005
PRESENTED: January 2006
Note: Minimums represented are for Category A and B aircraft only.

The decision height minimum (depicted in terms of mean sea level) denotes the height
above ground level (AGL) at which the pilot must be able to visually identify the runway
environment. If the pilot reaches this altitude and cannot visually identify the runway
environment, a missed approach procedure must be conducted and the aircraft may reinitiate the approach procedure or proceed to an alternative destination. The site
distance minimum represents the minimum visibility in statute miles, prescribed for
landing while using an instrument approach procedure. The ability of these approach
procedures to safely and efficiently accommodate current and future activity levels at
the Airport is determined in a following task in the master planning process.
Regional Airspace Considerations
General airspace characteristics and classifications in the environs of Chandler
Municipal Airport are examined in the following sections and factors that impact, or
could potentially impact, aircraft operations at and around the Airport are identified. The
current airspace characteristics of the region, as depicted on the Phoenix Sectional
Aeronautical Chart, are presented in Exhibit 1.5.

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-28

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-29

Through Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), airspace classifications have been
developed to promote the safe and efficient movement and control of aircraft during
flight and approach/departure procedures. Airspace classifications are identified on
sectional aeronautical charts published by the FAA’s National Aeronautical Charting
Office. FAR Part 71 and FAR Part 73 establish classifications of airspace with the
following characteristics:
•

•

•

•

•

Class A Airspace – Class A airspace is not shown on aeronautical charts. It
begins at 18,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and extends to higher
altitudes. Only pilots flying IFR can enter this airspace and prior permission is
required. Class A airspace does not significantly impact the operation of
Chandler Municipal.
Class B Airspace – Class B airspace is found around major airports. Pilots must
get permission to enter this airspace from the controlling agency, typically the
Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facility associated with the airport
and region. The Class B airspace located in the region surrounds Phoenix Sky
Harbor International and provides controlled airspace along some primary arrival
routes to Chandler Municipal.
Class C Airspace – Class C airspace is the airspace from the surface to 4,000
feet above the airport elevation. Although the configuration of each Class C
airspace area is individually tailored, the airspace usually consists of a surface
area with a 5 mile radius, and an outer circle with a 1 mile radius that extends
from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation. An aircraft must
establish two-way radio communication with the controlling agency providing air
traffic services prior to entering the airspace and thereafter maintain those
communications while within the airspace. VFR aircraft are only separated from
IFR aircraft within the airspace. Class C airspace does not exist in the Chandler
Municipal area.
Class D Airspace – Class D airspace exists at any airport with an operating air
traffic control tower where Class B or Class C airspace does not exist. Class D
airspace typically extends 5 miles from the airport to an altitude of 2,500 feet
AGL. Pilots must establish two-way radio communication with the controlling
agency, usually the air traffic control tower, before entering this classification of
airspace. Because there is Class B airspace surrounding Chandler Municipal,
Class D airspace and its associated restrictions do impact aircraft operations at
Chandler Municipal. It should be noted that when the Chandler Municipal ATCT
is inactive, the Class D airspace surrounding the Airport reverts to Class E
airspace.
Class E Airspace (with floor 700 feet above surface) – Class E airspace
typically surrounds airports having instrument approaches and encompasses
portions of the instrument approach paths. The flight requirements within Class E
airspace result in increased aircraft separation requirements thereby promoting
safety and minimizing potential incidents between IFR and VFR aircraft in this
airspace. Class E airspace protects portions of instrument approach paths
associated with the Phoenix metropolitan area and Chandler Municipal Airport.

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-30

•

•

•

•

•

•

Class G Airspace – Class G airspace is referred to as uncontrolled airspace and
is not depicted on aeronautical charts. This classification of airspace comprises
all airspace not identified as another class. IFR flights typically do not operate in
Class G airspace, as no ATC services are provided. VFR flights are permitted as
long as visibility and cloud clearance minimums are met. Class G airspace does
not significantly impact operations at Chandler Municipal.
Restricted Areas – Restricted areas contain airspace identified by an area on
the surface of the earth within which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly
prohibited, is subject to restrictions. Restricted areas denote the existence of
unusual, often invisible, hazards to aircraft; examples include artillery firing, aerial
gunnery, or guided missiles. Penetration of restricted areas without authorization
from the using or controlling agency may be extremely hazardous to the aircraft
and its occupants. An area located approximately 25 miles southeast of
Chandler Municipal Airport is designated as restricted airspace. Restricted Areas
R-2310 A, B, and C operate at various times and altitudes ranging from 10,000 to
35,000 feet.
Prohibited Areas – Prohibited areas contain airspace within which the flight of
unauthorized aircraft is prohibited. Such areas are established for security or
other reasons associated with the national welfare. Prohibited areas are
published in the National Register and are depicted on aeronautical charts.
There are no areas of prohibited airspace proximate to Chandler Municipal
Airport.
Military Operations Areas (MOAs) – MOAs consist of airspace of defined
vertical and lateral limits established for the purpose of separating certain military
training activities from IFR traffic.
Whenever a MOA is being used,
nonparticipating IFR traffic maybe be cleared through a MOA if IFR separation
can be provided by air traffic control. Otherwise, air traffic control will reroute or
restrict nonparticipating IFR traffic. Pilots operating under VFR should exercise
caution while flying within a MOA when military activity is being conducted. Prior
to entering an active MOA, pilots should contact the controlling agency for traffic
advisories. The Outlaw MOA is located approximately 22 miles east of Chandler
Municipal Airport. The operations conducted within the Outlaw MOA are typically
conducted Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm,
and between the altitudes of 3,000 and 8,000 feet AGL. The Outlaw MOA does
not significantly impact aircraft operations at the Airport.
Alert Areas – Alert areas are depicted on aeronautical charts to inform
nonparticipating pilots of areas that may contain a high volume of pilot training or
an unusual type of aerial activity. Pilots should be particularly alert when flying in
these areas. All activity within an alert area shall be conducted in accordance
with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs), without waiver, and pilots of
participating aircraft as well as pilots transiting the areas shall be equally
responsible for collision avoidance. There are no area alerts near Chandler
Municipal.
Military Training Route (MTR) – Several military training routes are located
south of Chandler Municipal Airport. These routes are used by military training

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-31

aircraft which operate at speeds in excess of 250 knots and altitudes to 10,000
feet MSL. Pilots are strongly cautioned to be alert for high-speed military jet
training aircraft.
As the summary descriptions of airspace classifications indicate and Exhibit 1.6 shows,
different classes of airspace have different characteristics, dimensions, altitudes, and
requirements based on the types of activity that they are intended to support. Existing
airspace classifications in the vicinity of Chandler Municipal and those that could have
the potential to impact aircraft operations at the Airport have been identified. Any
potential impacts that these airspace classifications and areas may have on the Airport
will be examined prior to identifying the recommended development plan for the Airport.
Avoidance of Noise Sensitive Areas
The Airport conducted a FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study (Part 150 Study) that
was adopted in 1999. The objective of the noise compatibility planning process was to
improve the compatibility between aircraft operations and noise-sensitive land uses in
the area, while allowing the Airport to continue to serve its role in the community, State,
and nation. The Part 150 Study included measures to abate aircraft noise, control land
development, mitigate the impact of noise on non-compatible land uses, and implement
and update the program. Many of the recommendations from the Part 150 Study were
related to the noise generated by helicopters operating at the Airport and relocating the
heliport. Where possible, this and other Part 150 Study recommendations were
implemented over the last several years.
CLIMATIC AND METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Climatic and meteorological conditions are important considerations in the analysis and
development of aviation-related facilities. Considerations related to temperature, wind
speed, wind orientation, and visibility help to identify facility requirements at specific
airports. Effective airport planning and development can minimize the impacts that
climatic and meteorological conditions have on aircraft operations and can promote the
maximum utilization of airport facilities.
Data related to weather conditions at Chandler Municipal is available from nearby
Williams Gateway Airport through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Climatic and meteorological data relevant to the master planning process at
Chandler Municipal can be summarized as follows:
•
•
•

The predominant wind direction at Chandler Municipal is from the southwest and
over 90 percent of the recorded wind speed at the Airport is under 10 knots.
Normal daily mean temperatures at the Airport range from 54.2 degrees
Fahrenheit in January to 92.8 degrees Fahrenheit in July.
The average daily mean temperature at the Airport is 72.8 degrees Fahrenheit.

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-32

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-33

•
•
•

The absolute maximum average temperature at the Airport is 104.2 degrees
Fahrenheit in June and the absolute minimum average temperature is 43.4
degrees Fahrenheit in January.
Average annual precipitation in Chandler and the Phoenix metropolitan area is
8.29 inches and includes trace amounts of snow/ice per year.
Rain is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year with summer months being
relatively wetter and referred to as “monsoon season.”

The impacts that these climatic and meteorological conditions have on Chandler
Municipal and the operation of aircraft at the Airport are examined in detail in the facility
requirements task of the master planning process.
AREA LAND USE PATTERNS AND ZONING
Identifying land use and zoning characteristics in the environs of airports is an important
task in the master planning process because of significant impacts that incompatible
development in the airport area can have on the facility’s continued operation and
development.
Working with the relevant planning commissions, counties,
municipalities, or other entities to promote compatible land uses and zoning in the
environs of Chandler Municipal can allow the Airport to continue to operate and develop
in a manner that minimizes the impacts of the Airport on non-compatible land uses.
The City of Chandler has adopted a specific zoning district, AP-1-Airport District, to
regulate the development of land owned or leased by the City of Chandler as well as
height restricts as they apply to FAA Part 77 requirements. These regulations specify
allowed uses or uses that can be considered under a Use Permit process to verify
compatibility with the Airport. Additionally, these regulations specify development
standards in the interest of the safety and compatibility with airport operations and to
ensure the development quality of a public land use.
Current land uses of lands south of Queen Creek and east of McQueen Road primarily
include industrial/support uses, transitional/mixed uses, and commercial uses along the
immediate borders of the Airport’s property. Residential areas are located primarily to
the south and east of the Airport.
In November 1998, the City of Chandler adopted the Chandler Airpark Area Plan. This
plan was developed to guide future development in and around the airport area. The
airpark area encompasses approximately nine square miles surrounding the Airport.
The goal of plan is to protect the Chandler Municipal Airport from residential
encroachment and economic development within the area. The City of Chandler later
adopted (March 2002) the Chandler General Plan which updated its land use plan, as
shown in Exhibit 1.7. In this plan, Chandler Municipal Airport and the Chandler Airpark
are identified and have the appropriate land use zoning adjacent to both entities. The
surrounding areas serve as a “buffer” to the residential areas located to the north and
Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-34

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-35

southeast. It should be noted that the Airpark Area Plan follows the overall goals and
policies of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding uses which are planned.
Arizona has several statutes in place that were developed to reflect the importance of
addressing airport noise. The first, Airport Influence Area (ARS: 28-8485), was
implemented in 1997. At this same time, to encourage the preservation of military
airports in Arizona, Military Airport Registry was also implemented (ARS: 28-8483 and
28-8484), which was later amended to Military Airport Disclosure. The Public Airport
Disclosure (ARS: 28-8486) was implemented in 2000.
The Airport Influence Area statute allows the development of an airport influence area to
serve as a notification that properties are located in the vicinity of an airport that may be
impacted by noise levels or aircraft overflights. If an airport influence area is
established, a record must be filed in each county that contains property in the area
such that notification of homeowners within the area occurs. The airport influence area
is not restricted in size to noise contours, but can be established to address issues such
as overflights from training or significant activity levels that occur as a result of aircraft
operating patterns. At this time Chandler Municipal Airport has not adopted this statute.
The City of Chandler has however adopted an Airport Impact Overlay District that
encompasses the nine square miles covered by the Airpark Area Plan. This zoning
district is marked on the City’s zoning maps as an overlay zoning district establishing
rules and regulations in addition to any other rules and regulations otherwise
established by a property’s zoning district. The zoning district’s purpose is to establish
four airport overlay areas to distinguish between the severity of the levels of noise
impact and accident potential so that appropriate uses and acoustical performance
standards can be established to mitigate the adverse impacts of aircraft noise, and
hazards to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. Further, prior to the issuance
of any building or development permit for property within the Airport Impact Overlay
District, the City requires the recordation of an avigational easement and release from
liability for airport related damage claims.
The Public Airport Disclosure statute requires that the public airports work with the
Arizona Department of Real Estate to develop a map “showing the exterior boundaries
of each territory in the vicinity of a public airport.” The territory is defined as property
that is within the traffic pattern airspace, including property that is within a certain DNL,
determined based on county population. For counties with a population of less than
500,000, 65 DNL is the standard; for counties with more than 500,000 in population
such as Maricopa County, 60 DNL is the standard. It is important to note that the FAA
uses 65 DNL as its basis for determining incompatible land use compared to the State’s
use of 60 DNL for large counties such as Maricopa. The map is then recorded with the
applicable county recorder(s) and made available to the public – there is no requirement
for distribution. Chandler Municipal Airport currently has a disclosure map on file with
the Arizona Department of Real Estate. This map will be updated as part of the master
planning process.

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-36

AREA SOCIOECONOMIC DATA
The relationship between socioeconomic factors and an airport’s role and activity levels
is an important consideration in the master planning process. In addition to providing a
general understanding of the existing conditions in an airport area, socioeconomic data
is instrumental in developing future projections of aviation activity. Summary
socioeconomic data for the City of Chandler, Maricopa County, and Chandler Municipal
Airport’s market area are presented in the following sections.
Table 1.7 presents historic population data for the City of Chandler and Maricopa
County and provides a comparison to comparable data for the State of Arizona and the
United States.
Table 1.7
HISTORIC REGIONAL POPULATION DATA
Year
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1990 -2004
CAGR

City of Chandler
90,533
176,581
190,091
201,262
211,984
224,644

Maricopa County
2,132,249
2,954,157
3,029,150
3,104,077
3,179,155
3,254,363

Arizona
3,684,097
5,165,765
5,297,684
5,441,125
5,580,811
5,707,121

United States
249,622,814
282,177,838
285,093,870
287,974,001
290,810,789
293,545,244

6.71%

3.07%

3.18%

1.16%

CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate
SOURCE: Woods & Poole, Inc. City of Chandler Long Range Planning Division April, 2005, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
PREPARED: January 2006

Table 1.8 summarizes historic data related to employment and unemployment in the
City of Chandler, Maricopa County, the State of Arizona, and the United States from
1990 to 2004.

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-37

Table 1.8
HISTORIC EMPLOYMENT DATA
Year
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1990 -2004
CAGR

City of Chandler
50,222
100,442
102,865
102,876
105,516
110,262
5.78%

1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004

3.2%
2.5%
3.2%
4.1%
3.8%
3.4%

Employment
Maricopa County
1,068,480
1,543,315
1,580,553
1,612,455
1,653,834
1,694,213
3.35%
Unemployment Rate
4.3%
3.3%
4.1%
5.5%
5.0%
4.4%

Arizona
1,909,879
2,819,304
2,844,359
2,873,564
2,953,036
3,032,571

United States
139,380,891
166,758,782
166,908,258
167,033,565
169,545,983
172,058,819

3.36%

1.52%

5.3%
4.0%
4.7%
6.0%
5.7%
5.0%

5.6%
4.0%
4.7%
5.8%
6.0%
5.5%

CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate
SOURCE: Woods & Poole, Inc. City of Chandler Long Range Planning Division April, 2005, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
PREPARED: January 2006

Tables 1.9 and 1.10 summarize historic data related to employment by industry for the
City of Chandler and Maricopa County for 2000.
Table 1.9
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (2000)
CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MARKET AREA
Sector
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities
Information
Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing
Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste
management services
Educational, health and social services
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services
Other services (except public administration)
Public administration

City of
Chandler
618
6,288
17,488
3,811
11,012
4,957
3,213
8,260
9,086

Maricopa
County
9,151
123,255
165,409
53,869
172,636
72,752
45,209
135,494
164,602

14,477
6,594
3,359
3,483

229,895
127,600
64,336
63,084

SOURCE: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census
PREPARED: January 2006

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-38

Table 1.10
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (1970-2000)
MARICOPA COUNTY
Changes from 1970 to 2000
Total Employment
Wage and Salary Employment
Proprietor’s Employment
Farm and Agricultural Services
Farm
Ag. Services
Mining
Manufacturing (incl. forest products)
Services and Professional
Transportation & Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
Services (Health, Legal, Business,
Others)
Construction
Government

1970

% of
Total

2000
1,896,035
1,613,418
282,617
32,095
7,515
24,580
2,899
168,487
1,361,536
93,636
97,247
319,943
216,805

% of
New
% of New
Total Employment Employment
1,465,468
85.1%
1,236,909
84.4%
14.9%
228,559
15.6%
1.7%
17,793
1.2%
0.4%
-1,876
NA
1.3%
19,669
1.3%
0.2%
2,435
0.2%
8.9%
95,215
6.5%
71.8%
1,116,716
76.2%
4.9%
73,114
5.0%
5.1%
75,332
5.1%
16.9%
244,017
16.7%
11.4%
177,646
12.1%

430,567
376,509
54,058
14,302
9,391
4,911
464
73,272
244,820
20,522
21,915
75,926
39,159

87.4%
12.6%
3.3%
2.2%
1.1%
0.1%
17.0%
56.9%
4.8%
5.1%
17.6%
9.1%

87,298

20.3%

633,905 33.4%

546,607

37.3%

26,603
71,106

6.2%
16.5%

142,288 7.5%
188,730 10.0%

115,685
117,624

7.9%
8.0%

SOURCE:

Sonoran Institute, Population, Employment, Earnings, & Personal Income Trends – Maricopa
County, AZ, 12/2003
PREPARED: January 2006

The summary data presented in Tables 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, and 1.10 reflects the continuous
growth experienced by the City of Chandler and its market area for the socioeconomic
factors examined in this analysis. It is also important to note that the unemployment
rate for the market area has been significantly lower than the national and state
averages for the past five years. Job growth in the market of the services sector and
retail trade services has contributed to the overall employment growth in the county.
These socioeconomic factors and on-going economic development associated with the
Maricopa County and the Phoenix metropolitan area are important considerations in the
development of projections of aviation demand in the market area. The following
chapter examines historic socioeconomic data in more detail, presents socioeconomic
projections for the market area, and uses this data in the process of developing aviation
activity projections for Chandler Municipal Airport.
OTHER AREA AIRPORTS
In addition to examining market area demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, it
is also important to understand the dynamics of aviation activity in the Chandler
Municipal area and the impacts that other nearby airports may have on aviation
demand. The location of other airports and the level of service and activity that they
support is an important consideration in developing a long-range development plan for
Chandler Municipal Airport. The nearest commercial service airport, Phoenix Sky
Harbor International, is less than 15 nautical miles from Chandler Municipal. Nearby
general aviation airports and their relevant characteristics are summarized in Table
1.11.
Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-39

Table 1.11
OTHER AREA AIRPORTS
Airport
Casa Grande Municipal
Coolidge
Eloy Municipal
Estrella Sailport
Falcon Field
Glendale Municipal
Phoenix Deer Valley
Phoenix Goodyear
Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l
Memorial Airfield
Scottsdale
Stellar Airpark
Williams Gateway

FAA ID
CGZ
P08
E60
E68
FFZ
GEU
DVT
GYR
PHX
34AZ
SDL
P19
IWA

Distance from
Chandler
Municipal
19 NM
28 NM
30 NM
21 NM
12 NM
27 NM
28 NM
29 NM
14NM
5 NM
20 NM
5 NM
8 NM

RWY
Length
5,200’
5,528’
3,900’
3,740’
5,102’
7,150’
8,208’
8,500’
11,489’
8,577’
8,249’
3,913’
10,401’

Approach Type
Precision
Non-Precision
Visual
Visual
Non-Precision
Non-Precision
Non-Precision
Non-Precision
Precision
Visual
Non-Precision
Non-Precision
Precision

Based
Aircraft
(2005)
98
2
41
3
891
259
890
197
237
61
429
144
93

SOURCE: FAA Form 5010, www.airnav.com
PREPARED: January 2006

The locations of these airports are illustrated in Exhibit 1.8.
SUMMARY
The inventory data presented in this chapter provides a framework from which analysis
in the Chandler Municipal Airport Master Plan will proceed. Some inventory data, such
as airport role, historic activity, area socioeconomic trends, and existing airport facilities
are used to develop forecasts of future activity levels at the Airport and to determine
future facility requirements. Much of the data presented in this chapter is used to
conduct numerous analyses as the master planning process works towards identifying a
recommended development plan for Chandler Municipal Airport.

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-40

Chapter One: Inventory
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

1-41

CHAPTER TWO: PROJECTIONS OF AVIATION DEMAND
INTRODUCTION
Projecting future aviation demand is a critical element in the overall master planning
process. The activity forecasts developed in this chapter will be used in subsequent tasks to
analyze the airport’s ability to accommodate future activity and to determine the type, size,
and timing of future airside and landside facility developments.
This chapter discusses the findings and methodologies used to project aviation demand at
Chandler Municipal Airport. It must be recognized that there are always short-term
fluctuations in an airport’s activity due to a variety of factors that cannot be anticipated. The
forecasts developed in this Master Plan Update provide a meaningful framework to guide
future Airport development needs and alternatives.
The projections of aviation demand developed for Chandler Municipal Airport are
documented in the following sections:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Regional Demographics
Historic Aviation Activity
National Aviation Trends
FAA Activity Forecasts
Projections of Aviation Demand
Critical Aircraft
Peaking Analysis
Instrument Approach Forecasts
Summary

Projections of air cargo operations, as well as military operations are not addressed in this
chapter. Chandler Municipal currently has no scheduled air cargo activity. Over the last five
years, military activity has averaged only 50 operations per year. Circumstances are not
anticipated to change related to air cargo or military activity in the future. Therefore, these
two indicators are not included in the projections of aviation demand for Chandler Municipal
Airport.
This forecast analysis includes methodologies that consider historical aviation trends at
Chandler Municipal Airport and throughout the nation. Local historical data were collected
from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) records, Airport
records, and the 1998 Chandler Municipal Airport Master Plan. In addition, demographic
data for the City of Chandler and the surrounding Phoenix Metropolitan area were used to
track local trends and conditions that can impact general aviation demand levels. Projections
of aviation activity for the Airport were prepared for the near-term (2010), mid-term (2015),
and long-term (2020 and 2025) timeframes. These projections are generally unconstrained
and assume the Airport will be able to develop the facilities necessary to accommodate
based aircraft and future operations.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-1

REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS
Regional demographic data were examined in the preceding inventory chapter. Where
applicable, this demographic data can be used in the master planning process to relate
future aviation activity levels at Chandler Municipal Airport to local demographic trends. This
analysis examines the historical trends and future projections of the region’s population,
employment and earnings.
Since 1990 the City of Chandler has been of one of the fastest growing municipalities in the
country. Among cities with a population over 100,000, the City of Chandler was the second
fastest growing in the country between 1990 and 1996 and the fourth fastest growing
between 2000 and 2003 according to the U.S. Census Bureau data.
There are a number of demographic factors that impact, to varying degrees, the demand for
general aviation in any particular region. In addition to population trends, regional
employment and earnings trends also have an impact on aviation demand. Table 2.1
presents historic population and employment data for the City of Chandler and Maricopa
County. Earnings data is also presented for Maricopa County. For comparison purposes,
population, employment and earnings data for the State of Arizona and the United States is
also presented.
Data presented in Table 2.1 indicates that from 1990 through 2004 the population of the City
of Chandler grew at an average annual rate of 6.71 percent, over twice the annual rate of
growth experienced in Maricopa County and the State of Arizona.
Employment growth in the City of Chandler averaged 5.78 percent annually from 1990 to
2004. This rate greatly exceeds the rate of growth for jobs nationally of 1.52 percent and is
almost double the rate of job growth experienced in Maricopa County and the State of
Arizona.
Statistical analysis typically indicates that regional earnings are one of the most important
demographic factors influencing aviation demand. The assumption is made that as
earnings, and consequently discretionary income grows, local residents have more to spend
on all goods and services, including aviation-related goods and services. Gross earnings in
Maricopa County are estimated to have grown at an average annual compound growth rate
of 5.61 percent between 1990 and 2004. This is significantly above the national average of
2.91 percent, and slightly above the average for the State of Arizona of 5.06 percent.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-2

Table 2.1
HISTORICAL POPULATION EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS DATA
Year
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1990 -2004
CAGR
Year
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1990 -2004
CAGR

City of Chandler
Population
90,533

Maricopa County
Population
2,132,249

Arizona
Population
3,684,097

United States
Population
249,622,814

176,581
190,091
201,262
211,984
224,644

2,954,157
3,029,150
3,104,077
3,179,155
3,254,363

5,165,765
5,297,684
5,441,125
5,580,811
5,707,121

282,177,838
285,093,870
287,974,001
290,810,789
293,545,244

6.71%
City of Chandler
Employment
50,222

3.07%
Maricopa County
Employment
1,068,480

3.18%
Arizona
Employment
1,909,879

1.16%
United States
Employment
139,380,891

100,442
102,865
102,876
105,516
110,262

1,543,315
1,580,553
1,612,455
1,653,834
1,694,213

2,819,304
2,844,359
2,873,564
2,953,036
3,032,571

166,758,782
166,908,258
167,033,565
169,545,983
172,058,819

5.78%

3.35%
Maricopa County
Total Earnings1
$35,133.30

3.36%
Arizona
Total Earnings1
$51,966.82

1.52%
United States
Total Earnings1
$4,302,268.33

$68,537.76
$69,502.39
$69,857.64
$72,610.75
$75,392.34

$94,139.35
$95,565.12
$97,024.24
$100,028.63
$103,649.20

$6,084,932.22
$6,143,464.25
$6,150,408.14
$6,288,178.38
$6,426,363.59

5.61%

5.06%

2.91%

Year
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1990 -2004
CAGR

CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate
SOURCE: Woods & Poole, Inc. City of Chandler Long Range Planning Division April, 2005, U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics
PREPARED: January 2006
1
- Millions in 1996 Dollars

Projections of population, employment, and earnings developed for Chandler and Maricopa
County indicate that the City and County are expected to experience continued growth in all
categories over the forecast period. The population of the City of Chandler is expected
continue to grow rapidly over the next several years, and then begin to level off as the
amount of developable land within the City of Chandler becomes limited. Maricopa County
and the State of Arizona are projected to add population at significantly higher rates than the
City of Chandler.
Employment growth in Chandler is projected to outpace population growth in the future. As
businesses continue to add jobs, more people are projected to commute to the City of
Chandler from surrounding communities. Chandler is home to many fast growing high
technology manufacturing companies with Intel being by far the largest employer in the City
of Chandler. Table 2.2 identifies the top employers in the City of Chandler as of early 2006.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-3

Table 2.2
TOP EMPLOYERS IN THE CITY OF CHANDLER
Company

Number of
Employees

Intel

5,100

Intel Fab 12 and 22

4,400

Chandler School District

2,400

Countrywide Home Mortgage

2,350

Wells Fargo

2,200

Freescale Semiconductor

1,800

City of Chandler

1,523

Microchip Technology

1,485

Chandler Regional Hospital

1,100

Motorola

1,100

Orbital Sciences

1,100

Verizon Wireless

1,100

SOURCE: City of Chandler Economic Development
PREPARED: March 2006

Employment in the City of Chandler is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.67
percent, as opposed to 2.37 percent in Maricopa County, between 2010 and 2025. By
comparison, employment in the State of Arizona is expected to grow at a slightly higher
average annual rate of 1.97 percent, with the U.S. projected to grow at a slightly lower
average annual rate of 1.23 percent. Growth in earnings in Maricopa County and the State
of Arizona are both projected to exceed the national average. Earnings in Maricopa County
are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 3.20 percent and by 3.06 percent in the
State of Arizona. Nationally earnings are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 2.08
percent. Table 2.3 presents demographic projections for the City of Chandler and Maricopa
County. Projected growth rates for the State of Arizona and the U.S. are also included for
comparison purposes.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-4

Table 2.3
PROJECTED POPULATION EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS DATA
Historic

Year
2004

Projected

2010
2015
2020
2025
2010 - 2025 CAGR

Historic

Year
2004

Projected

2010
2015
2020
2025
2010 - 2025 CAGR

Historic

City of Chandler
Population
220,705

Maricopa County
Population
3,524,175

Arizona
Population
5,707,121

United States
Population
293,545,244

260,000
286,600
287,000
288,600
0.70%
City of Chandler
Employment
110,262

4,134,400
4,649,250
5,164,100
5,664,000
2.12%
Maricopa County
Employment
1,694,213

6,482,263
7,145,207
7,821,821
8,518,319
1.93%
Arizona
Employment
3,032,571

311,034,645
326,491,564
342,544,203
359,383,445
0.97%
United States
Employment
172,058,819

134,900
150,500
166,100
173,000
1.67%

2,112,000
2,408,500
2,705,000
3,002,000
2.37%
Maricopa County
Total Earnings1
$75,392.34

3,510,210
3,908,889
4,308,251
4,708,399
1.98%
Arizona Total
Earnings1
$103,649,198

187,135,175
199,698,512
212,262,142
224,825,649
1.23%
United States
Total Earnings1
$6,426,363,594

$92,961.65
$109,523.29
$128,141.96
$149,119.36
3.20%

$126,422,163
$147,820,516
$171,811,048
$198,770,407
3.06%

$7,280,034,272
$8,071,704,169
$8,946,968,959
$9,915,861,492
2.08%

Year
2004

Projected

2010
2015
2020
2025
2010 - 2025 CAGR

CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate
SOURCE: Woods & Poole, Inc, Maricopa Association of Governments Interim Socioeconomic Projections, July 2003
and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
PREPARED: February 2006
1
- Millions 1996 Dollars

The projected growth rates of these demographics for the City of Chandler and
Maricopa County indicate that demand for aviation services in this area will continue to
remain strong. These factors will have a significant influence on the projection of
aviation activity at Chandler Municipal Airport.
HISTORIC AVIATION ACTIVITY
Historic based aircraft and operations data for Chandler Municipal Airport provides the
baseline from which future activity at the Airport can be projected. While historic trends
are not always reflective of future periods, historic data does provide insight into how
local, regional, and national demographic and aviation-related trends may be tied to the
airport. A based aircraft is generally defined as an aircraft that is permanently stored at
an airport. An aircraft operation represents either a take-off or landing conducted by an
aircraft. For example, a takeoff and a landing would count as two operations.
Historic activity data for Chandler Municipal Airport has been compiled from several
sources including Airport and air traffic control tower (ATCT) records. Information from

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-5

the Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Aviation System Plan was also
used, as applicable.
The number of based aircraft at Chandler Municipal Airport has steadily increased from
the year 1990 to 2005, with single-engine aircraft comprising the majority of the Airport’s
based aircraft fleet. Table 2.4 presents the number of historical based aircraft by
category from 1990 through 2005.
Table 2.4
HISTORIC BASED AIRCRAFT
Year
1990

Singleengine
207

Multiengine
20

Jet
0

Helicopter
7

Total
Based
Aircraft
235

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

358
352
379
387
399
407

24
26
19
31
31
33

0
0
0
0
0
1

10
10
13
15
15
16

392
388
411
433
445
457

2.60%

5.25%

N/A

9.86%

3.12%

4.61%

3.39%

N/A

5.67%

4.53%

CAGR
(2000-2005)
CAGR
(1990-2005)

CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate
SOURCE: FAA Form 5010 and Airport Management records
PREPARED: February 2006

Historically the number of based aircraft in all categories has increased since 1990.
Helicopters based at the Airport have had the largest average annual rate of growth with
the vast majority of helicopters being associated with flight training operators based at
Chandler Municipal Airport. The total number of based aircraft at Chandler Municipal
Airport has grown at an average annual rate of 4.53 percent increasing from 235 in
1990 to 457 in 2005. Between 2000 and 2005 based aircraft increase at a slower
average annual rate of 3.12 percent.
Annual operations represent the number of aircraft takeoffs and landings occurring at
the Airport during a calendar year. The historic operations data includes operations
conducted by both based aircraft as well as operations conducted by itinerant aircraft
stored at other airports arriving at Chandler Municipal Airport for a variety of reasons
including business, recreation, or flight training purposes. Historic aircraft operations
data for Chandler Municipal Airport are summarized in Table 2.5.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-6

Table 2.5
HISTORIC AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS

Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

ITINERANT OPERATIONS
Air
General
2
Military
Carrier1 Air Taxi
Aviation
0
1,043
59,847
91
0
1,594
66,863
39
0
904
67,429
46
0
1,434
71,467
49
0
1,771
75,713
25
0
2,237
64,675
20
0
1,828
67,302
12
0
1,939
64,780
10
0
2,530
61,626
41
0

2,740

62,826

40

LOCAL
OPERATIONS
General
Military
Aviation
95,204
27
115,624
19
128,108
24
148,020
48
172,281
21
165,472
45
161,377
19
152,929
13
168,850
32
169,489

16

Total
Operations
156,212
184,139
196,511
221,018
249,811
232,449
230,538
219,671
233,079
235,111

SOURCE: FAA Air Traffic Activity System
PREPARED: February 2006
1
This category represents scheduled/non-scheduled charter service
2
This category represents non-scheduled or for-hire service on aircraft with 60 seats or less

Historically general aviation operations have comprised over 98 percent of total
operations at Chandler Municipal Airport. It is important to note the very low level of
military activity at the Airport. Local and itinerant general aviation operations have
increased continuously since 1996. The data presented from 1996 through 2005
represents full-year actual data as reported by the air traffic control tower. Total
operations at Chandler Municipal Airport increased at an average annual rate of 4.65
percent from 1996 through 2005.
NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS
In preparing the Master Plan for Chandler Municipal Airport, it is important to have a general
understanding of recent and anticipated trends in the aviation industry. National trends
provide insight for the development of aviation activity projections for the Airport. Some
trends in the aviation industry will undoubtedly have a greater impact on Chandler Municipal
Airport than others. Since almost all of the activity at Chandler Municipal Airport is
associated with general aviation, this section focuses on past and anticipated trends in the
general aviation industry.
The aviation industry and general aviation have experienced significant changes over the
last 20 years. At the national level, fluctuating levels of general aviation usage caused by
economic upturns/downturns resulting from the nation’s business cycle have all impacted
general aviation demand. At the local level, the explosive population growth in the Phoenix
metropolitan area, coupled with solid economic conditions has greatly impacted general
aviation demand in the region. This section examines general aviation trends, and the
numerous factors that have influenced those trends in the U.S.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-7

Recent trends, both national and local, are important considerations in the development
of projections of aviation demand for Chandler Municipal Airport. National trends can
provide insight into the potential future of aviation activity and anticipated facility needs.
Data sources that were examined and used to support this analysis of national general
aviation trends included the following:
•
•
•
•

Federal Aviation Administration, Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2006-2017
National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA), NBAA Business Aviation Fact
Book, 2004
NetJets, Inc.
Honeywell Corporation, 2005 Business Aviation Outlook

General Aviation Overview
General aviation aircraft are defined as all aircraft not flown by commercial airlines or
the military. General aviation activity is divided into six use categories, as defined by
the FAA. There are more than 18,300 public and private airports located throughout the
United States, as reported by the FAA. More than 3,300 of these airports are included
in the National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), indicating their eligibility for
federal funding assistance. Commercial service airports, those that accommodate
scheduled airline service, represent a relatively small portion (538 or roughly 16
percent) of the airports in the NPIAS. General aviation airports, including relievers such
as Chandler Municipal, comprise more than 2,800 facilities within the NPIAS. More than
15,000 additional airports, both private and public use, supplement those airports that
are included in the NPIAS.
General Aviation Industry
A pronounced decline in the general aviation industry began in 1978, and lasted
throughout most of the 1980s and into the mid-1990s. This decline resulted in the loss
of over 100,000 manufacturing jobs and a drop in aircraft production from about 18,000
aircraft annually to only 928 aircraft in 1994. Contributing to the decline in general
aviation during this period was the increasing number of liability claims against aircraft
manufacturers, the loss of Veterans Benefits that covered many costs associated with
student pilot training, and the recessionary economy. Product liability lawsuits arising
from aircraft accidents resulted in dramatic increases in aircraft manufacturing costs.
Enactment of the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) of 1994 provided
significant relief to the aviation industry. This Act established an 18-year Statute of
Repose on liability related to the manufacture of all general aviation aircraft and their
components where no time limit was previously established. GARA spurred
manufacturers including Cessna and Piper Aircraft to resume production of singleengine piston aircraft. Since 1994, statistics indicate an increase in general aviation
activity, an increase in the active general aviation aircraft fleet, and an increase in
shipments of fixed-wing general aviation aircraft.
Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-8

More recently, the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, and the recessionary
national economy have had a dampening impact on these positive general aviation
industry trends. Significant restrictions were placed on general aviation flying following
September 11th, which resulted in severe limitations being placed on general aviation
activity in many areas of the country. With the exception of the Washington, D.C. area,
most of these restrictions have now been lifted. Business and corporate general aviation
have experienced some positive gains resulting from additional use of general aviation
aircraft for travel tied in part to new security measures implemented at commercial
service airports and the increased personal travel times that have resulted.
Shipments and billings for general aviation aircraft in 2005 indicate that the downturn in
general aviation aircraft deliveries from 2001 has clearly reversed. Shipments in 2005
were up 20.8 percent from 2004, with 3,580 aircraft shipped. Billings in 2005 increased
27.2 percent from 2004 to $15.1 billion. Even more notable was that aircraft deliveries
and total billings exceeded for the first time levels seen prior to 2001, when 2,999
general aircraft were shipped with total billings of $14.0 billion.
Business Use of General Aviation
Business aviation is one of the fastest growing facets of general aviation. Companies
and individuals use aircraft as a tool to improve their businesses efficiency and
productivity. The terms business and corporate aircraft are often used interchangeably,
as they both refer to aircraft used to support a business enterprise. FAA defines
business use as “any use of an aircraft (not for compensation or hire) by an individual
for transportation required by the business in which the individual is engaged.” The FAA
estimates that business aircraft usage currently comprises more than 11 percent of all
aviation activity. The FAA defines corporate transportation as “any use of an aircraft by
a corporation, company or other organization (not for compensation or hire) for the
purposes of transporting its employees and/or property, and employing professional
pilots for the operation of the aircraft.” An additional 12 percent of the nation’s general
aviation activity is considered corporate. Regardless of the terminology used, the
business/corporate component of general aviation use is one that has experienced
significant recent growth.
Increased personnel productivity is one of the most important benefits of using business
aircraft. Companies flying general aviation aircraft for business have control of their
travel. Itineraries can be changed as needed, and the aircraft can fly into destinations
not served by scheduled airlines.
Business aircraft usage provides:
•
•
•
•

Employee time savings
Increased enroute productivity
Minimized time away from home
Enhanced industrial security

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-9

•
•

Enhanced personal safety
Management control over scheduling

Many of the nation's employers who use general aviation are members of the National
Business Aircraft Association (NBAA). The NBAA’s Business Aviation Fact Book 2004
(the latest available in March 2006) indicates that approximately 75 percent of all
Fortune 500 businesses operate general aviation aircraft and 92 of the Fortune 100
companies operate general aviation aircraft. Business use of general aviation aircraft
ranges from small, single-engine aircraft rentals to multiple aircraft corporate fleets
supported by dedicated flight crews and mechanics. General aviation aircraft use allows
employers to transport personnel and air cargo efficiently. Businesses often use general
aviation aircraft to link multiple office locations and reach existing and potential
customers. Business aircraft use by smaller companies has escalated as various
chartering, leasing, time-sharing, interchange agreements, partnerships, and
management contracts have emerged. Businesses and corporations have increasingly
employed business aircraft in their operations. NBAA statistics depicted in Exhibit 2.1
show the growth in the number of companies operating turbine powered general
aviation aircraft and the number of aircraft operated by them for business use.

18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03

Companies \ Turbine Aircraft

EXHIBIT 2.1
BUSINESS USE OF GENERAL AVIATION TURBINE AIRCRAFT

Operators

Aircraft

SOURCE: National Business Aircraft Association
PREPARED: February 2006

Fractional ownership arrangements have also experienced rapid growth. A fractional
ownership arrangement is one in which an individual or corporation purchases at least
1/16th share of an airplane. The aircraft is then placed in a "pool" to share with other
owners of aircraft. The pooled aircraft are managed by a company that provides aviation
expertise including furnishing and training flight crews, and management services for
those owners. NBAA estimated that 2,591 companies used fractional ownership
arrangements in 1999; by 2004 that number had grown to 6,217 companies, more than
Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-10

doubling over the five-year period. In addition, statistics indicate that the number of
airplanes in the fractional aircraft fleet has also experienced strong growth over recent
years.
The principal operators in the fractional jet ownership market include
CitationShares, NetJets, Bombardier Flexjet and the Flight Options/Travel Air
operations. NetJets, the industry leader in fractional aircraft ownership, has purchased
aircraft totaling more than $19 billion in value in the last six years alone. As of February
2006, the company managed a fleet of 624 aircraft with additional aircraft on order.
Other new and growing segments of the business aircraft fleet mix include business
liners and a new generation of five to six-seat jets called very light jets (VLJs). Business
liners are large business jets, such as the Boeing Business Jet and Airbus ACJ, which
are reconfigured versions of passenger aircraft flown by large commercial airlines. VLJs
are a relatively new category of aircraft that includes the Adam A-700, Eclipse 500, and
Cessna Mustang. These small jets typically cost up to 75 percent less than typical
business jet aircraft in terms of acquisition and up to 50 percent less in direct operating
costs. The first VLJs are anticipated to be delivered to launch customers in the fall of
2006.
The anticipated changes in the nation’s active general aviation fleet, including projected
increases in the number of active jet aircraft have the potential to significantly impact
aviation activity at Chandler Municipal Airport over the 20-year forecast period. Recent
general aviation trends and projected changes in the nation’s active general aviation
fleet are considered in the projections of aviation demand developed for the Airport.
FAA ACTIVITY FORECASTS
The FAA publishes forecasts on an annual basis that summarize anticipated trends in most
components of civil aviation activity. Each published forecast revisits previous activity
forecasts and updates them after examining the previous year’s trends in aviation and
economic activity. Many factors are considered in the FAA’s development of forecasts,
some of the most important of which are U.S. and international economic growth and
anticipated trends in fuel costs. FAA forecasts generally provide one of the most detailed
analyses of historic and forecasted aviation trends and provide the general framework for
examining future levels of regional and national aviation activity.
Examples of measures of national general aviation activity that are monitored and forecast
by the FAA on an annual basis in the FAA Aerospace Forecasts include active pilots, active
aircraft fleet, and active hours flown. Historic and projected activity in each of these
categories is examined in the following sections. The data presented is based on the most
recent available information, contained in FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 20062017.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-11

Active Pilots
Active pilots are defined by the FAA as those persons with a pilot certificate and a valid
medical certificate. Table 2.6 summarizes historic and projected U.S. active pilots by
certificate type.
Table 2.6
HISTORIC AND PROJECTED U.S. ACTIVE PILOTS
BY TYPE OF CERTIFICATE
2017
Projection

CAGR
2000 2005

CAGR
2005-2017

Certificate Type

2000

2005

Students
Recreational
Sport Pilot
Private
Commercial
Airline Transport
Rotorcraft only
Glider only1
Total
Instrument
Rated2

99,110
340
NA
251,561
121,858
141,598
7,775

87,213
278
134
228,619
120,614
141,992
9,518

106,164
260
13,600
223,750
154,000
144,500
14,700

-2.53%
-3.95%
NA
-1.89%
-0.21%
0.06%
4.13%

1.65%
-0.56%
NA
-0.18%
2.06%
0.15%
3.69%

9,387
631,629

21,369
609,603

22,440
679,414

17.88%
-0.71%

0.41%
0.91%

315,100

311,500

390,683

-0.23%

1.91%

CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate
SOURCE: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2006-2017
PREPARED: February 2006
1
In March 2001, the FAA Registry changed the definition of this pilot category. It added approximately
13,000 to this category.
2
Instrument rated pilots should not be added to other categories in deriving total.

As shown in Table 2.6, the FAA projects steady growth in the active pilot population
through 2017. Total active pilots are projected to increase from approximately 609,603
in 2005 to 679,414 by 2017, representing a CAGR of approximately 0.91 percent. Of
the instrument-rated pilots, an even higher growth rate is anticipated over the same
period, at 1.91 percent.
Active Aircraft Fleet
The FAA tracks the number of active general aviation aircraft in the U.S. fleet annually.
Active aircraft are those aircraft currently registered and flying at least one hour during
the year. Table 2.7 summarizes recent active aircraft trends as well as FAA projections
of future active aircraft, by aircraft type.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-12

Table 2.7
HISTORIC AND PROJECTED U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION FLEET MIX
Aircraft Type
Single-engine Piston
Multi-engine Piston
Turboprop
Jet
Rotorcraft
Experimental
Sport Aircraft
Other
Total

2000

2005

149,422
21,091
5,762
7,001
7,150
20,407
N/A
6,700
217,533

144,530
17,481
8,030
8,628
7,595
22,300
N/A
6,027
214,591

2017
Projection
149,670
17,690
10,430
17,270
12,685
25,730
13,625
5,675
252,775

CAGR
2000 2005
-0.66%
-3.69%
6.86%
4.27%
1.21%
1.79%
N/A
-2.09%
-0.27%

CAGR
2005-2017
0.29%
0.10%
2.20%
5.95%
4.37%
1.20%
N/A
-0.50%
1.37%

CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate
SOURCE: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2006-2017 and Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: February 2006

General aviation active aircraft trended downward between 2000 and 2005, although
there was some evidence of positive growth in certain segments. The number of jet
aircraft increased by more than 4 percent, while turboprop aircraft increase by almost 7
percent annually between 2000 and 2005. However, due of the relatively small number
of jet and turboprop aircraft in the overall general aviation fleet, the growth in these
aircraft could not make up for the overall decline of the active general aviation fleet.
Total active aircraft decreased 0.27 percent annually over the last five years, with multiengine piston aircraft leading the decline. Still, the growth of turboprops and jets is an
important trend. The growing numbers or these aircraft indicate a movement in the
general aviation community toward higher-performing, more demanding aircraft. The
Honeywell Business Aviation Outlook 2005 projects that more than 9,900 new business
aircraft will be delivered between 2005 and 2015, excluding business liners. Demand for
VLJs is projected to be as high as 4,500 – 5,500 aircraft over the 10-year period.
Growth in jet aircraft is projected to significantly outpace growth in all other segments of
the general aviation aircraft fleet throughout the planning period.
The other aircraft category expected to experience large growth is sport aircraft. This
category of aircraft, created by the FAA in September 2004 through its rulemaking
process, targets the recreational segment of aviation, including a sizeable portion of the
already existing ultralight community. A major part of the growth of this aircraft category
is expected to come from already existing – but not registered – recreational aircraft that
register under the new rule.
Active Hours Flown
Hours flown is another statistic used by the FAA to measure and project general
aviation activity. Hours flown is a valuable measure because it captures a number of
activity-related data including aircraft utilization, frequency of use, and duration of use.
Total hours flown in general aviation aircraft have declined from 2000 to 2005 by an
Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-13

annual average of 1.31 percent, as shown in Table 2.8. Part of this decline is a result of
the grounding of general aviation following September 11th and follow-on restrictions
imposed by the federal government.
Table 2.8
ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AND AIR TAXI HOURS FLOWN
(in thousands)
Aircraft Type

2000

2005

Single-engine Piston
Multi-engine Piston
Turboprop
Jet
Rotorcraft
Experimental
Sport Aircraft
Other
Total

18,089
3,400
1,986
2,755
2,308
1,307
N/A
374
30,219

16,794
2,363
1,967
3,008
2,440
1,417
N/A
304
28,293

2017
Projection
19,471
2,696
2,265
9,606
3,875
1,736
1,101
304
41,054

CAGR
2000 2005
-1.47%
-7.02%
-0.19%
1.77%
1.12%
1.63%
N/A
-4.06%
-1.31%

CAGR
20052017
1.24%
1.10%
1.18%
10.16%
3.93%
1.71%
N/A
0.00%
3.15%

CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate
SOURCE: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2006-2017
PREPARED: February 2006

The FAA projects that hours flown will increase at a compound annual growth rate of
3.15 percent over their 12-year projection period. Compared to the projected average
annual growth rate of the general aviation active fleet, approximately 1.37 percent, the
projected increase in hours flown represents anticipated increases in aircraft utilization.
Hours flown by general aviation aircraft are estimated to reach approximately 41 million
by 2017, compared to 28 million in 2005. Part of this activity increase is expected from
the introduction of VLJs, the first of which is planned for certification in late 2006. These
jets will likely see high rates of utilization as air taxis and by fractional ownership
companies.
Summary of FAA Forecasts
The cyclical nature of general aviation activity is illustrated in the historic data presented
in this analysis. While general aviation activity experienced rebounded growth during
the mid and late-1990s, the terrorist attacks of 2001 and the economic downturn
dampened activity over the last several years. FAA projections of general aviation
activity, including active pilots, active aircraft, and hours flown, all show varied growth
through the FAA’s forecast horizon of 2017. Following stalled growth and some declines
during 2001 and 2002, most components of general aviation activity are projected to
rebound and surpass previous activity levels. An important national trend that has the
potential to impact general aviation activity at Chandler Municipal Airport is the growing
proportion of small and business jet aircraft in the active general aviation fleet. The
ability of Chandler Municipal Airport to accommodate increased activity by general
aviation jet aircraft will be an important consideration in the Master Plan.
Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-14

Another important consideration in the forecasting of aviation demand is the recent
dramatic increase in the cost of aviation fuel. The FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal
Years 2006-2017 indicates that fuel prices are forecast to rise by 21.3 percent in 2005,
decline by 9.6 percent in 2006 and then increase at an average annual rate of 0.9
percent over the remainder of the forecast period. In real terms, oil prices are expected
to decline at a 1.0 percent annual rate over the forecast period of 2006 – 2017.
Currently the record high fuel costs appear to have had little effect on the level of
activity at the Chandler Municipal Airport. However continued fuel price increases could
significantly reduce future levels of aviation activity particularly that of general aviation
both nationally and at Chandler Municipal Airport.
PROJECTIONS OF AVIATION DEMAND
Projections of aviation demand at Chandler Municipal Airport for the forecast period are
presented in the following sections:
•
•

Based Aircraft Projections
Aircraft Operations Projections

Various methodologies were examined and used to develop projections of based
aircraft and aircraft operations at Chandler Municipal Airport. The results of these
different methodologies are compared and a preferred projection of each is selected.
Based Aircraft Projections
Based aircraft are those aircraft that are permanently stored at an airport. Estimating the
number and types of aircraft expected to be based at Chandler Municipal Airport over
the forecast period impacts the planning for future Airport facility and infrastructure
requirements. As the number of aircraft based at an airport increases, so too does the
aircraft storage required at the facility. Based aircraft at the Airport were projected using
several different methodologies. Each methodology is summarized and the results
presented in following sections. These results are then compared and a preferred based
aircraft projection is selected. Additionally the types of aircraft that will be based at the
Airport are also included in this forecast. The preferred based aircraft projection for
Chandler Municipal Airport will be carried forward in the master planning process for
use in the demand/capacity analysis in which the adequacy of existing airfield facilities
is evaluated to determine if capacity enhancing projects may be required to
accommodate the projected number and types of based aircraft at the Airport.
Projections of based aircraft at Chandler Municipal Airport are discussed in the following
sections:

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-15

•
•
•
•
•

FAA Projected Growth Rate Methodology
Regression Methodology
Trendline Methodology
Comparison of Based Aircraft Projections
Projected Fleet Mix

The result of each projection methodology is compared and a preferred projection
methodology is selected. Following the selection of the preferred based aircraft
projection for the Airport, the based aircraft fleet mix at the Airport is also identified.
FAA Projected Growth Rate Methodology
This based aircraft projection methodology projects based aircraft at Chandler Municipal
Airport by assuming that the growth of based aircraft at Chandler Municipal Airport will
be equal to the rate forecast in the FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2006-2017
for active general aviation aircraft.
The results of this methodology are summarized in Table 2.9.
Table 2.9
BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTION
FAA PROJECTED GROWTH IN ACTIVE GA AIRCRAFT METHODOLOGY
Historic

Year
2005

Active GA Aircraft CAGR
2005-2017
Projected

Total Based Aircraft
457
1.37%

2010
2015
2020
2025

489
524
560
600

CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate
SOURCE: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, FY 2006-2017 Airport Records and Wilbur
Smith Associates
PREPARED: March 2006

This methodology projects total based aircraft at Chandler Municipal Airport to grow at
an average annual rate of 1.37 percent increasing from 457 in 2005 to 600 in 2025.
Regression Methodology
This methodology uses a mathematical formula to identify a relationship between the
number of based aircraft at Chandler Municipal Airport and the population of the City of
Chandler. In regression analysis, the value being forecast, the dependent variable is
related to an independent or explanatory variable, in this case population. The
relationship is estimated using historic data for the independent and dependent
variables. The correlation between the variables used in a regression analysis is
Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-16

measured by the R2 value called the coefficient of determination. An R2 value of 0
indicates there is no relationship between changes in the independent and dependent
variables. R2 values near 1.0 indicate a very strong relationship between the variables.
The R2 value derived in this analysis using historic based aircraft and population values
is approximately 0.94 indicating a very close relationship between the two historical
values. The results of this methodology are presented in Table 2.10.
Table 2.10
BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTION
REGRESSION METHODOLOGY
Historic

Projected

Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

Chandler
Population
161,097
171,047
176,581
190,019
201,262
211,984
224,644
236,601

Total Based
Aircraft
354
350
392
388
411
433
445
457

2010
2015
2020
2025

274,978
282,680
285,048
286,293

512
522
526
527

SOURCE: City of Chandler Long Range Planning Division (April 2005), Airport
Records and Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: March 2006

This methodology projects total based aircraft at Chandler Municipal Airport to grow at
an average annual rate of 0.72 percent increasing from 457 in 2005 to 527 in 2025. This
relatively low growth rate is a result of two periods of decline in the number of based
aircraft at the Airport, which occurred during years when the total population of the City
of Chandler continued to grow. This projection method assumes that during the
forecast period the overall number of based aircraft will increase similar to growth in
population.
It is important to note that a regression analysis evaluating the correlation of based
aircraft to employment was also reviewed. This correlation was not as good, with the R2
value of approximately 0.86, indicating less of a correlation than population.
Trendline Methodology
This methodology assumes based aircraft will continue to follow similar patterns of past
change either in growth or decline. Based aircraft at Chandler Municipal Airport grew at
an average annual rate of approximately 4.53 percent between 1990 and 2005, but only
at 3.12 percent from 2000 to 2005. Based on the more recent trend, the average
annual growth rate of 3.12 percent was applied to the 2005 base year number to derive
Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-17

projected based aircraft for the Airport. Using this trendline methodology, total based
aircraft at Chandler Municipal Airport are projected to reach 845 by 2025. Table 2.11
presents detailed results of this methodology.
Table 2.11
BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTION
TRENDLINE METHODOLOGY
Historic

Historic Based Aircraft CAGR
2000 – 2005
Projected

Year

Total Based
Aircraft

1990

235

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

392
388
411
433
445
457
3.12%

2010

533

2015
2020
2025

621
725
845

CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate
SOURCE: Airport Records and Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: February 2006

Due to the strong growth in based aircraft that occurred in the past at Chandler
Municipal Airport, this methodology projects that the total number of based aircraft will
almost double over the forecast period.
Comparison of Based Aircraft Projections
Table 2.12 shows the three based aircraft projection methodology results and compares
them to the FAA’s TAF projections for Chandler Municipal Airport and the 2005
Maricopa Association of Governments’ Regional Aviation System Plan (RASP) Update.
Average annual growth rates of the based aircraft projections from the Master Plan
ranged from 0.72 percent to 3.12 percent. The FAA TAF forecasts based aircraft at
Chandler Municipal Airport to grow at an average annual rate of 2.44 percent between
2005 and 2025. Population and employment for Chandler and the surrounding area are
projected to experience continued robust growth. This coupled with forecast national
trends of increased utilization of general aviation aircraft for business purposes point to
continued strong growth in the number of aircraft based at Chandler Municipal Airport.
To develop the preferred based aircraft projection, the FAA’s TAF growth rate of 2.44
percent was applied to the actual 2005 based aircraft. This approach yields a 20-year
projection of 740 based aircraft. These results are consistent with historical growth
Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-18

patterns at the Airport, growth projected as part of a regional analysis, and the FAA’s
projected rate of growth for Chandler Municipal Airport.
Table 2.12
COMPARISON OF BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS

Historic
Projected

CAGR

Year
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025

FAA
Projected
Growth Rate
Methodology
457

Regression
Methodology
457

Trendline
Methodology
457

FAA TAF
Forecast1
308

489
524
560
600
1.37%

512
522
526
527
0.72%

533
621
725
845
3.12%

349
392
444
499
2.44%

MAG
RASP2
392

1998
Master
Plan
Forecast3
330

Preferred
Projection
457

539
629
718
807
2.93%

370
410
450
480
1.89%

515
581
656
740
2.44%

CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate
SOURCE: Airport Records, Wilbur Smith Associates, FAA TAF, Maricopa Association of Governments
PREPARED: March 2006
1
The FAA’s TAF issued February 2006 uses a 2005 based aircraft figure of 308.
2
The MAG RASP base year was 2000 when the Airport had 392 aircraft; the MAG RASP projected 450 based aircraft in 2005.
3
The 1998 Master Plan update forecast base year was 1996 when the Airport had 254 based aircraft; the forecast projected
450 based aircraft in 2020.

The results of these based aircraft projection methodologies are depicted in Exhibit 2.2.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-19

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-20

Projected Fleet Mix
To develop a projection of the Airport’s based aircraft fleet mix, the preferred based
aircraft forecast for Chandler Municipal Airport was allocated to five aircraft categories –
single-engine, multi-engine, jet, helicopter, and other. The fleet mix projections were
developed based on the fleet mix percentages exhibited at the Airport in 2005 and the
FAA Aerospace Forecast FY 2006-2017 projection of active general aviation aircraft.
The 2005 based aircraft fleet mix at Chandler Municipal Airport is summarized below:
•
•
•
•
•

Single-engine aircraft – 89.1 percent of total based aircraft
Multi-engine aircraft – 7.2 percent of total based aircraft
Jet aircraft – 0.2 percent of total based aircraft
Helicopters – 3.5 percent of total based aircraft
Other – 0 percent of total based aircraft

The projected general aviation fleet mix from the FAA Aerospace Forecast FY 20062017 is presented in Table 2.13. The projection indicates that single-engine and multiengine piston aircraft will make up a smaller percentage of the overall fleet declining by
8.14 percent and 1.15 percent, respectively. Jet aircraft are expected to comprise a
larger portion of the general aviation fleet increasing from 4.02 percent to 6.83 percent
of the overall active general aviation fleet.
Table 2.13
PROJECTED CHANGE IN U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION FLEET MIX
Aircraft
Type
Singleengine
Piston

2005

2017
Projection

2005
Percent of
Total

2017
Percent of
Total

2005 - 2017
Percent
Change

144,530

149,670

67.35%

59.21%

-8.14%

17,481

17,690

8.15%

7.00%

-1.15%

Turboprop

8,030

10,430

3.74%

4.13%

0.38%

Jet

8,628

17,270

4.02%

6.83%

2.81%

Rotorcraft

7,595

12,685

3.54%

5.02%

1.48%

Experimental

22,300

25,730

10.39%

10.18%

-0.21%

Sport Aircraft

N/A

13,625

N/A

5.39%

N/A

6,027
214,591

5,675
252,775

2.81%

2.25%

-0.56%

Multi-engine
Piston

Other
Total

SOURCE: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2006-2017 and Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: February 2006

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-21

Based on the FAA projections presented above, projected regional aviation trends, and
recent changes at the Chandler Municipal Airport, small business jet aircraft are
expected to make up a larger percentage of the total based aircraft. With the
introduction of VLJs and the many large corporations based in the Chandler area, this
trend is expected to increase the number of based small business jets at the Airport.
The preferred based aircraft fleet mix projections are presented in Table 2.14.
Table 2.14
PREFERED BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX PROJECTION

Historic
Projected

Year
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025

2005 – 2025 CAGR

Total
Based
Aircraft
457
515
581
656
740

Singleengine
407
453
506
565
630

2.44%

2.21%

Multiengine

Jet
33
37
42
47
53

1
3
6
10
15

Helicopter
16
18
20
23
26

2.44%

14.50%

2.44%

1

Other

0
4
7
11
16
N/A

CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate
SOURCE: Airport Records and Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: March 2006
1
Includes aircraft in the Sport Aviation Category

Aircraft Operations Projections
Many different factors impact the number of aircraft operations at an airport, including
but not limited to, total based aircraft, area demographics, activity and policies at
neighboring airports, and national aviation trends. These factors are considered in the
following methodologies used to develop projections of future aircraft operations at
Chandler Municipal Airport.
Projections of future operations at Chandler Municipal Airport are discussed in the
following sections:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Operations Per Based Aircraft Methodology
Market Share Methodology
Population Growth Methodology
Comparison of Aircraft Operations Projections
Preferred Aircraft Operations Projection
Projected Local/Itinerant Split
Projected Fleet Mix

The result of each projection methodology is compared and a preferred projection
methodology is selected. Following the selection of the preferred operations projection
for the Airport, the local/itinerant split at the Airport is also identified. Due to the low level
of military activity at the Airport (typically less than 100, and more recently a five-year
average of 50, military operations have not been separated for this analysis. The
preferred aircraft operations projection for Chandler Municipal Airport will be used to
Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-22

conduct a demand/capacity analysis in which the adequacy of existing airfield facilities
will be evaluated to determine if capacity enhancing projects may be required to support
future levels of aircraft operations at the Airport.
Operations Per Based Aircraft Methodology
The operations per based aircraft (OPBA) methodology is recognized by the FAA as an
accepted means for relating the total number of aircraft operations to a known variable,
in this case, based aircraft. OPBA is calculated by dividing the number of total general
aviation operations that occur at an airport by the number of aircraft based at the airport.
Total operations at Chandler Municipal Airport are projected by applying the Airport’s
OPBA ratio to the preferred projection of based aircraft. The OBPA ratio for this analysis
was determined by averaging the historic OPBA ratios from 1998 through 2005. The
details of this calculation are presented in Table 2.15. The results of this projection
methodology are presented in Table 2.16.
Table 2.15
AVERAGE OPBA
Based
Aircraft

Year

Aircraft
Operations

OPBA

1998

354

196,511

555

1999

350

221,018

631

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

392
388
411
433
445
457

249,811
232,449
230,538
219,671
233,079
235,111

637
599
561
507
524
514

Average Operation Per Based Aircraft

566

SOURCE: FAA Air Traffic Activity System, February 2006 Airport Records and
Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: March 2006

Table 2.16
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS PROJECTION
OPBA METHODOLOGY
Year
Historic
Projected

Based Aircraft

2005
2010
2015
2020
2025

457
515
581
656
740

OPBA

Aircraft Operations1

500
485
470
460

235,111
257,500
281,800
308,300
340,400

SOURCE: Airport Records and Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: March 2006
1
All aircraft operations forecasts have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

With a declining OPBA over the 1998 through 2005 period, a similar decline was
projected to occur as the rate of based aircraft increases at the Airport. The Airport’s
OPBA was projected to decline at half of the rate that has been experienced over the
Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-23

period due to the FAA’s projection of a significant increase in the number of hours flown.
The OPBAs were multiplied by the preferred based aircraft projection to obtain the
projection of aircraft operations. Using this methodology, aircraft operations grow at an
average annual rate of 1.87 percent increasing from 235,111 in 2005 to 340,400 in
2025.
Market Share of FAA Hours Flown Methodology
This aircraft operations projection methodology was based on the FAA’s forecast of
active general aviation and air taxi hours flown. The FAA Aerospace Forecasts, FY
2006-2017 estimates general aviation hours flown will grow at an average annual rate of
3.15 percent between 2005 and 2017. To identify general aviation hours flown through
2025, the 2017 value forecast by the FAA was grown at an annual rate of 3.15 percent.
It was assumed that Chandler Municipal Airport would maintain its ratio of operations to
the number of hours flown nationally by general aviation and air taxi aircraft. In 2005,
that ratio was approximately 0.83 percent. The average ratio between 2000 and 2005
was 0.84 percent. Operations at Chandler Municipal Airport are projected by
maintaining the average ratio of national hours flown and operations at Chandler
Municipal Airport throughout the forecast period. Detailed results of this methodology
are shown in Table 2.17.
Table 2.17
PROJECTED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
MARKET SHARE OF FAA HOURS FLOWN METHODOLOGY

Historic

Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

FAA Active
General
Aviation and
Air Taxi Hours
Flown
30,219,000
27,016,000
27,039,000
27,483,000
27,255,000
28,293,000

Chandler
Municipal
Airport
Operations
249,811
232,449
230,538
219,671
233,079
235,111

Average
Projected

CHD’s Share of
FAA Active
General Aviation
and Air Taxi
Hours Flown
0.83%
0.86%
0.85%
0.80%
0.86%
0.83%
0.84%

2010
2015
2020

33,315,000
38,977,000
45,057,000

279,800
327,400
378,500

0.84%
0.84%
0.84%

2025

52,614,000

442,000

0.84%

SOURCE: FAA Air Traffic Activity System, February 2006, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, FY 2006-2017
and Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: March 2006

This methodology projects total operations at Chandler Municipal Airport to grow at a
compound average annual rate of 3.21 percent increasing from 235,111 in 2005 to
442,000 in 2025.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-24

Population Growth Methodology
This methodology assumes that operations at Chandler Municipal Airport will grow at
the same rate projected for the population of the City of Chandler. An aircraft operations
projection was developed for Chandler Municipal Airport based on long range
population projections prepared by City of Chandler Long Range Planning Division. This
projection indicates the population of the City of Chandler will grow at an average
annual rate of 1.29 percent from 2004 through 2025. The results of the population
methodology are summarized in Table 2.18.
Table 2.18
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS PROJECTION
POPULATION GROWTH METHODOLOGY
Year
2005

Total Aircraft Operations
235,111

Projected Population Growth Rate
2004-2025

1.29%

Historic

Projected

2010
2015
2020
2025

250,700
267,200
284,900
303,800

SOURCE: City and Chandler Long Range Planning Division April 2005,
FAA Air Traffic Activity System, February 2006 and Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: March 2006

The results of this methodology indicate that as the population of the City of Chandler
grows during the forecast period, total aircraft operations at Chandler Municipal Airport
will increase at the same rate reaching a total of 303,800 operations in 2025,
representing a CAGR of 1.29 percent.
Comparison of Aircraft Operations Projections
Table 2.19 presents the results of the different aircraft operations projection scenarios
examined in this analysis, as well as summarizes and compares with forecasts for
Chandler Municipal Airport from the FAA TAF and the MAG Regional Aviation System
Plan (RASP) Update.
The compound average annual growth rates from the
methodologies ranges from 1.29 percent based on the City of Chandler’s projected
population growth to 3.21 percent based on the FAA’s projection of hours flown.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-25

Table 2.19
COMPARISON OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS PROJECTIONS

Historic
Projected

Year
2005

2010
2015
2020
2025
CAGR 2005-2025

OPBA
235,111

Share of
FAA
Hours
Flown
Forecast
235,111

Population
Growth
235,111

FAA TAF
227,150

MAG
RASP
249,811

257,500
281,800
308,300
340,400
1.87%

279,800
327,400
378,500
442,000
3.21%

250,700
267,200
284,900
303,800
1.29%

263,183
302,364
342,026
387,126
2.70%

343,700
400,600
457,600
514,400
2.93%

1998
Master
Plan
Forecast
205,000
250,000
275,000
300,000
325,000
2.33%

Preferred
Projection
235,111
268,600
306,900
350,600
400,600
2.70%

CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate
SOURCE: Airport Records, FAA Air Traffic Activity System, February 2006 and Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: March 2006

The results of these aircraft operations projections are depicted in Exhibit 2.3.
Similar to the projections developed by the FAA in the TAF for based aircraft, the FAA’s
projections for aircraft operations were not developed based on up-to-date aircraft
operations information as provided by the air traffic control tower. The FAA TAF forecasts
aircraft operations at Chandler Municipal Airport to grow at an average annual rate of 2.70
percent between 2005 and 2025. As previously noted, the area surrounding Chandler is
projected to experience continued robust growth. This coupled with forecast national trends
of increased utilization of general aviation aircraft for business purposes point to continued
strong growth in aircraft operations at Chandler Municipal Airport.
To develop the preferred operations projection, the FAA’s TAF growth rate of 2.44
percent was applied to the actual 2005 annual operations. This approach yields a 20year projection of 400,600 annual operations. These results are consistent with
historical growth patterns at the Airport, growth projected as part of a regional analysis,
and the FAA’s projected rate of growth for Chandler Municipal Airport.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-26

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-27

Projected Local/Itinerant Split
An important consideration when examining historic and projected Airport operations is
whether they are local or itinerant. Local operations are those operations conducted by
aircraft remaining in the Airport’s traffic pattern. It should be noted that almost all local
operations are training-related, whether it is primary flight training or proficiency training
that is occurring. Itinerant operations are those conducted by aircraft coming from
outside the traffic pattern. Changes in the local/itinerant operations split at an airport are
an indicator of changes in the nature of activity occurring at the facility. Table 2.20
shows the percentage split between itinerant and local traffic at Chandler Municipal
Airport from 1996 to 2005, as well as the overall average for all years.
Table 2.20
HISTORIC LOCAL AND ITINERANT OPERATIONS
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Average

Itinerant
Operations
60,981
68,496
68,379
72,950
77,509
66,932
69,142
66,729
64,197
65,606
53,383

Local
Operations
95,231
115,643
128,132
148,068
172,302
165,517
161,396
152,942
168,882
169,505
159,716

Total
Operations
156,212
184,139
196,511
221,018
249,811
232,449
230,538
219,671
233,079
235,111
213,098

Itinerant
Percent
39.04%
37.20%
34.80%
33.01%
31.03%
28.79%
29.99%
30.38%
27.54%
27.90%
31.97%

Local
Percent
60.96%
62.80%
65.20%
66.99%
68.97%
71.21%
70.01%
69.62%
72.46%
72.10%
68.03%

SOURCE: FAA Air Traffic Activity System, February 2006
PREPARED: March 2006

Since 1996 the percentage of local flights has fluctuated from a high of 72.46 percent to
a low of 60.96 percent, and overall has grown significantly each year, reflecting an
increase in flight training and proficiency flights at the Airport. Local operations have
increased from 60.96 percent in 1996 to 72.10 percent in 2005.
For the projection of itinerant and local traffic, it was assumed that the current ratio
recorded for 2005 would continue throughout the planning period. This was based on
the fact that the average is relatively close to the current split between local and
itinerant operations, and that training a proficiency flights are forecast to remain a large
component of the overall operations at the Chandler Municipal Airport. The results of
these projections are shown in Table 2.21.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-28

Table 2.21
LOCAL AND ITINERANT OPERATION PROJECTIONS
Historic
Projected

Year
2005

Itinerant
Operations
65,606

Local
Operations
169,505

Total
Operations
235,111

Itinerant
Percent
27.90%

Local
Percent
72.10%

2010
2015
2020
2025

74,939
85,625
97,817
111,767

193,661
221,275
252,783
288,833

268,600
306,900
350,600
400,600

27.90%
27.90%
27.90%
27.90%

72.10%
72.10%
72.10%
72.10%

SOURCE: FAA Air Traffic Activity System, February 2006 and Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: February 2006

CRITICAL AIRCRAFT
The development of airport facilities is impacted by both the demand for those facilities,
typically represented by total based aircraft and operations at an airport, as well as the
type of aircraft that are expected make use of those facilities. In general, airport
infrastructure components are designed to accommodate the most demanding aircraft,
referred to as the critical aircraft, which will utilize the infrastructure on a regular basis.
The factors used to determine an airport’s critical aircraft are the approach speed and
wing span of the most demanding class of aircraft that is anticipated to perform at least
500 annual operations at the airport during the planning period.
The FAA groups aircraft into Aircraft Categories and Airplane Design Groups based on
their approach speed and wingspan, respectively. The criteria for these categories are
presented in Table 2.22.
Table 2.22
AIRCRAFT CATEGORIES AND DESIGN GROUPS
Aircraft
Category
A

Approach Speed
< 91 knots

Example
Cessna 172

B

91 to < 121 knots

King Air 200

C
D
E
Airplane
Design Group

121 to < 141 knots
141 to < 166 knots
166 knots or more

B737
B767
SR-71

Wingspan

Example
Cessna 172
King Air 200
B737
B767
B747
A380

I
II
III
IV
V
VI

< 49 feet
49 to < 79 feet
79 to < 118 feet
118 to < 171 feet
171 to < 197 feet
197 to < 262 feet

SOURCE: FAA
PREPARED: March 2006

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-29

Specific aircraft within these aircraft categories and airplane design groups are depicted
in Exhibit 2.4.
After identifying an airport’s critical aircraft, it is then possible to determine the facility’s
Airport Reference Code (ARC). The ARC is a coding system that relates airport design
criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the airplanes that are intended
to operate at an airport. An airport’s ARC is a composite designation based on the
Aircraft Category and Airplane Design Group of that airport’s critical aircraft.
For Chandler Municipal Airport, the most recent airport layout plan (ALP) completed in
May 2000 lists the existing critical aircraft to be the Beech King Air. The most
demanding aircraft in this series is the King Air 350, which has an approach speed of
109 knots and a wing span of 57.9 feet. These measurements produce an ARC of B-II.
Based on available operating data at the Airport and through discussions with Airport
operators and personnel, larger aircraft are operating at the Airport on a more frequent
basis, especially during the winter season. These aircraft include Learjets (24, 25A, and
45), Gulfstream IVs, and Canadair CL-600s. These aircraft have approach speeds that
equate to the C and D category and airplane design groups II and III. It is highly likely
that as business in and around Chandler continue to grow that the Airport will
experience more operations from larger and faster aircraft. The critical aircraft selected
for purposes of the Master Plan for Chandler Municipal Airport is the Cessna Citation X,
which falls in the C-II category. It should be noted, however, that larger aircraft such as
the Gulfstream IV (ARC D-II) could utilize the Airport on a regular basis, defined by the
FAA as 500 annual operations. Analysis of the facility differences between C-II and D-II
will be conducted in a subsequent chapter.
PEAKING ANALYSIS
Another primary consideration for facility planning at airports relates to the peak hour,
also referred to as design level, activity. This operational characteristic is important to
understand because some facilities should be sized to accommodate the peaks in
activity, for example, the aircraft apron or terminal areas. Standard airport planning
practices use the peak hour of the average day of the peak month (ADPM) as the peak
level to plan for instead of the absolute peak level that occurs throughout the entire
year.
Historical operations data available from the FAA Air Traffic Activity Systems (ATADS)
database was used to identify the peak month of activity at Chandler Municipal Airport.
Based on monthly data for federal fiscal years 1996 to 2005, the peak month averages
9.7 percent of the annual operations. The actual month with the peak has included both
March and May, both of which have 31 days in them. Therefore, to determine the
average or design day of the peak month (ADPM) the peak month value was divided by
31. In addition to average day, a busy day calculation was conducted. The busy day
occurs during a typical week in the peak month. Through discussions with air traffic

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-30

control tower staff and review of daily operations during typical months, it was
determined that the busy day typically represented approximately 33 percent higher
operations than the average day. This rate of increase for the busy day was assumed
to continue throughout the planning period. The peak or design hour was assumed to
equal 15 percent of the ADPM based upon observation and consultant experience at
airports with similar activity levels and roles. Table 2.23 presents the results of this
peaking analysis.
Table 2.23
PEAK ACTIVITY FORECAST
Historic
Projected

Year
2005

Annual
Operations
235,111

Peak
Month
20,730

Average
Day
669

Busy
Day
891

Peak
Hour
100

2010
2015
2020
2025

268,600
306,900
350,600
400,600

26,054
29,769
34,008
38,858

840
960
1,097
1,253

1,120
1,280
1,460
1,660

126
144
165
188

SOURCE: 1995 – 2005 FAA Air Traffic Activity System and Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: March 2006

INSTRUMENT APPROACH FORECASTS
Forecasts of annual instrument approaches are used by the FAA in evaluating an
airport’s requirements for navigational aid facilities. The FAA defines an instrument
approach as an approach to an airport with the intent to land by an aircraft in
accordance with an instrument flight rule (IFR) flight plan, when visibility is less than
three miles and/or when the ceiling is at or below the minimum initial approach altitude.
Historical data on instrument approaches at Chandler Municipal Airport were gathered
from the FAA ATADS database from 1996 through 2005 (calendar year). Table 2.24
presents this historical data as well as the projection of annual instrument operations
through 2025. To project future annual instrument operations, the ratio of instrument
operations to total operations was considered. Since 1996, this ratio has increased
from 0.25 percent to 0.75 percent, a compound annual growth rate of 4.41 percent. To
project future instrument operations, a similar increase was anticipated over the 20-year
planning period, increasing the percentage of total operations that are instrument
approaches from 0.75 percent in 2005 to 1.00 percent in 2025.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-31

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-32

Table 2.24
INSTRUMENT OPERATIONS FORECAST

Historical

Projected

Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025

Instrument
Operations
386
622
926
1,117
1,430
1,842
1,467
1,222
1,595
1,774
2,149
2,609
3,155
4,006

Total
Operations
156,212
184,139
196,511
221,018
249,811
232,449
230,538
219,671
233,079
235,111
268,600
306,900
350,600
400,600

Instrument
Ops
Percentage
0.25%
0.34%
0.47%
0.51%
0.57%
0.79%
0.64%
0.56%
0.68%
0.75%
0.80%
0.85%
0.90%
1.00%

SOURCE: 1996 – 2005 FAA Air Traffic Activity System and Wilbur Smith
Associates
PREPARED: March 2006

SUMMARY
Based on the data presented in this chapter, it is anticipated that the Chandler Municipal
Airport will experience continued strong growth in activity indicators throughout the 20year planning period. Market area demographic trends indicate that the Airport is likely
to meet or exceed projected growth in general aviation nationally. Based aircraft are
expected to increase from approximately 457 aircraft to 740 aircraft by 2025. The
Airport will also see a substantial increase in aircraft operations. By the end of the
planning period, more than 400,600 operations could be expected. It is important to
note that this is an unconstrained projection. Following sections of the Master Plan will
explore the facility implications of accommodating the projected demand. Table 2.25
summarizes the preferred forecasts selected in this chapter.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-33

Table 2.25
SUMMARY OF PROJECTIONS
Year

Based
Aircraft

Itinerant
Operations

Local
Operations

Total
Operations

Historic

2005

457

65,606

169,505

235,111

Instrument
Approaches
1,774

Projected

2010
2015
2020
2025

515
581
656
740

74,939
85,625
97,817
111,767

193,661
221,275
252,783
288,833

268,600
306,900
350,600
400,600

2,149
2,609
3,155
4,006

SOURCE: FAA Air Traffic Activity System, February 2006, Airport records, and Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: March 2006

The next chapters will focus on existing capacity and future demands that may impact
the operations of the Airport and facilities that will be required to meet the demands of
the future.

Chapter Two: Projections of Aviation Demand
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

2-34

CHAPTER THREE: CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND FACILITY
REQUIREMENTS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter assesses the capacity of various airport components at Chandler Municipal
Airport and compares them with the forecast demand presented in the previous chapter.
Further analysis identifies the facilities needed to meet the forecasted demand.
Consideration is given to the identified critical aircraft, the projected fleet mix, and usage
of the Airport presented in the previous chapter. These factors along with the Airport’s
anticipated role will determine design criteria for the Airport and the associated facilities.
Within the FAA’s airport master planning process, facility requirements are determined
by:
•
•
•
•

Comparing forecasted demand against existing capacity
Identifying which elements of demand are not being met
Determining what facilities are needed to accommodate the forecast demand
Complying with FAA safety and design standards

This chapter builds upon the previous forecast chapter and analyzes each component
of Chandler Municipal Airport’s airside and landside facilities to determine the adequacy
over the 20-year planning period. The analysis will identify what new facilities may be
needed and when they may be needed to accommodate the projected demand.
In addition, the FAA provides guidance for the planning and design of airport facilities
through Advisory Circulars (ACs) that promote airport safety, economy, efficiency, and
longevity. Many of the facility requirements identified for Chandler Municipal Airport
incorporate FAA planning and design standards presented in AC 150/5300-13, Airport
Design, Change 9.
AIRFIELD CAPACITY
The generally accepted method of determining an airport’s capacity is provided in FAA
AC 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay. The following key terms are relative to the
discussion of capacity:
•
•
•

Demand – the magnitude of aircraft operations to be accommodated in a
specified period of time, provided by the forecasts
Capacity – a measure of the maximum number of aircraft operations that can be
accommodated on an airport in one hour
Annual Service Volume – or ASV, a reasonable estimate of the airport’s annual
capacity

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-1

•

Delay – the difference between the actual time it takes an aircraft to operate on
the airfield and the time it would take the aircraft if it were operating without
interference from other aircraft, usually expressed in minutes

The methodology used in this Master Plan focuses on annual service volume (ASV),
which is commonly used by the FAA as a quantifiable measure of operating capacity as
well as hourly capacity. The calculation of ASV and comparison to projected demand is
an important tool in the short and long-range planning processes at the Airport.
Factors Affecting Airfield Capacity
Airfield capacity is defined as the number of aircraft operations that an airfield
configuration can process or accommodate during a specified interval of time when
there is a continuous demand for service (i.e., an aircraft is always waiting to depart or
land). Factors affecting the capacity of the existing airfield include the runway
configuration, weather conditions, and the operational aircraft fleet mix. The extent to
which flight training activities occur at the Airport is also a consideration. These factors
were used to develop visual flight rule (VFR) and instrument flight rule (IFR) hourly
capacities at Chandler Municipal Airport.
Airfield Layout. The primary factor for determining the operational capacity of an
airport is the layout and geometry of the airfield’s runways and taxiways. Chandler
Municipal has two runways located in a parallel configuration. Primary Runway 4R/22L
is 4,870 feet long by 75 feet wide, while parallel Runway 4L/22R is 4,401 feet long by 75
feet wide. The runways are separated by 700 feet from runway centerline to runway
centerline. Both runways have a strength weighting of 30,000 pounds single-gear
wheel loading (SWL). Each runway at the Airport is served by a full-length parallel
taxiway. The taxiway serving runway 4L/22R has seven exits, while the taxiway serving
runway 4R/22L has five exits.
Meteorological Conditions. Weather conditions affect runway utilization, orientation,
and aircraft separation requirements. The climate in the Phoenix metropolitan area
provides for VFR conditions over 98 percent of the time, while IFR conditions exist
approximately 2 percent of the time. The distinction between VFR and IFR is important
because, assuming all other factors are equal, fewer aircraft operations can occur
during IFR conditions because aircraft operating within that environment require
additional separation from one another.
Runway Use. The percentage of time that each runway configuration is used must also
be factored into the capacity analysis. Discussions with air traffic control tower (ATCT)
staff indicates that Runway 4R/22L is used primarily for training operations in order to
keep traffic patterns on the south side of the Airport. Runway 4L/22R is used more
frequently for transient activity. Approximately 60 percent of the total operations at the
Airport are conducted on Runway 4R/22L. The direction of takeoffs and landings is
equally split between Runways 4 and 22 based on wind conditions and ATCT.

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-2

Percent of Touch-and-Gos. A touch-and-go operation typically refers to training
activity and occurs when an aircraft makes a landing and an immediate take-off without
coming to a full stop or exiting the runway. Airports with a high percentage of touchand-go activity typically have a higher operational capacity. It is estimated that 60
percent of the total annual operations at Chandler Municipal are considered touch-andgos.
Airspace Limitations. The Chandler Municipal Airport is located in relatively close
proximity to several other airports and is located under a “shelf” of the Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Class B airspace, and adjacent to the Williams Gateway Class D
airspace. Currently airspace limitations create minimal delays to aircraft arriving and
departing Chandler Municipal. However, as aircraft activity continues to grow at the
Airport and at other airports in the Phoenix region, the proximity to other airports in the
region has the potential to cause delay at Chandler Municipal depending on weather
conditions and activity levels at surrounding airports.
Runway Instrumentation. The Airport has three non-precision instrument approach
procedures. The GPS, VOR, and NDB approaches allow access to the Airport during
certain IFR weather conditions.
Aircraft Mix Index. The aircraft mix index is a mathematical expression used to
categorize the mix of aircraft with different performance characteristics that are
projected to use the Airport. Classes A and B aircraft consist of small and medium-sized
propeller aircraft and some jets, all weighing 12,500 pounds or less. Class C aircraft
are those weighing between 12,500 pounds and 300,000 pounds and include business
jets as well as corporate class aircraft. Most corporate class aircraft which fall into
Class C weigh less than 60,000 pounds. Chandler Municipal currently has an aircraft
mix consisting of A, B, and C aircraft, but no Class D aircraft which are those over
300,000 pounds. The mix index for Chandler Municipal is currently estimated to be 10
percent, growing to 14 percent at the end of the forecast period. The mix index is based
on existing fleet usage and the forecast projection of the Airport being utilized by more
corporate class aircraft in future years. This index range is used as a reference for
determining ASV.
Percent Arrivals. Typically, the lower the percentage of arrivals, the higher the hourly
capacity of the airport. The aircraft arrival-departure split at general aviation airports is
generally 50-50, as is estimated at Chandler Municipal Airport.
Peak Hour Capacity Analysis
The first step in the capacity analysis is the calculation of the hourly runway capacity.
Peak hour airfield capacity is defined as the maximum number of aircraft operations that
can be processed at an airport in an hour. This capacity level varies under VFR and
IFR conditions, reflecting the fact that local prevailing wind and weather conditions
fluctuate over the course of the year. As previously noted, there are several factors

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-3

known to influence airport capacity. The VFR and IFR hourly capacities for Chandler
Municipal Airport were based upon the following assumptions:
1. Runway-use Configuration. The appropriate runway use configuration was
taken from Figure 2-1 in the Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and
Delay.
2. Percent Arrivals. Arrivals equal departures.
3. Percent of Touch-and-Go’s. Approximately 60 percent of the total operations
are considered to be touch-and-go. This is above the highest range of 50
percent provided in Table 2-1 of the Advisory Circular.
4. Taxiways. Each runway at the Airport is served by a full-length parallel taxiway.
The taxiway serving runway 4L/22R has seven exits, while the taxiway serving
Runway 4R/22L has five. Utilizing the methodology outlined in AC 150/5060-5,
Runway ends 4R, 22L, and 22R have exit factors of two, while Runway end 4L
has an exit factor of three.
5. Airspace Limitations. The Chandler Municipal Airport is located in relative
close proximity to several other airports and is located under a “shelf” of the
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Class B airspace, and adjacent to the Williams
Gateway Class D airspace. Currently airspace limitations create minimal delays
to aircraft arriving and departing Chandler. However, as aircraft activity continues
to grow at Chandler Municipal Airport and at other airports in the Phoenix region
the proximity to other airports in the region has to potential to cause delay at
Chandler Municipal depending on weather conditions and activity levels at
surrounding airports.
6. Runway Instrumentation. The Airport has three non-precision instrument
approach procedures. The GPS, VOR, and NDB approaches allow access to the
airport during inclement weather conditions.
7. Mix Index. The mix index for Chandler Municipal is currently estimated to be 10
percent, growing to 14 percent at the end of the forecast period. The mix index is
based on existing fleet usage and the forecast projection of the airport being
utilized by more corporate class aircraft in future years.
Using the factors discussed above and the FAA’s AC, the Airport’s hourly capacity was
calculated. Under optimum conditions, Chandler Municipal Airport currently has a VFR
weighted hourly capacity of 225 operations, and a current IFR weighted hourly capacity
of 63 operations. The future weighted hourly capacity declines to 211 operations per
hour at the end of the forecast period. This decline is a result of the increased number
of operations by more corporate class aircraft that are forecast to use the Airport.
Based on annual forecast figures presented in the previous chapter, the Airport will
likely experience a peak hour of 100 to 188 operations throughout the forecast period.
Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-4

Annual Service Volume
Once the weighted hourly capacity is calculated, the annual service volume (ASV) can
be determined. ASV is determined using the following equation:
ASV = C x D x H
The C equals the weighted hourly capacity, the D equals the average daily demand,
and the H equals the average peak hour demand.
By applying methodologies found in the AC 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay,
Chandler Municipal Airport currently has an annual service volume of approximately
527,000 operations. Overall capacity is reduced based on the fact that the percentage
of touch-and-go operations is relatively high in relation to other airports and the fact that
the Airport does have some airspace constraints. However, the capacity of the Airport
is enhanced by the presence of an air traffic control tower.
The forecast for annual operations is expected to increase from 235,111 (2005) to
400,600 (2025) operations by the end of the forecast period. Using this comparison, the
demand is projected to approach the Airport’s annual capacity as shown in Table 3.1.
As demand at the Airport begins to near the capacity, the delay experienced by aircraft
arriving and departing Chandler Municipal Airport is also projected to increase. Table
3.2 presents the low and high range of average delay for each aircraft, and the overall
total annual delay for all aircraft.
Table 3.1
AVIATION DEMAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Year
2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

235,111

268,600

306,900

350,600

400,600

Average Day Peak Month (ADPM)
Peak Hour Operations

669
100

840
126

960
144

1,097
165

1,253
188

Daily Demand Ratio (D)
Hourly Demand Ratio (H)
Weighted Hourly Capacity (C)

352
6.67
225

320
6.67
222

320
6.67
218

320
6.67
215

320
6.67
211

527,000

474,000

465,000

457,000

449,000

45%

57%

66%

77%

89%

Element/Activity
Forecast Annual Demand

Annual Service Volume (ASV)
Annual Demand of ASV (%)
SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: June 2006

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-5

Table 3.2
AIRFIELD DELAY ANALYSIS

Year

Average Delay Per
Aircraft
(in minutes)
Low
High

Total Annual Delay
(in minutes)
Low

High

2005

0.10

0.3

23,511

70,533

2010

0.20

0.7

53,720

188,020

2015

0.25

0.8

76,725

245,520

2020

0.35

1.3

122,710

455,780

2025

0.60

2.0

240,360

801,200

SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: June 2006

As indicated Table 3.1, Chandler Municipal Airport is currently operating at 45 percent
of its annual capacity, but is anticipated to increase to 89 percent of capacity by 2025.
Generally, it is not desirable for an airport’s operations to exceed 60 percent of its
airfield capacity without planning for capacity enhancements or implementing demand
management strategies. In doing so, when airport activity reaches 80 percent of
capacity, new airfield facilities may be constructed or demand management strategies
would be put in place to control or reduce delay. Chandler Municipal Airport is
anticipated to reach the 60 percent level between 2010 and 2015 and to exceed 80
percent between 2020 and 2025. Alternatives for increasing the Airport’s capacity to
meet the forecasted demand will be identified in the following chapter.
AIRSIDE REQUIREMENTS
Airside facilities generally include those that support the transition of aircraft from flight
to ground or the movement of aircraft from parking or storage areas to departure and
flight. These facilities consist of runways, taxiways, airfield marking and lighting, and
navigational aids (NAVAIDs). In order to select the appropriate FAA design standards
for the development of the airside facilities, the characteristics of the critical aircraft
expected to utilize the Airport are considered.
Runway Orientation
Chandler Municipal Airport is equipped with two parallel runways positioned in a
northeast – southwest direction to align the runways with the prevailing local wind
direction. The orientation of the runway to the prevailing wind direction is critical to the
safe operation of aircraft, especially small single-engine aircraft which are more
susceptible to crosswinds. Crosswinds are winds which tend to be perpendicular to the
runway or path of an aircraft while landing or taking off. Historical wind data was
unavailable for Chandler Municipal Airport. For the purposes of this analysis, historical
wind data was obtained for nearby Williams Gateway Airport for the period of 1983
through 1992. The FAA recommends 95 percent wind coverage for various crosswind
components based on specific ARCs. The 95 percent wind coverage is computed on

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-6

the basis of the crosswind not exceeding 10.5 knots for ARC A-I and B-I, 13.5 knots for
ARC A-II and B-II, 16 knots for ARC A-III, B-III, and C-I through D-III, and 20 knots for
ARC A-IV through D-VI as detailed in AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design.
The present ARC classification for Chandler Municipal Airport is B-II. Using the above
referenced criteria, wind coverage would be computed for a 13.5 knot crosswind
component. Although the wind coverage criteria recommends coverage based on the
ARC of the runway, the runway has also been evaluated for a more conservative 10.5
knot crosswind. This is warranted due to the large number of smaller single-engine
piston and twin-engine piston aircraft that utilize the Airport on a regular basis that are
more susceptible to crosswinds. In addition, with the recommendation that the Airport’s
ARC be increased to C-II, the 16 knot coverage was also examined. Table 3.3
presents the wind coverage for Chandler Municipal Airport. Exhibit 3.1 depicts the
coverage graphically.
Table 3.3
WIND COVERAGE
Runway

Percent Coverage
10.5 Knots
13.5 Knots
16 Knots
(12 MPH)
(15 MPH)
(18 MPH)

All Weather Conditions
Runways
4L/22R
4R/22L

98.75%

99.44%

99.84%

SOURCE: National Climatic Data Center
PREPARED: June 2006
STATION: Williams Gateway (IWA)
PERIOD: 1983-1992

Based on this analysis, Runways 4L/22R and 4R/22L meet the 95 percent wind
coverage for B-II runways. Therefore, no additional runways are required due to lack of
wind coverage.
Runway Length
Runway length requirements for Chandler Municipal Airport were evaluated in
accordance with FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport
Design. The minimum runway length requirement is based upon several factors
including airport elevation, mean daily maximum temperature, and type aircraft
expected to use the airport on a regular basis. The Airport’s published altitude is 1,243
feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) and the mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest
month is 105.8° Fahrenheit according to meteorological data for the Williams Gateway
Airport weather station. As previously noted, aircraft with an ARC of C-II including
business jets that are currently operating at Chandler Municipal are expected to utilize
the Airport on a regular basis of at least 500 annual operations.

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-7

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-8

Determination of appropriate markets and corresponding stage lengths is an important
step in calculating the required runway length for the Airport. Typical corporate traffic
consists of stage lengths between 500 and 1,000 miles. Characteristic Chandler or
Phoenix metropolitan markets within these stage lengths include San Jose, Denver,
Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland. On a less frequent
basis, aircraft may operate on stage lengths between 1,000 and 1,500 miles.
Representative Chandler markets within these stage lengths include Atlanta, St. Louis,
and Minneapolis.
Using these criteria, runway length requirements were calculated using the FAA’s
runway length computer program and are presented in Table 3.4. While the FAA’s
program does not specifically use ARCs, the FAA does relate certain ARCs to the
aircraft types generated in their report from the runway length computer program. ARC
categories A and B include small airplanes, which according to the results require a
maximum of 4,800 feet to operate at Chandler Municipal. The Airport currently has
sufficient runway length on its primary runway to accommodate all aircraft in the ARC A
and B categories. However, many corporate class aircraft in the ARC C category
require at least 5,300 feet of runway to operate year-round. In order for Chandler
Municipal Airport to accommodate all of the corporate class aircraft on a year-round
basis, a primary runway length of 7,000 feet would be needed. The secondary runway
should be 4,400 feet in length to accommodate 100 percent of small airplanes with less
than 10 passenger seats.
Table 3.4
RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT DESIGN
Airport Elevation ……………………………………………………………………
Mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month ……………………….
Maximum difference in runway centerline elevation ……………………………

1,243 feet
105.8°
7 feet

RUNWAY LENGTHS RECOMMENDED FOR AIRPORT DESIGN
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 ………………………………

3,110 feet
3,700 feet
4,400 feet
4,800 feet

Airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less
75 percent of these airplanes at 60 percent useful load …………….
75 percent of these airplanes at 90 percent useful load ………………….
100 percent of these airplanes at 60 percent useful load.…………..
100 percent of these airplanes at 90 percent useful load ………………..

5,300 feet
8,200 feet
7,000 feet
11,100 feet

Airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds ……………………………………….

6,500 feet

SOURCE: FAA AC 150/5325-4B
PREPARED: June 2006

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-9

Neither of the existing runways currently meets the 7,000-foot long primary runway
requirement to accommodate corporate class aircraft that are already operating at the
Airport, primarily during the winter months.
Runway Width
The width of a runway is determined by the critical aircraft and the type of instrument
approach to the runway. The minimum width for a runway served by a precision
instrument approach is 100 feet. The minimum width recommended by the FAA to
accommodate ARC Category C aircraft is also 100 feet. Both runways at Chandler
Municipal are currently 75 feet wide.1 As identified in the previous chapter, Chandler
Municipal Airport is forecast to experience increased usage by general aviation
business aircraft in the ARC C category. To accommodate these aircraft it is
recommended at a minimum that the width of the primary runway be 100 feet in useable
width.
Runway Strength
There are several factors which influence the strength of pavement required to provide
satisfactory aircraft service. These factors include, but are not limited to aircraft loads,
frequency and concentration of operations, and the condition of subgrade soils.
Runway pavement strength is typically expressed based on common landing gear
configurations. An example aircraft for each type of gear configuration are as follows:
•

Single-wheel – each landing gear unit has a single tire; example aircraft include
light general aviation aircraft and some business jet aircraft.

•

Dual-wheel – each landing gear unit has two tires; example aircraft include the
Cessna Citation X, Learjet 60, CRJ 100/200, and the Dash8.

•

Dual-tandem – each main landing gear unit has four tires arranged in the shape
of a square; example aircraft include the Boeing 707 and the KC135.

•

Double dual-tandem – the main landing gear units have the same configuration
as the dual-tandem configuration, however, there are twice as many main gear
units; Boeing 747 aircraft have a double dual-tandem landing gear configuration.

The aircraft gear type and configuration dictates how aircraft weight is distributed to the
pavement and determines pavement response to loading. The published pavement
strengths of the runways at Chandler Municipal Airport are presented in Table 3.5.

1

While both runways are currently marked for 75 feet in width according to FAA standards, the actual
width of the existing pavement is 100 feet.

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-10

Table 3.5
PAVEMENT STRENGTHS
Runway 4R/22L

Surface / Condition
Pavement Weight Limitations

Asphalt / Good
30,000 lbs. Single Wheel Gear

Runway 4L/22R

Asphalt / Good
30,000 lbs. Single Wheel Gear

SOURCE: www.airnav.com
PREPARED: June 2006

As previously noted, the Airport is expected to be served by more corporate class
aircraft. These aircraft typically require a strengthened pavement, up to 60,000 pounds
dual wheel loading. Should the decision be made to widen one or both runways to 100
feet, it is recommended that the pavement strength be designed to accommodate the
designated critical aircraft including a higher pavement strength.
Taxiways
A taxiway is a defined path established for taxiing aircraft from the runway to a parking
position, or from one part of the airport to another. It is recommended that an airport’s
primary runway be served by a full-length parallel taxiway allowing aircraft to enter or
exit the runway as expeditiously as possible.
At present, Runway 4R/22L and 4L/22R are each served by full length parallel taxiways.
These taxiways are 40 feet wide and meet the FAA’s standards for the taxiway width.
Runway 4R/22L is also served by a partial parallel taxiway. Runway 4L/22R is served
by seven exit taxiways while Runway 4R/22L is served by five exit taxiways.
Navigational Aids (NAVAIDs)
Navigational aids (NAVAIDs) are visual or electronic devices, airborne or on the ground,
that provide point-to-point guidance information or position data to aircraft in flight.
Airport NAVAIDs provide guidance to a specific runway end or to an airport. An airport
is equipped with different capabilities in accordance with design standards that are
based on safety considerations and airport operational needs. The type, mission, and
volume of aeronautical activity used in association with meteorological, airspace, and
capacity considerations determine an airport’s eligibility and need for various NAVAIDs.
Chandler Municipal Airport is currently equipped with non-precision approach
capabilities.
Facility requirements at the Airport include the following two types of NAVAIDs:
instrument approach NAVAIDs and visual NAVAIDs.

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-11

Instrument NAVAIDs
This category of NAVAIDs provides assistance to aircraft performing instrument
approach procedures to an airport. An instrument approach procedure is defined as a
series of predetermined maneuvers for guiding an aircraft under instrument flight
conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing, or to a point from
which a landing may be made visually.
The standard type of precision approach available today is the ILS approach. The FAA,
however, is continuing to expand development of a global navigation satellite system
(GNSS) using the U.S. Department of Defense’s global positioning system (GPS) of
satellites for precision approaches. The GPS satellite-based navigation system is able
to provide instant and precise aircraft position information for every phase of a flight.
Non-precision GPS approaches are currently available at many airports, including
Chandler Municipal. Precision GPS approaches have yet to achieve wide-spread
implementation. To fully implement a precision approach, the following three types of
electronic guidance must be in place:
•
•
•

Azimuth guidance
Altitude guidance
Distance guidance

The Chandler Municipal Airport does not currently have precision instrument approach
capability. The approaches serving the Airport do not provide altitude guidance and are
thus termed non-precision approaches. Runway 4R is served by VOR, GPS, and NDB
approaches. These approaches have visibility minimums of 1 mile or greater.
In the near future, more airports will be able to benefit from a precision approach with
near-ILS descent and visibility minimums. These new instrument approaches are
referred to as Approach Procedures with Vertical Guidance (APV) and are derived from
the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) technology which is a based on GPS
navigation. Lateral Precision with Vertical Guidance (LPV) approaches rely on spacebased satellite signals rather than land-based facilities, precluding terrain interference.
APV/LPV approaches currently provide approach descent minimums to 250 feet above
the runway elevation, with lower descent minimums expected to be published in 2007.
GPS satellite data in concert with a ground-based transmitter can provide the threedimensional guidance for a GPS near-precision approach. As this technology is further
developed and commissioned on a wide-spread basis, Chandler Municipal Airport
should work to augment and/or replace the Airport’s existing approaches utilizing nearprecision GPS technology. This technology could provide the Airport with approach
minimums as low as one-half mile visibility.
In order for an airport to have an instrument approach with visibility minimums of threequarters of a mile or less, a runway approach light system must be installed. For an
approach with visibility minimums of three-quarters of a mile, an omni-directional
Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-12

approach lighting system (ODALS) is required. For an approach with one-half mile
visibility, a medium intensity approach light system with runway alignment indicator
lights (MALSR) is required. As part of this Master Plan, it is recommended that the
Airport should plan for installation of an approach lighting system on Runway 4R. An
approach lighting system would allow the development of a precision GPS approach
that would provide the Airport with lower approach minimums and the ability for pilots to
practice precision instrument approach procedures during instrument training operations
at Chandler Municipal Airport.
Visual Landing Aids
Visual landing aids provide aircraft guidance to and alignment with a specific runway
end, once the airport is within sight. Visual landing aids currently available at Chandler
Municipal Airport include the following:
Runway Lighting. Runways 4R/22L and 4L/22R are each equipped with medium
intensity runway lighting (MIRL). This lighting system will remain adequate throughout
the 20-year planning period, even if lower minimums are obtained at the Airport through
provision of a more precise instrument approach.
Other Runway Lighting and Guidance. Several additional NAVAIDs and visual aids
are available at the Airport to assist in locating and landing aircraft at night and in poor
weather conditions. NAVAIDs include a rotating beacon, lighted wind cone, and an
Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS). These systems should be maintained
during the 20-year planning period as they play a crucial role in the Airport’s operation.
Air Traffic Control Tower. The Airport also is equipped with an Air Traffic Control
Tower (ATCT). The ATCT is located northwest of the runways, near mid-field adjacent
to the terminal building. The height and position of the current tower is considered
sufficient to see all aircraft movement areas. Future airfield development should take
into consideration the position, height and line of sight limitations of the tower so that air
traffic controllers may see an aircraft’s movement while on the ground.
Taxiway Lighting. Medium intensity taxiway lighting (MITL) provides aircraft lighting
during taxiing. MITL are currently provided on the taxiways and will be adequate for the
planning period.
Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs). Runways 4R/22L and 4L/22R each are
equipped with PAPIs. This equipment meets the current FAA criteria and should be
maintained throughout the 20-year planning period.
Runway End Lighting. Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) provides the pilot with a
rapid and positive identification of the runway end location. The Airport currently has
REILs on Runway ends 4R and 22L which are currently out of service. These REILs

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-13

are planned for replacement as part of an existing project at the Airport. REILs should
be provided in the future for Runway ends 4L and 22R as well.
Airport Design Standards
The planning and design of an airport is based on the airport’s role and critical aircraft
that use it. As mentioned in previous chapters, Chandler Municipal Airport is classified
by the FAA as a reliever airport and will remain as such in future years.
As noted in Chapter Two, the development of airport facilities is impacted by the
demand for those facilities, including the type of aircraft that are expected make use of
those facilities and the number of annual operations that are conducted. In general,
airport infrastructure components are designed to accommodate the most demanding
aircraft, referred to as the critical aircraft, which will utilize the infrastructure on a regular
basis. The factors used to determine an airport’s critical aircraft are the approach speed
and wing span of the most demanding class of aircraft that is anticipated to perform at
least 500 annual operations at the airport during the planning period.
Information from AC 150/5300-13, Change 9, Airport Design, was used to determine the
Airport Reference Code (ARC) and corresponding facilities for Chandler Municipal
Airport.
The ARC is a coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the
operational and physical characteristics of the aircraft intended to operate on each
runway.2
As discussed in Chapter Two, it is expected that, in future years, the Cessna Citation X
aircraft will be the critical aircraft serving Chandler Municipal. This aircraft has a C-II
ARC, which will be used to determine many airport design features, including the
runway design criteria for the primary runway, Runway 4R/22L. The ARC for Runway
4L/22R is B-II and uses a different set of design criterion that matches requirements for
smaller aircraft which utilize this runway. The use of different ARC codes related to
different runways is common to general aviation airports with multiple runways that
serve a variety of aircraft types.
Table 3.6 presents a comparison of the existing conditions and the FAA design criteria
for each runway. As shown, increasing the ARC for Runway 4R/22L to C-II from B-II will
require several improvements at the Airport in order to meet the FAA’s design criteria.
The ability of the airfield to incorporate these standards will be evaluated as part of the
alternatives analysis.

2

Please see Chapter Two for detailed information on the ARC.

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-14

Table 3.6
FAA DESIGN CRITERIA
Criteria

Runway 4R /22L (ARC C-II)
Requirements*
Existing

Runway 4L/22R (ARC B-II)
Requirements*
Existing

Runway Width

100 feet

75 feet3

75 feet

75 feet

Runway Centerline to:
- Taxiway Centerline
- A/C Parking Area

400 feet
500 feet

400 feet
500 feet

240 feet
250 feet

240 feet
250 feet

Runway Object Free Area:
- Width

800 feet

R/W 4R: 500 ft
R/W 22L: 500 ft

500 feet

R/W 4L: 500 ft
R/W 22R: 500 ft

- Length Beyond Runway End

1,000 feet

Runway Safety Area:
- Width
- Length Beyond Runway End

500 feet

R/W 4R: 300 ft
R/W 22L: 300 ft
R/W 4R: 150 ft
R/W 22L: 150 ft

300 feet

150 feet

R/W 4L: 300 ft
R/W 22R: 300 ft
R/W 4L: 150 ft
R/W 22R: 150 ft

1,000 feet

R/W 4R: 300 ft
R/W 22L: 300 ft

300 feet

R/W 4L: 300 ft
R/W 22R: 300 ft

Taxiway Width

35 feet

40 feet

35 feet

40 feet

Taxiway Centerline to:
- Fixed or Movable Object

65.5 feet

65.5 feet

65.5 feet

65.5 feet

Taxiway Object Free Area (Width)

131 feet

131 feet

131 feet

131 feet

79 feet

79 feet

79 feet

79 feet

Taxiway Safety Area (Width)
SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: June 2006
*AC 150/5300-13, Change 9
The items in bold letters above are non-standard.

A discussion of the dimensional standards that have not been addressed as well as
other standards is provided below.
Part 77 Obstruction Standards
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 exist to identify objects which may be
hazardous to air navigation. These standards apply to the use of navigable airspace by
aircraft and to existing or planned airports. An obstruction may be an existing or
proposed manmade object, object of natural growth, or terrain. Any changes to the
airfield must provide the obstacle clearance necessary to meet the requirements
designated within FAR Part 77. The critical surfaces are identified in drawings
associated with the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Existing Part 77 surfaces will be
evaluated during the development of the ALP and any penetrations will be noted and
addressed for removal or marking.

3

As noted previously, the existing runway is marked at 75 feet but actually measures 100 feet in width.

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-15

Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)
The OFZ is a three-dimensional volume of airspace that supports the transition of
ground-to-airborne operations (or vice versa). The OFZ clearing standards prohibit
taxiing or parked airplanes and other objects, except frangible NAVAIDs or fixedfunction objects, from penetrating this zone. The OFZ consists of a volume of airspace
centered on the runway. In addition, some precision instrument runways are required to
meet standards regarding inner-approach, inner-transitional and precision OFZs.
The inner-approach OFZ is a defined volume of airspace centered on the approach
area for runways with approach lighting systems. The inner-approach OFZ begins 200
feet from the runway threshold, at the same elevation as the runway threshold, and
extends 200 feet beyond the last unit in the approach lighting system. It is the same
width as the runway OFZ and rises at a slope of 50:1 away from the runway end.
The inner-transitional OFZ is a defined volume of airspace along the sides of the
runway and the inner-approach OFZ. The inner-transitional surface OFZ applies only to
precision runways and slopes out from the edges of the runway OFZ at a 3:1 ratio to a
height of 150 feet above the Airport elevation.
The precision OFZ is defined as a volume of airspace above an area beginning at the
runway threshold, at the threshold elevation, and centered on the extended runway
centerline, 200 feet long by 800 feet wide.
The OFZ for runway 4R/22L is 250 feet wide and extends 200 feet beyond each runway
end. The OFZ for Runway 4L/22R is also 200 feet wide and extends 200 feet beyond
each runway end. Existing facilities at Chandler Municipal Airport comply with all OFZ
design standards.
Runway Protection Zones (RPZ)
The RPZ is an area off the runway end identified to enhance the protection of people
and property on the ground. RPZ size is a function of critical aircraft and the visibility
minimums established for the approach to the runway. Visual runways have smaller
RPZs because the landing minimums are higher and the runway is not used during
periods of reduced visibility. Runways served by instrument approach procedures are
required to be protected by larger runway protection zones. Larger RPZs are required
for runways with instrument approach procedures with low visibility minimums for
landing.
The RPZ contains two sub-areas, the runway object free area (ROFA) and the
controlled activity area. These two sub-areas are discussed as follows:
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA). The ROFA is a two-dimensional ground area
surrounding the runway that prohibits parked aircraft and objects, except NAVAIDs and

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-16

objects with locations fixed by function, from locating there. For Runways 4R/22L and
4L/22R, the ROFA extends 300 feet beyond each runway end and has a width of 500
feet.
Controlled Activity Area. The controlled activity area is the portion of the RPZ beyond
and to the sides of the ROFA. It is recommended that an airport own or control this
area. The controlled activity area should be free of land uses that create glare and
smoke. Also, the construction of residences, fuel-handling facilities, churches, schools,
and offices are not recommended in the RPZs controlled activity area. Roads are
typically not recommended to fall within the RPZ.
Runway 4R is currently served by three non-precision approaches with visibility
minimums not lower than one mile. The existing approaches to Chandler Municipal
provide adequate instrumentation for aircraft to land during most adverse weather
conditions, but do not provide access at all times.
Table 3.7 shows the existing RPZ dimensions for each runway end based on the design
standards according to the type of approach to the runway end.
Table 3.7
EXISTING RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES
Runway
4R
22L
4L
22R

Type of Approach
Non-Precision (1-Mile)
Visual
Visual
Visual

Inner
Width
500’
500’
500’
500’

Outer
Width
700’
700’
700’
700’

Length
1,000’
1,000’
1,000’
1,000’

Approach
Slope
34:1
20:1
20:1
20:1

SOURCE: AC 150 5300-13, Airport Design, Change 9
PREPARED: May 2006

As mentioned previously, RPZ size is a function of critical aircraft and the visibility
minimums established for the approach to the runway. Visual runways have smaller
RPZs because the landing minimums are higher and the runway is not used during
periods of reduced visibility. Precision navigational aids are used to guide aircraft to
runways equipped with advanced instrumentation during periods of reduced visibility;
thus allowing the airport to remain open and increasing its utility. These instrumented
approaches are required to be protected by the larger runway protection zones. In
summary, the greater precision of the approach, the lower the visibility minimums for
landing, the larger the RPZ.
The current RPZs at Chandler Municipal Airport are clear of incompatible uses and
meet standards. A larger RPZ should be planned to accommodate an improved GPS
instrument approach with lower minimums to Runway 4R. The future size of the RPZ for
Runway 4R is dependent on the visibility minimums of the future improved GPS
approach procedure. Exhibit 3.2 on the following page details the required RPZ sizes
for an approach with not lower than ¾-mile visibility and lower than ¾-mile visibility:

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-17

EXHIBIT 3.2
FAA RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES DESIGN STANDARDS

Approach Visibility Minimums
Visual and/or Not Lower than 1-Mile (Existing)
Not Lower than ¾-Mile
Lower than ¾-Mile

A
(Inner Width)
500’
1,000’
1,000’

B
(Outer Width)
700’
1,510’
1,750’

C
(Length)
1,000’
1,700’
2,500’

SOURCE: AC 150 5300-13, Airport Design, Change 9
PREPARED: July 2006

The larger RPZ for Runway 4R will require obtaining additional land or easements,
depending upon which visibility minimums can be accommodated. The alternatives
analysis will examine these issues in greater depth.
Runway Safety Area (RSA)
The RSA serves as a safety area if an aircraft overruns the paved runway surface.
According to the FAA’s definition, the RSA should be cleared and graded and have no
potentially hazardous ruts or surface variations. This area should also be drained
through grading or by storm sewers. General requirements for grading of the RSA are 0
to –3 degree grade for the first 200 feet from the runway end, with the remaining
longitudinal grade ensuring that no part of the RSA penetrate the approach surface or
drop below a –5 degree grade.
For Design Standard B-II runways, like those at Chandler Municipal Airport, the RSA is
required to be 150 feet wide and extend 300 feet beyond the runway end. The RSAs at
Chandler Municipal Airport meet B-II requirements. However, because the Airport is
currently being used on a regular basis by ARC C-II aircraft and the recommended ARC
is C-II, the RSA for Runway 4R/22L should be upgraded in the future to meet standards
for the corporate class aircraft family. For Runway 4R/22L, C-II runway standards
dictate that the RSA is required to be 400 feet wide and extend 1,000 feet beyond the
runway end.

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-18

LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS
Landside facilities are those necessary for handling of aircraft, passengers, and cargo
while on the ground.
These facilities provide the link between the air and ground
transportation activities. Landside facilities examined in the analysis include hangars,
aprons and tie down areas, terminal building, automobile parking, and access
roadways.
Hangars
Hangars are used to store aircraft, provide protection from adverse weather conditions,
and supply additional security. Hangars are also used for temporary storage while an
aircraft is undergoing maintenance and/or repairs. The demand for hangar storage is
generally a function of the number and type of based aircraft on an airport. The vast
majority of hangars at Chandler Municipal Airport are utilized for private aircraft storage,
as opposed to large aircraft maintenance hangers found at other airports. The types of
hangars currently available at the Airport are discussed below.
T-hangar/Shade Structures. The growth in population in and around the City of
Chandler and the overall lack of suitable alternatives for hangar space at other airports
in the Phoenix metropolitan area, as well as the interest of private aircraft owners drive
the need for increased T-hangar/shade structures used to protect single-engine and
light multi-engine aircraft. The forecast for Chandler Municipal Airport shows a growth
from 457 based aircraft to 740 based aircraft within the planning period. Currently the
Airport has over a 10-year hangar waiting list. This list contains over 200 applicants for
shade hangars, T-hangars and tie-downs, with the majority of applicants desiring Thangars.
Conventional Hangars. Most of the hangars used on the airfield are dedicated for
aircraft storage of small single- and multi-engine aircraft, not for aircraft maintenance or
repair. The Airport currently has a limited number of conventional hangars associated
with the fixed base operator (FBO) that have the ability to store corporate class aircraft
not based at the Airport. As more corporate class aircraft utilize Chandler Municipal
Airport, the demand for larger conventional hangars will increase. Therefore, the
demand driving additional conventional hangar needs is dictated by the usage of the
Airport by corporate class aircraft. Operations by corporate class aircraft are projected
to increase significantly over the forecast period. Areas have been designated for
construction of additional conventional hangars on the Airport. It is recommended that
adequate facilities for this segment of the general aviation fleet be developed as these
aircraft and the businesses that use them have the potential to provide a significant
economic boost to the Airport and the community.

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-19

Aprons and Tie-down Areas
Chandler Municipal has a limited amount of apron pavement located along the
northwest side of the airfield in front of the terminal building and FBO maintenance
hangars. This apron is used primarily by aircraft operating to/from these facilities as
well as itinerant aircraft utilizing the Airport. Transient and large aircraft use this apron
as a staging/parking area frequently as well. This area also contains tie-down areas for
both transient and locally based aircraft. Additional apron space will be needed to
support the projected increase in transient operations and locally based aircraft, and the
construction of additional tie-down and hangar facilities.
Total Storage Demand
To determine hangar and other storage requirements, an analysis of the existing
facilities was conducted. It is estimated that approximately 55 percent of the existing
aircraft are currently hangared while the remaining aircraft are tied down on the apron
area.
Weather conditions at Chandler Municipal Airport include strong winds, blowing dust
and extreme heat in the summer. This conditions warrant storage of aircraft most
aircraft in hangars. Extreme summer temperatures can damage aircraft avionics, while
prolonged exposure to the sun and blowing dust can cause damage aircraft paint and
fabric covered surfaces. Fabric covered aircraft a particularly vulnerable to damage from
the sun and strong winds. As previously noted, the existing storage waiting list is
primarily for T-hangars. Since aircraft owners prefer covered storage, it is important to
evaluate the percentages that aircraft would utilize conventional-type and shade tiedown hangars as opposed to individual T-hangars.
The analysis of storage needs is depicted in Table 3.8. It was assumed that
approximately 75 percent of all single-engine, multiengine, rotorcraft and other aircraft
will be hangared and that 100 percent of all based jet aircraft will be hangared. In terms
of T-shade hangars, it is assumed that 10 percent of based single-engine aircraft will be
stored in T-shade hangars. An assumption related to conventional hangars assumes
that 100 percent of based jets will be stored in conventional hangars, as well as 100
percent of rotorcraft and 50 percent of multiengine aircraft.
As noted in Chapter One, the existing storage facilities at the Airport provide storage for
approximately 238 based aircraft. As noted in Table 3.8, the current demand for
storage is 348 based aircraft, indicating a need for 110 additional covered storage
spaces. By the end of the 20-year planning period, in addition to the 110 currently
needed, an additional 219 covered storage spaces will be needed if the projections are
realized and based on the assumptions of storage activity. Of these, the majority is
needed in the form of T-hangars (159 additional units), as well as conventional hangar
spaces (for 42 aircraft). The analysis shows, however, that all forms of storage will
need to be increased over the 20-year planning period to accommodate the projected

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-20

increase in demand at Chandler Municipal Airport. It is important to note that the Airport
continues to develop additional storage facilities as demand warrants and funding
permits.
Table 3.8
AIRCRAFT HANGAR STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
CHD BASED AIRCRAFT BY TYPE
Projected Based Aircraft
Aircraft Type
Single Engine
Multi Engine
Jets
Rotorcraft
1
Other
Total

Current Based
Aircraft
407
33
1
16
0
457
HANGAR DEMAND BY AIRCRAFT TYPE

Aircraft Type
Single Engine
Multi Engine
Jets
Rotorcraft
Other
Total

Current Demand
305
30
1
12
0
348
HANGAR\STORAGE TYPE

2010
453
37
3
18
4
515

2015
506
42
6
20
7
581

2020
565
47
10
23
11
656

2025
630
53
15
26
16
740

Forecast Hangar Demand
2015
2010
2020
340
380
424
33
38
42
3
6
10
14
15
17
3
5
8
393
444
502

2025
473
48
15
20
12
567

Forecast Aircraft Storage Demand
Storage Type
Tie-Downs
T- Shade Hangars
T Hangars
Conventional Hangars
Total Hangars

Current Aircraft
Storage Demand
109
31
290
28
348
SUMMARY OF NEEDS

2010
122
34
322
36
393

2015
137
38
360
45
444

2020
154
42
403
57
502

2025
173
47
449
70
567

Forecast Hangar Area Square

Footage Demand
T - Shade Hangars (s.f.) (900 s.f. per position)
T - Hangars (s.f.) (1,400 s.f. per position)
Conventional Hangars Total (s.f.)
Conventional Hangar A/C Storage
2
Conventional Hangar A/C Maintenance
Total Hangar Area (s.f.)

Current Hangar
Area Square
Footage Demand
27,473
405,405
80,993
36,775
44,218
550,646

2010
30,578
451,395
95,712
45,975
49,737
623,660

2015
34,155
504,630
114,648
58,350
56,298
711,783

2020
38,138
563,535
137,726
73,975
63,751
813,374

2025
42,525
628,740
164,927
92,775
72,152
928,967

SOURCE: Airport Management Records, Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: July 2006
Other includes aircraft in the light sport category

1
2

Assumed to be 10% of the overall airport hangar space

In addition to specific storage spaces, an analysis of square footage was conducted to
determine the size of space that will be needed. The total footprint of storage space will
need to nearly double over the 20-year planning period to meet the needs identified in
the Master Plan.

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-21

Terminal Building
The demand for terminal building space at Chandler Municipal Airport relates to the
need for facilities able to accommodate pilots, students, faculty, and staff at the Airport.
These facilities should include a waiting area/gathering place, business offices,
conference room, classroom, briefing room, lounge with vending machines, restrooms,
etc. While this space is not necessarily limited to a single, separate terminal building, in
the case of Chandler Municipal Airport, with the existing terminal structure in place, the
adequacy of the current building was analyzed.
To determine the needs for general aviation terminal facilities, the number of users
expected to utilize the facilities during the peak hour was examined. A planning
average of 2 persons per aircraft was multiplied by the estimate of the peak hour
itinerant operations. The number of peak hour passengers was multiplied by an
estimate of 90 square feet per peak itinerant passenger to derive the terminal space
demand. Table 3.9 presents the terminal building requirements.
Table 3.9
GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL BUILDING REQUIREMENTS
Current

Peak Hour Operations
Itinerant Peak Hour Operations1
Peak Hour Passengers2

2005
100
30
60

Projected Demand
2010
126
37
75

2015
144
43
86

2020
165
49
98

2025
188
56
112

6,736

7,698

8,821

10,050

Current GA Terminal Space Available (10,000 s.f.)
GA Terminal Space Demand3

5,400

SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: June 2006
1

29.70% of Peak Hour Operations
2 X Itinerant Peak Hour Operations
3
Estimated to be 90 s.f. per peak itinerant passenger
2

The Airport’s current terminal is 5,500 square feet and was constructed in 1996. In
addition to the terminal, the FBOs and other operators provide approximately 4,500
square feet of additional space, for a total of 10,000 square feet of total terminal space
at the Airport. The existing terminal facilities are currently adequate to meet the needs
of its users. However, additional terminal space may be needed, especially in the
Airport’s primary terminal as the FBOs and other operators change their utilization of
existing space provided for this service.
Automobile Parking
Automobile parking is provided for employees, based aircraft owners, and visitors to
Chandler Municipal Airport. Automobile parking is currently provided in various
locations throughout the Airport to serve the demand.
Currently, there are
Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-22

approximately 30 parking spaces that serve the terminal building. The FBO and tenant
structures account for an additional 200 parking spaces. During peak periods, when
classes begin or when large groups utilize the Airport, the supply of parking spaces for
the terminal can become limited.
Typically, planning guidelines indicate that total parking should relate to the number of
peak hour passengers anticipated to use the Airport. Utilizing the peak hour passenger
estimate and 315 square feet per parking space, a total parking demand estimate was
derived (see Table 3.10).
Table 3.10
AUTOMOBILE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Current
1

Peak Hour Passengers

2005
60

Projected Demand
2010

2015

2020

2025

75

86

98

112

General Aviation Parking Spaces2

108

135

154

176

201

General Aviation Parking (s.f.) 3

34,020

42,437

48,499

55,572

63,318

SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: June 2006
1
2 X Itinerant Peak Hour Operations
2
1.8 X Itinerant Peak Hour Operations
3
315 s.f. per parking space

As shown in Table 3.10, demand for parking is expected to nearly double over the 20year planning period. While the Airport currently has more parking spaces than future
20-year demand (230 existing and 20-year demand of 201), individual areas on the
Airport may be undersized to meet future demands. Therefore, additional parking is
recommended as a part of any terminal or other facility expansion. The parking lot
adjacent the Chandler Municipal Airport ATC tower is planned to be used by a future
FBO facility. This will require the construction of a replacement auto parking facility in
the future.
Access Roadways
Chandler Municipal Airport is bordered on the north by Germann Road and on the south
by Queen Creek Road. Access to the terminal area and businesses located along the
northwest side of the Airport is available from both roadways via Airport Boulevard.
Germann Road was recently upgraded to a four-lane roadway and is adequate to
service the future needs of the Airport. Queen Creek Road is currently a two-lane
roadway. The roadway is in the planning stages to be upgraded, most likely to four–
lane, to serve expanding commercial and residential development in the area.
The recently completed Santan or Loop 202 Freeway runs east-west approximately one
mile north of the Airport. This freeway has three lanes in each direction and provides
quick access to and from the Airport via interchanges at McQueen and Cooper Roads.
Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-23

The completion of this facility and the improved access it provides has and is projected
to continue to spur residential and commercial development in the surrounding area.
Because of the new freeway interchange at Cooper Road, Airport Boulevard is
proposed to be realigned to connect with Cooper Road, just north of the Air National
Guard facility. This will provide improved access to the north side of the airport terminal
area. Additionally Stinson Way, south of Germann Road is proposed to be realigned to
provide direct access to the terminal area. New access roads are also proposed for the
new apron and hangar development area on the southeast side of the airport. Access to
these roadways will be from dead-end section of Cooper Road which runs north from
Queen Creek Road.
Fuel Storage
The Airport’s fuel storage facility is located adjacent to the old heliport area. On this
site, the City of Chandler and Chandler Air Service maintain 100 Low Lead (LL) and Jet
A fuel storage tanks. The fuel farm includes a total of four below ground and two above
ground storage tanks. Five of the tanks are designated for the storage of 100 LL and
have a combined capacity of 48,000 gallons. The remaining storage tank is designated
for Jet A storage and has a capacity of 12,000 gallons.
To determine fuel storage requirements at an airport, the existing capacity for a onemonth period is evaluated. Typically, requirements are based on maintaining a onemonth supply of fuel during an average month.
Based on the current operational fleet mix at Chandler Municipal Airport it was assumed
that 90 percent of aircraft operations at the Airport are conducted by aircraft that use
100 LL fuel, with the remaining 10 percent conducted by aircraft using Jet A fuel. Based
on historical fuel sales, a planning figure of 2.0 gallons per operation by aircraft using
100 LL and 5.5 gallons per operation by aircraft using Jet A was identified. The
estimated gallons per operations were then multiplied by the forecast number of peak
month operations to identify peak month fuel storage requirements for 100LL and Jet A
fuels. The requirements are presented in Table 3.11.
This analysis indicates a need for monthly fuel storage for 100 LL of over 41,000
gallons, growing to almost 70,000 gallons by the end of the planning period. Currently,
the capacity is only 48,000 gallons. Monthly fuel storage requirements for Jet A grow
from 12,500 gallons to over 21,000 gallons by the end of the planning period. Currently,
the capacity for Jet A is 12,000 gallons. Based on this analysis, the Airport’s current
fuel storage capacity is adequate to meet current requirements, but may need to be
expanded in the future to meet projected demand.

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-24

Table 3.11
FUEL STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
Current
Demand

Projected Demand

Total annual operations

2005
235,111

2010
268,600

2015
306,900

2020
350,600

2025
400,600

Annual operations by aircraft using 100LL1

211,600

241,740

276,210

315,540

360,540

Annual operations by aircraft using Jet A2

23,511

26,860

30,690

35,060

40,060

Peak month - Aircraft operations using 100LL
Peak month - Aircraft operations using JetA3

20,525
2,281

23,449
2,605

26,792
2,977

30,607
3,401

34,972
3,886

Monthly Fuel Storage Requirements
4
100 LL
5
Jet A

41,050
12,543

46,898
14,330

53,585
16,373

61,215
18,705

69,945
21,372

3

SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: June 2006
1
90% of total aircraft operations
2
10% of total aircraft operations
3
9.7% of annual operations
4
2.0 gallons per operation
5
5.5 gallons per operation

SUMMARY
This chapter identifies facility requirements necessary to serve the projected demand for
aviation services at Chandler Municipal Airport over the 20-year planning period. The
following chapter addresses the options available to meet the airside and landside
facility requirements identified in this chapter.

Chapter Three: Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

3-25

CHAPTER FOUR: DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this chapter is to identify feasible development options that meet the
projected levels of aviation demand as well as maintain a safe aviation environment in
and around Chandler Municipal Airport over the 20-year planning period. In this chapter,
a series of airport development scenarios are identified and considered. The ultimate
goal is to develop the underlying rationale that supports the final Master Plan
recommendations. Through this process, an evaluation of the highest and best uses of
Airport property is made while considering local goals, physical constraints, and
appropriate federal airport design standards, where appropriate.
The number of potential alternatives that can be considered are endless. Therefore,
some judgment must be applied to identify alternatives that have the potential to be
implemented. In order to achieve this objective, the following five sections help
determine a recommended approach to future development at Chandler Municipal
Airport:
•
•
•
•
•

Summary of Airport Requirements
Ability of Existing Facilities to Accommodate Improvements
Identification of Development Alternatives
Evaluation of Alternatives
Conclusions

SUMMARY OF AIRPORT REQUIREMENTS
Chandler Municipal Airport will continue in its role as a Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)-designated general aviation reliever airport, supporting the region’s general and
business aviation activities including flight training, and providing service to light and
corporate class aircraft. The preceding capacity analysis and facility requirements
chapter projected that overall airfield capacity at Chandler Municipal Airport will be
sufficient to accommodate demand throughout the 20-year planning period. However,
the Airport is projected to be increasingly utilized by larger corporate class aircraft.
Based on a continuation of the Airport’s existing role and using industry and FAA
planning standards, the facility requirements analysis identified the following needs for
Chandler Municipal Airport within the 20-year planning period:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Runway extension and widening
Extension of parallel Taxiway B
Installation of Approach Lighting System
Construction of additional hangar facilities
Construction of additional apron
Reconfiguration and construction of additional auto parking
Reconfiguration and construction of north side airport access roadways

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-1

•

Construction of south side airport access roadways

ABILITY OF EXISTING FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE IMPROVEMENTS
This section evaluates the ability of Chandler Municipal Airport to accommodate the
necessary facility improvements identified to meet current and projected demand.
Airfield
Runways
As identified in the preceding chapter, the forecasted demand for future aviation activity
is projected to reach the capacity of the existing runway and taxiway system toward the
end of the forecast period. Additionally, the analysis completed in previous chapters
indicates that Chandler Municipal Airport will be increasingly utilized by larger corporate
class aircraft. The analysis indicated that the current runway size is sufficient for the
smaller aircraft that use the Airport, but falls short of the requirements necessary for
larger aircraft to use the Airport on a year-round basis. As identified in Table 3.4, a
runway length of 7,000 feet would provide service to 100 percent of corporate general
aviation aircraft at 60 percent useful load. The Airport is constrained by Germann Road
to the northeast and Queen Creek Road to the southwest. The alternatives section
below discusses the runway extension options available at Chandler Municipal Airport,
assuming that the roads and surrounding development are fixed constraints and that
this runway length cannot be accommodated. Additionally, because of the location of
taxiways, hangars and apron in relation to Runway 4L-22R, it was determined that
extension of this runway was not practical. Due to the increased usage of the Airport by
corporate class aircraft, it is recommended that the Airport be upgraded to meet ARC CII design standards. If Runway 4L-22R were upgraded to meet these standards, the
taxiway, apron, and the majority of hangars would require relocation. Thus, the runway
extension alternatives evaluate the extension of Runway 4R-22L.
Another option that was investigated to meet the identified runway length requirements
was the use of declared distances. Runways are normally fully usable in both directions.
Furthermore, they normally have clear approaches to each runway end. The use of
declared distances can be effective on runways where providing a conventional
configuration is impractical for cost or other reasons. Declared distances allow portions
of the runway to be counted for certain aircraft operational requirements, typically takeoff but not included for others, typically landing. The use of declared distances is
effective because the majority of aircraft, particularly larger corporate class aircraft,
require more runway length for take-off operations than landing operations. It was
determined that using declared distances could provide a longer runway for take-off,
however, the FAA strongly discourages the use of declared distances when other
options are available. Typically, declared distances are used to address operational
limitations in cases where other options are not available. In the case of Chandler
Municipal Airport, it was determined that relocation of the roadways limiting expansion is

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-2

physically possible, but because of current City policy it is not feasible or desirable.
Therefore, the use of declared distances was not utilized in determining runway length
alternatives.
Taxiways
Taxiways are primarily constructed to facilitate aircraft movements to and from the
runway system. The availability of entrance and exit taxiways can affect the overall
airfield efficiency. The current system of full and partial parallel taxiways provides
adequate access to each of the Airport’s parallel runways. However, as activity at the
Airport continues to grow, operation of the Airport in the most efficient manner possible
will become critical in avoiding costly delays to users of the Airport. Construction of
additional taxiways will assist in operating the airfield as efficiently as possible. The
taxiway alternatives allow for two-way taxiing of aircraft on the airfield and in the
terminal apron area. An additional taxiway alternative involves an end-around taxiway
that would enhance the safety and capacity of the airport by allowing unrestricted taxi
around runway 4L-22R.
At the majority of airports with a parallel runway configuration, departing aircraft typically
use the inboard runways while arriving aircraft use the outboard runways. This can
result in delays or risks of runway incursion when outboard runway traffic has to cross
active inboard runways to make its way to the terminal area. To improve efficiency and
provide a safe means of movement around a runway, an end-around taxiway may be
constructed to allow transition around the departure end of a runway. At Chandler
Municipal, the primary benefit of the proposed end-around taxiway would be the
allowance of aircraft arriving on runway 4R to taxi around the northeast end of departure
runway 4L. End-around taxiways must remain outside of the standard runway safety
area, which extends 1,000 feet from the departure end of the runway. Due to these
design considerations, Chandler Municipal’s end-around taxiway can be visualized as
an extension of Taxiway P to the northwest, intersected by an extension of Taxiway A to
the northeast.
In order to avoid potential issues where pilots departing from runway 4L might mistake
an aircraft taxiing on the end-around taxiway for one actually crossing near the
departure end of the runway, a visual screen type device would be required. Through a
partial or complete masking effect, the visual screen will enable pilots to better discern
when an aircraft is crossing the active runway versus operating on the end-around
taxiway. This will eliminate any false perceptions of runway incursions, which could lead
to unnecessary aborted takeoffs.
NAVAIDs
The current instrument approach procedures at Chandler Municipal Airport provide
opportunities for instrument training operations and access during inclement weather
conditions with cloud ceilings as low as 400 feet above ground level and visibility as low

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-3

as one mile. In order for Chandler Municipal to implement a precision approach with
lower weather minimums, an approach lighting system is required. This system would
allow for the installation of a precision instrument approach which would likely be global
positioning system (GPS)-based. This system would provide additional training
opportunities for pilots practicing to fly using instruments, and would also provide
access to the Airport in more inclement weather conditions than are possible today. A
precision approach could also potentially help to eliminate approach and traffic pattern
conflicts with Memorial Airfield and Stellar Airpark.
A significant amount of flexibility exists in the design of new GPS-based precision
approach procedures, which can be created to avoid areas of conflict in the air and on
the ground. Because of the relative lack of inclement weather in the Phoenix area,
access to the Airport would not be significantly improved by installation of a precision
approach, however, improved airspace utilization and additional instrument training
opportunities could provide a significant benefit to the Airport.
Landside
Similar to airfield facilities development, landside development opportunities also look to
existing structures to accommodate improvements.
Hangars
The Airport currently has conventional hangars, t-hangars and shade hangars on the
north side of the airfield to protect aircraft from sun and weather exposure. As identified
in Chapter One, the Airport currently has 238 hangar units. The required development
of hangars would be in addition to the existing facilities currently provided. The use of
the existing hangar units is accounted for in the calculation of required hangar units.
The current number of hangar units does not meet current or projected demand for
hangar storage. Limited developable land exists for additional hangar development on
the north side of the airfield. The southeast side of the airfield has sufficient area
available to accommodate the projected need for additional hangar units, but will require
additional infrastructure to support this development, including apron, taxi lanes, and
access roadways.
Apron
Chandler Municipal Airport has a limited amount of apron pavement located along the
northwest side of the airfield. The Airport’s existing aircraft apron has adequate
pavement to accommodate some additional hangar development, but is insufficient to
meet the current and projected need for transient apron, tie-downs and hangar facilities.
Additional apron space is needed to support increases in transient and locally based
aircraft operations, as well as the construction of additional tie-downs and additional
hangar facilities. The amount of developable land on the north side of the airfield is
insufficient to construct the amount of apron identified to meet projected demand.

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-4

Sufficient developable land exists on the southeast side of the airfield to construct the
necessary apron area to meet projected demand, but needs to be coordinated with
other development in that vicinity.
Auto Parking
Overall, the Airport has sufficient auto parking to meet the projected demand. However,
some individual areas on the Airport have insufficient parking according to future
demand projections. Additionally, some areas on the Airport currently used for auto
parking are planned to be converted to other uses, thus additional auto parking will be
considered along with other facility development alternatives.
Alternatives for developing the airfield and landside facilities mentioned above are
addressed in the next section, Identification of Development Alternatives. These
alternatives make use of existing facilities where they provide benefit, cost savings or
minimize the impacts to other areas. In some instances, however, the ability to use
existing facilities does not present itself or constitute the most logical approach to
development. In these circumstances, a given facility may require the replacement or
removal of an existing facility to make way for new opportunities.
IDENTIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
Each of the airport requirements listed above present several development alternatives.
Because Chandler Municipal Airport, like so many general aviation airports, has
experienced times of strong growth as well as times of decreased activity levels, this
study aims to provide the flexibility to respond to aviation demand beyond the current
expectations. Development alternatives were formulated for each facility requirement
discussed above grouped according to airside and landside segments. Because the
scope, demand and location of the required facilities differ from one another, they can
be developed and evaluated independently. Some required facilities may have more
alternatives than others due to the amount of developable land, realistic placement, and
ability to meet FAA standards. Before specific airside and landside alternatives are
reviewed, a discussion on the “No Action” Alternative and the possible transfer of
aviation services are presented.
No Action Alternative
The no action or do nothing alternative maintains the Airport in its present condition and
provides no improvement of any type to the existing facilities. With this alternative,
Chandler Municipal Airport’s two parallel runways, which are currently 4,401 and 4,870
feet long, and other airside and landside facilities would be retained as they are today.
The Beech King Air turbo-prop aircraft would remain the design aircraft with the
runways designed to meet ARC B-II criteria. This length is sufficient to accommodate
100 percent of all small aircraft. Under almost all conditions this length is adequate for
use by single-engine and twin-engine piston aircraft. While other facilities, such as

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-5

aircraft storage, are able to accommodate today’s users, a no action alternative would
not accommodate future users or expanded aircraft sizes or capabilities. The
overlaying result of this alternative would be its inability to satisfy aircraft performance
demands on a year-round basis in future years.
Considering that the region has experienced strong growth in all socioeconomic
categories over the past several years and the aviation forecast presented earlier in this
document predicts continued growth at Chandler Municipal Airport, enhancements are
essential to keep pace with demand.
Without the facilities identified in the previous
section, regular users of the Airport will be constrained from taking advantage of the
Airport’s air transportation capabilities and the Airport may be unable to attract potential
new users.
The consequences of the no action alternative extend beyond Chandler Municipal
Airport and the Chandler/Gilbert area. Other airports within Maricopa County rely on
Chandler Municipal Airport to help accommodate the demand for general aviation
services in the region, one of the reasons the Airport is designated by the FAA as a
reliever airport. Without facilities designed to meet the needs of aviation in the region,
airports such as Williams Gateway, Falcon Field, and large commercial service airports
like Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport would be at or exceeding capacity due to
the increased level of general aviation activity that would utilize those airports. General
aviation facilities like Chandler Municipal Airport not only provide convenience to
general aviation users in their immediate environs, they also assist in avoiding major
congestion at other general aviation and commercial service airports.
The no action alternative will also adversely affect the economic climate in the Chandler
community. Businesses and industries seeking locations with adequate and convenient
aviation facilities are attracted to airports that maintain and expand their services and
facilities to keep up with the ever-changing and growing demands of general aviation.
Chandler Municipal Airport has much to offer businesses in terms of airside and
landside facilities. Without adequate maintenance and additional and on-going
improvements, existing users and potential businesses for Chandler Municipal Airport
and the City of Chandler could be lost. Because of the impact the no action alternative
may have on the viability of the Airport as well as the opportunities that lay ahead, the
no action alternative is not considered prudent.
Transfer of Aviation Services
The relocation of services to another airport is always a potential alternative. It would be
difficult to duplicate the services and convenience that Chandler Municipal Airport
provides, whether at an existing facility or a new site. There are only two public-use
general aviation airports within 20 miles that could potentially service the needs of
Chandler Municipal Airport users: Falcon Field and Williams Gateway Airport. Falcon
Field in Mesa has nearly 1,000 based aircraft and a lengthy waiting list for other aircraft
owners searching for places to base their aircraft. Its longest runway is 5,100 feet long

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-6

and would require an extension and/or new runway to meet future demand identified for
Chandler Municipal if aircraft and services were transferred from Chandler Municipal
Airport. Due to the number of based aircraft and operations at Chandler Municipal
Airport, and the lack of existing facilities at Falcon Field to meet the existing or longrange demand for based aircraft and operations projected for Chandler Municipal,
shifting services would not be possible without major development costs to Falcon Field.
Williams Gateway Airport is being developed to serve the needs of large commercial jet
aircraft as a reliever to Phoenix Sky Harbor and is not intended to serve as a primary
general aviation facility. Williams Gateway is working closely with the City of Phoenix to
attract additional airlines to serve the growing East Valley’s commercial service needs.
As part of the Maricopa Association of Government’s previous Regional Aviation
System Plan (RASP), development of new airport sites has been recommended to
accommodate the projected increases in demand for general aviation activity
throughout the Phoenix metropolitan region. While new sites have been recommended,
no additional analysis has been undertaken in the region as there are no identified
sponsors for new airports due to the economic and environmental costs of new site
development. The economic and environmental costs of developing a new airport site
are far greater than the cost of developing an existing site. An option exists to
encourage the relocation of some services or activity to another facility, should it
become necessary. For example, training activity can be encouraged to go elsewhere. It
is also possible to encourage the basing of aircraft at other regional airports. There are
limited means available to encourage relocation due to regulations imposed by the FAA
regarding providing the Airport being open to provide service to any and all users.
Providing access to the nation’s air transportation system provides many economic
benefits to the City of Chandler and the surrounding region. Failure to provide the
necessary airport facilities and services diminishes the many social and economic
benefits the Airport provides. Therefore, the master planning process attempts to
provide the Airport with the needed facilities which have been identified in the previous
chapter, at the levels forecasted throughout the 20-year planning period.
Airside Alternative
Runway Alternative – Runway 4R-22L extension to 5,700 feet
Under this scenario, Runway 4R-22L would be extended to 5,700 feet. This would be
accomplished by extending the runway 590 feet to the northeast, and 240 feet to the
southwest and is depicted in Exhibit 4.1. This alternative provides enhanced
accommodation of small to medium-sized corporate class aircraft by providing the
maximum runway length possible within the confines of existing Airport property. Public
roads located beyond each end of the runway limit the amount of runway extension
possible and this alternative assumes that the roads are fixed constraints. In this
alternative, the runway is designed to accommodate ARC C-II aircraft. In order to
accommodate this class of aircraft, the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object
Free Area (ROFA) requirements and required Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) become

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-7

larger than what currently exists. ARC C-II standards require the RSA to be expanded
to 500 feet wide and 1,000 feet beyond the end of each runway end. The ROFA is
required to be 800 feet wide and extends 1,000 feet beyond each runway end. The RPZ
for ARC C-II runways with instrument approach visibility of not less than one mile is 500
feet (inner width) by 1,700 feet (length) by 1,010 (outer width). This alternative
maintains the RSA and the ROFA on existing Airport property, and requires the
purchase or acquisition of easements of approximately 22.3 acres to achieve control of
the expanded RPZ.
The intent of this alternative is to accommodate corporate class aircraft to the greatest
extent possible without realignment of roadways at either runway end, while also
maintaining the future RSA and ROFA on existing Airport property. A shorter runway
extension alternative would accommodate fewer aircraft and the cost differential
associated with this alternative versus other, shorter extensions, is marginal. While this
length would better accommodate small to medium-sized corporate class aircraft, it
would preclude most of these aircraft from operating at their full capacity in terms of
carrying maximum loads of fuel, cargo or passengers during warmer weather. A
pavement strength of 75,000 pounds for dual wheel aircraft would be appropriate for
this length.

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-8

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-9

Taxiways
Runway 4R-22L has a full parallel taxiway on the southeast side of the runway (Taxiway
C), and a partial parallel taxiway on the northwest side of the runway (Taxiway B). The
first taxiway alternative calls for an extension of Taxiway B to the southwest to the
approach end of Runway 4L. This would be accomplished by extending Taxiway B to
the southwest approximately 4,359 feet and to the northeast 600 feet to the proposed
future end of Runway 4R-22L. If Runway 4R-22L is extended, Taxiway C would also be
extended to the new runway ends. The proposed taxiway extensions are depicted on
Exhibit 4.2. This alternative would provide full-length parallel taxiways on each side of
both runways, providing two-way taxi circulation for both runways. Taxiway B could be
used for operations on both runways and could reduce the need for aircraft to make
mid-field runway crossings while transitioning to and from Runway 4R-22L and the north
apron area.
Another alternative calls for an extension of Taxiway B and C to the proposed ends of
Runway 4R-22L. The extension of Taxiway B and C would provide dual parallel
taxiways on Runway 4R-22L and a partial parallel taxiway on Runway 4L-22R which
would supplement the full parallel taxiway on the north side of Runway 4L-22R. This
would allow two-way taxi circulation to Runway 4R-22L and partial two-way access to
the northeast portion of Runway 4L-22R. This alternative is depicted in Exhibit 4.3.

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-10

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-11

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-12

NAVAIDs
An approach light system is required on Runway 4R in order implement a precision
approach procedure (ILS or GPS) and achieve lower instrument approach minima.
Discussed below are options for an approach light system which include a Medium
Intensity Approach Lighting System Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR) as
well as an option that implements a precision approach with no approach lighting
system.
A MALSR allows for precision approach minima as low as 200 feet and ½ mile visibility.
The MALS portion of the system extends 1,400 feet from the runway threshold on the
extended runway centerline, while the Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (RAILS)
portion of the system extends an additional 1,000 feet. Based on the location of the
current runway threshold, installation of a MALSR on Runway 4R would require
approximately 1,000 feet of the system to extend beyond the current Airport property
boundaries and across Queen Creek Road. The location of this approach light system is
depicted in Exhibit 4.4.
A second option is to install a precision approach system with the existing 1-mile
visibility minima in place. While this alternative would not reduce approach visibility
minima, it would not require the installation of an approach lighting system, thus
avoiding any possible encroachment on nearby properties. This system would provide
adequate precision approach instrumentation necessary for pilot training.

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-13

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-14

Apron Expansion
Developable land for apron expansion at Chandler Municipal Airport exists north of the
FBO and terminal area and along the entire southeast side of the airfield.
The first alternative depicted in Exhibit 4.5 calls for apron development on the north
side of the airfield surrounded by the existing and possible future FBO as well as
corporate hangars. Along the southeast side of the airfield, this alternative also shows
apron area located between a future FBO and hangar facilities which would maintain
access to off-airport parcels adjacent to the Airport, allowing a possible “through-thefence” operation. A “through-the-fence” operation allows for aviation development
located off airport property while providing access to the taxiway and runway system as
well as other airport facilities. Business and industrial parks are common “through-thefence” facilities because they provide additional land development opportunities while
maintaining access to the airport. Aeronautical related companies and businesses
having expedited travel and shipping needs find these types of facilities convenient and
more economical than facilities located directly on airport property. Airports also benefit
from this type of arrangement by extending the reach of the airport and improving
revenue streams.
The FAA discourages the development and operation of “through-the-fence” activities.
Chandler Municipal has worked to address the FAA’s concerns related to these
activities including being able to preclude access, charging for access to the facilities,
and limiting the activities in the areas to non-aviation.
The second alternative to apron development depicted in Exhibit 4.6 illustrates the
same development in the north side of the Airport as in the first alternative. On the
southeast side of the Airport, however, the apron area providing access for a “throughthe-fence” operation discussed above in the first alternative would be substituted for
additional t-hangar development.
Since the north and southeast area represented in these alternatives are separate and
exclusive from one another they can be evaluated and implemented independently.
Proposed development on the north side of the Airport can be accompanied by either
development alternative in the southeast side. The evaluation of alternatives discussed
in the next section reviews these areas independently.

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-15

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-16

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-17

Construct Additional Hangars
Construction of future hangars at Chandler Municipal Airport will be comprised of
primarily individual conventional and t-hangar structures. Additional shade hangar
structures could also be developed, however demand for this type of facility is projected
to be minimal. The number and types of hangars developed at the Airport will primarily
be determined by market demand for hangar facilities at the Airport. Hangar developers,
who lease Airport land from the City, will develop facilities that are the most marketable
at the Chandler Municipal Airport. As the Airport gains additional corporate class aircraft
tenants, the demand for larger conventional hangars will be greater. Alternatively, if the
Airport remains in the present configuration, demand for smaller t-hangars will be
greater. Hangar development layouts to accommodate both of these needs are
illustrated in Exhibits 4.5 and 4.6 discussed in the previous section.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Because each facility requirement discussed above can be developed independently,
without impacting other future facility requirements, they can also be evaluated
independently. Each development alternative identified in the preceding section has
been reviewed based on the following criteria:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Safety and efficiency of aviation operations
Ability to accommodate expected general aviation demand
Acceptability to users, ADOT, FAA, and the community at large
Land availability and ownership
Environmental factors
Airspace/obstruction requirements
Consistency with area wide plans
Political, jurisdictional and implementation factors
Economic feasibility
Accessibility

Each alternative impacts the criteria listed above differently and to varying degrees.
The evaluation summarized below demonstrates the critical impacts and issues of each
alternative as they relate to the above criteria.
Runways
As stated earlier, the selection of an appropriate runway length (and hence the Airport’s
classification) depends on the family of aircraft forecast to use the runway on a regular
basis. Since the existing runway is adequate for 100 percent of all small aircraft, the
need for a runway extension is based upon whether future demand by larger aircraft is
likely. It is important to note, however, that corporate class aircraft are already using the
Airport today, but with limited capacity in terms of fuel, cargo and passengers,
especially during the summer months. An estimate of future demand by the corporate
Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-18

segment of general aviation was completed based on existing usage of the Airport by
larger aircraft as well as an analysis of economic activities and national aviation trends.
The City of Chandler has experienced strong economic growth in the past and is
projected to see that growth continue in the future. Nationally, activity from the business
segment of general aviation has recently also experienced strong growth, which is
projected to continue in the future. Given the nature and extent of development
expected in the Chandler area, and the projected growth in corporate general aviation
activity nationally, it is reasonable to assume that a significant increase in demand by
the corporate segment of general aviation will accompany the anticipated arrival of
corporate headquarters, increased employment and population to the City of Chandler
and surrounding areas. Based on these factors, and the activity that is occurring at
other similar airports in the Phoenix region, it very likely that demand for services at
Chandler Municipal Airport by larger general aviation aircraft will remain strong.
With this expected growth comes the need for additional runway length. As discussed
in the preceding chapter, 7,000 feet of runway length is necessary to fully accommodate
aircraft expected to use Chandler Municipal Airport. The runway alternative presented
above proposes an 830-foot extension to Runway 4R-22L resulting in a length 5,700
feet. Although this length is dramatically shorter than the 7,000 feet identified in the
facility requirements, it is the maximum allowable length within the confines of the
Airport property.
As part of the evaluation process, it should be noted that an existing City ordinance No.
2978, § 3, 5-27-99 states that,
To guarantee to the citizens of the City of Chandler the continued quiet
enjoyment in and to the homes, schools, churches and work places, the
Chandler Municipal Airport shall not be permitted to accommodate, in any
fashion, aircraft which requires for landing a runway longer than six thousand
eight hundred (6,800) feet. Extension of the runway shall require voter approved
bonds, which specify that the bond monies are for the purpose of extending the
runway.
While a 5,700-foot long runway is significantly shorter than the 6,800-foot long runway
previously examined and included in the City ordinance, the City of Chandler has
committed to conducting a bond election should a runway extension project be
approved by the City Council. In order to achieve an adequate runway length to
accommodate corporate class activity and have a measurable impact on the ability of
the Airport to serve these types of aircraft, a runway extension is necessary.
The action alternative (extending Runway 4R-22L to 5,700 feet) accommodates a wide
range of aircraft while enhancing the level of operational safety at the Airport. It is
believed that this alternative will garner greater acceptance from Airport users, ADOT
and the FAA because the runway will be able to accommodate the greatest number of

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-19

Airport users possible with an enhanced level of safety. The extension and associated
RSA and ROFA dimensions fall within the Airport property, limiting the impact of the
proposed extension to the immediate Airport environs.
The FAA does not necessarily require the fee simple acquisition of the RPZ area, but
highly recommends that the airport have positive control over development within the
RPZ. It is preferred that the Airport own the property through fee simple acquisition,
however, avigational easements (providing positive control with the RPZ) can be
pursued if fee simple purchase is not possible. It should be noted that avigation
easements can often cost as much as 80 percent of the land value and may not fully
prohibit incompatible land uses from the RPZ. Because the City has defined that the
runway length extension perimeters remain within the Airport boundary, there will be no
impacts to surrounding roadways or property acquisitions as a result of actual runway
pavement additions. The only properties that may be required are those that fall within
the RPZ, in which case fee simple or avigation easements may be necessary.
Aircraft sound emissions are often the most noticeable environmental effect an airport
will produce on the surrounding community. If the sound is sufficiently loud or frequent
in occurrence it may interfere with various activities or otherwise be considered
objectionable. To determine the noise related impacts the runway extension could have
on the environment surrounding Chandler Municipal Airport, noise exposure patterns
were analyzed for projected operational levels over the long range period. Noise
contours developed by the Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 6.2 and accepted by
the FAA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were developed for the
runway extension alternative and compared with current noise contours. Discussions
with the Airport and Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) staff were conducted in developing
aircraft fleet mix using the flight tracking information, runway utilization and hours of
aircraft operation. Also, the forecasts of future aviation activity developed earlier in this
report were used as an input in the noise model.
Noise contours for Chandler Municipal Airport were developed based on operational
activity in the existing year (2005) and the forecast year (2025) with the assumption that
Runway 4R-22L is extended to 5,700 feet.
The INM works by defining a network of grid points at ground level around the site. It
then selects the shortest distance from each grid point to each flight track and computes
the noise exposure generated by each aircraft operation by aircraft type and engine
thrust level, and by time of day/night along each flight track. Corrections are applied for
atmospheric acoustical attenuation, acoustical shielding of the aircraft engines by the
aircraft itself, and aircraft speed variations. The noise exposure levels for each aircraft
are then summed at each grid location to provide a day-night level (DNL), which is the
24-hour average sound level expressed in decibels, including an additional 10-decibel
penalty for night-time operations (those occurring between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7
a.m.). The cumulative noise exposure levels at all grid points are then used to plot noise
exposure contours for selected values (e.g., 65, 70, and 75 DNL).

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-20

The decibel scale from zero to 120 includes most of the range of typical daily sound
levels, and is shown in Table 4.1.
DNL noise levels are indicated by a series of modeled contour lines superimposed on a
diagram of the Airport and surrounding area. These levels are calculated for designated
points on the ground based on the noise impacts of all aircraft operations. Some
operations are far enough away from a location that their effect is minimal, while other
operations may dominate noise exposure levels at that location. For example, a location
just east of the airport may be affected by an aircraft departure to the east but
unaffected by an arrival from the west.
Table 4.1
COMMON SOUND LEVELS
Common Aircraft
Sound Level

Decibels
110
100
90
80
70
60
50

B-747 takeoff at 2 miles
DC-10 takeoff at 2 miles
B-727 takeoff at 2 miles
Learjet 25 takeoff at 2 miles

Piper Twin Comanche takeoff at 2
miles

Common Daily
Sound Level
Rock Band
Gas Lawn Mower at 3 feet
Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Shouting at 3 feet
Normal Speech at 3 feet
Large business office
Dishwasher in next room

SOURCE: Federal Aviation Administration
PREPARED: October 2006

The following is a summary of the 2005 and 2025 operational data used in the noise
modeling analysis.
Aircraft Operations – The annual operations for 2005 were 235,111, approximately
644 operations per day, and the annual operations for the forecast year are estimated to
be 400,600, approximately 1,098 operations per day.
Runway Utilization – The runway utilization at Chandler Municipal Airport is influenced
primarily by prevailing wind conditions and secondarily by aircraft departure or arrival
into the terminal airspace. Airport management and air traffic controllers provided
estimates of runway utilization, as shown in Table 4.2. These utilizations rates are not
expected to change throughout the forecast period. Chandler Municipal Airport also
operates a single helipad located to the east of the runways. The location of this facility
is also considered in this analysis.

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-21

Table 4.2
RUNWAY UTILIZATIONS
Runway End
Runway 4L

Day
24.6%

Night
0.4%

Runway 4R

24.6%

0.4%

Runway 22L

24.6%

0.4%

Runway 22R

24.6%

0.4%

SOURCE: Chandler Municipal Airport officials
PREPARED: October 2006

Approach and Departure Profiles – Approach and departure profiles illustrate an
aircraft’s altitude along its flight path. INM’s vast database includes information
regarding standard approach and departure profiles for the aircraft in this analysis.
Flight Tracks – Flight tracks project an aircraft’s flight path as if shown on the surface.
Due to meteorological conditions, aircraft type, stage length, air traffic control
instructions, and pilot judgment, flight tracks are unique to each operation. Generalized
flight tracks were developed for Chandler Municipal Airport based on operations and
fleet mix data, as well as discussions with airport management and air traffic controllers.
These flight tracks took into account local traffic patterns, instrument approach
procedures, and noise abatement procedures used by both fixed-wing and helicopter
aircraft.
Noise Exposure Impacts – FAA Order 5050.4B requires that the 65, 70, and 75 DNL
noise contours be developed for existing and future airport conditions. According to FAA
criteria noise levels greater than 65 DNL are generally considered unacceptable for
noise-sensitive land uses, such as residences, hospitals, and schools. However the City
of Chandler has opted to use the 55 DNL noise contour as the limiting point were noise
sensitive land uses are considered to be unacceptable. The existing and forecast year
55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 DNL noise contours modeled for this analysis are displayed on
Exhibit 4.7 and 4.8, respectively, on the following pages.

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-22

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-23

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-24

Throughout the forecast period, the 75 DNL area encompasses approximately 57 acres;
the 70 DNL area covers approximately 165 acres; and, the 65 DNL covers
approximately 349 acres. Relocating the helipad from the western edge of the airport
helps to keep more of the noise contours within the airport property line, but a small
amount of noise does fall outside the boundary. Based on this analysis the proposed
extension of Runway 4R-22L will not result in significant noise impacts to the
surrounding community.
Considering the review of evaluation criteria highlighted above, it is recommended that
the Airport proceed with extending Runway 4R-22L to 5,700 feet. While this ultimate
runway length is short of the FAA-identified runway length requirement in the facility
requirements section, this alternative provides the greatest runway length within the
Airport property boundary and the physical limitations of development around the
Airport. This alternative maintains safe aircraft operational areas, accommodates the
greatest number of corporate class aircraft expected to use the Airport and has minimal
impact to the surrounding community.
Taxiways
There were two alternatives presented earlier that address taxiway circulation around
the Airport. The first alternative called for an extension of Taxiway B to the southwest to
the approach end of Runway 4L, extension of Taxiway B to the northeast to the ultimate
end of Runway 22L and the extension of Taxiway C to the new extended ends of
Runway 4R-22L. The second alternative called for an extension of Taxiway B only to
the proposed ends of Runway 4R-22L and an extension to Taxiway C to the new
extended ends of Runway 4R-22L.
The only evaluation criteria where these two alternatives differ is in the efficiency of
aircraft movement and cost associated with each alternative. Both alternatives
recognize the value and importance of extending Taxiway B to the ends of runways 4R
and 22L. With hangar development proposed on the southeast side of the Airport, a
growing number of aircraft will utilize Taxiway C within the forecast period. The
southeast side of the Airport will accommodate over 300 various hangar types, an FBO
and potential “through-the-fence” operation such as an aviation industrial park. With
this type of potential development, aircraft on the southeast side of the Airport will
benefit from direct access to the ends of Runway 4R-22L through the extension of
Taxiway C. The cost associated with extending Taxiway C is worth the benefit a
significant number of aircraft will receive from the efficient, safe and standardized
taxiway configuration this alternative provides. Additionally, the full extension of taxiway
B will provide two-way taxiway circulation to both runways. Therefore, the first
alternative of extending both Taxiway B and C to the ends of each runway is
recommended.

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-25

NAVAIDs
In the previous section two alternatives for implementation of a precision approach were
discussed. One included the installation of a MALSR which would allow for a precision
approach with minima as low as ½ mile and 200 feet. The other alternative discussed
was the installation of a precision approach without an approach lighting system.
The advantages of installing a MALSR include the ability to provide an instrument
approach with lower minima while providing an additional level of safety by making the
Airport and runway threshold easier for pilots to identify during night time operations in
all weather conditions. Disadvantages include the need to acquire additional property to
accommodate the last 1,000 feet of the approach light system and potential issues with
light emissions disturbing the surrounding community.
The alternative of not installing an approach light system would maintain the Airport’s
approach minima at 1 mile and 400 feet. The advantages of this option include
elimination of the need to acquire additional property for the approach light system and
reduced light emissions on the surrounding community. Disadvantages include higher
approach minima and potentially a lower margin of safety due to the runway
environment being more difficult to identify during night operations.
Because of the relative lack of instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) in the
Phoenix area, the primary benefits of a precision approach at Chandler Municipal
Airport would be the enhancement of instrument training opportunities at Chandler
Municipal Airport and the ability to help to eliminate approach and traffic pattern conflicts
with Memorial Airfield and Stellar Airpark. Currently, the majority of precision approach
training occurs at Williams Gateway Airport or at Casa Grande Airport. Providing a
precision approach would offer additional instrument training opportunities at Chandler
Municipal Airport. Because the precision approach would primarily be used for training
purposes, the cost of installing an approach lighting system is greater than the benefit of
slightly lower approach minima the system would provide.
Based on the most recent draft of new Part 77 guidance, the precision approach with
the expected aircraft types at Chandler Municipal Airport would call for a 34:1 approach
slope, not a 50:1 as previously required. Using existing survey and obstruction data as
a guide, the 34:1 approach slope would not be obstructed. Additional development
planned to take place off the end of Runway 4R should undergo an obstruction
evaluation prior to design or construction to avoid the approach surface.
Apron Expansion
There is one apron expansion alternative for the north side of the Airport and two for the
southeast side of the Airport. The northern expansion alternative can be implemented
with either southeastern alternative which can be compared to each other in order to
provide an overall apron expansion recommendation.

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-26

On the north side of the Airport, the proposed apron expansion alternative avoids the
relocation of existing facilities. The resulting apron configuration encircles the FBO,
terminal building and other facilities located on the north side of the airfield. The apron
would be developed to accommodate additional corporate hangars and a second FBO
in the area. This alternative provides an area of apron space with room for additional
tie-downs and improves the layout and efficiency of the northern Airport area. Based on
the factors stated above, it is recommended that the Airport develop the expanded
apron area in the north side of the Airport to accommodate growth of based aircraft and
expanded Airport services.
The southeast side of the Airport has two development alternatives that can be
evaluated. The only difference between these two alternatives is that the first provides
enough undeveloped area to allow construction of a taxilane to access off-airport
properties in the event the Airport wishes to pursue and allow “through-the-fence”
opportunities. The second alternative proposes to develop t-hangars along the entire
south side of the airport boundary, which could limit access to private land adjacent to
the Airport. Considering that the Airport has ample opportunities for hangar
development throughout the southeast side of the property and the possible benefits
that the “through-the-fence” may bring, it is recommended that the first alternative for
apron expansion on the southeast side of the Airport be pursued. Additionally, a large
apron stretching along the southeast side of the Airport between Taxiway C and the
proposed hangars (see next section – Additional Hangars) is recommended to provide
adequate access to all landside facilities proposed on the southeast side of the Airport.
Additional Hangars
Although there are a considerable number of additional hangar facilities recommended
as part of this Master Plan, there are no alternatives related to proposed hangar
development at Chandler Municipal Airport. Instead, hangar developers who lease land
from the Airport will develop hangars based on market conditions and the needs of
Airport users. This Master Plan illustrates recommended hangar development to make
the most use out of existing facilities and take advantage of available Airport land while
considering the increase of based aircraft types identified in the forecast chapter of this
report. Similar hangar facility types are developed in clusters in order to maximize land
development opportunities and co-locate categories of airport users with one another.
As shown on the apron expansion alternative Exhibits 4.5 and 4.6, t-hangars and shade
hangars are proposed along the southeast side of the Airport along with smaller
conventional hangars. Since there is such a strong demand for these types of facilities,
this section of the Airport, with its large amount of available land with convenient access
to the airfield, is ideal for a large-scale small hangar complex. Consistent with the
existing Airport layout, larger conventional hangars and corporate facilities are proposed
for the north side of the Airport.

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-27

SUMMARY
The recommended landside development alternatives are presented in Exhibit 4.9 and
recommended airside development alternatives are presented in Exhibit 4.10. The
process utilized in assessing the airside and landside development alternatives involved
a detailed analysis of short and long term requirements as well as future growth
potential. Current and future airport and aircraft design standards were considered at
every stage of development. Safety both in the air and on the ground was given a high
priority in the development and analysis of alternatives. Important considerations of
local political influences and surrounding community interests were also applied to the
development and analysis of alternatives.
After review and input from the Planning Advisory Committee, City officials, public and
other Airport stakeholders, an Airport development plan concept will be developed. The
resultant plan will represent airside and landside facilities that fulfill safety design
standards while addressing future demands to the greatest extent possible. The
development plan for Chandler Municipal Airport must represent a means by which the
Airport can evolve in a balanced manner with the rest of the community and
accommodate the forecasted demand. In addition, the plan must provide for flexibility to
meet activity growth beyond the long range planning horizon.

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-28

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-29

Chapter Four: Development Alternatives
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

4-30

CHAPTER FIVE: ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION
The primary goal of any airport master plan is to map out a long-term development
program for an airport through the identification of projects that are technically,
financially and environmentally viable.
With regards to potential environmental
considerations, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 1501.2 states that,
“Agencies shall integrate the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process with
other planning at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect
environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to head off potential
conflicts.” Additionally, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5050.4B, Airport
Environmental Handbook, notes the following:
NEPA requires each Federal agency to disclose to the interested public a clear,
accurate description of potential environmental impacts that proposed Federal
actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions would cause. . . . . In
approving the Federal actions necessary to support an airport development
proposal, the approving FAA official must consider environmental effects as fully
and as fairly as it does technical, economic, and other non-environmental
considerations.
As such, identifying the potential environmental impacts that could result from the
implementation of an airport development program has become an integral part of the
master planning process.
This Environmental Overview chapter has been prepared to identify the potential
environmental impacts associated with the proposed airside and landside development
projects for Chandler Municipal Airport, as described in Chapter 4, Development
Alternatives. Additionally, this overview will discuss, where appropriate, the potential
mitigation measures that could be considered to help minimize these impacts, as well
as identifying those impacts that may require further analysis beyond this master plan.
The proposed Airport development projects for Chandler that have the most potential to
result in environmental impacts generally include the following:
Airfield
•

Extension of Taxiway B to Taxiway H

•

Extension of Runway 4R-22L

•

Extension of Taxiways B and C to the future ends of Runway 4R-22L

•

Extension of Taxiway B to Runway 4L

Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-1

Landside
•

Construction of additional hangar structures

•

Expansion of aprons

•

Improvements to airport access roads

This Environmental Overview chapter was developed in accordance with FAA Order
5050.4B, Airport Environmental Handbook, which requires the analysis of 21
environmental impact categories with respect to the proposed development projects.
Those environmental impact categories include the following:
•

Noise

•

Compatible Land Use

•

Social Impacts / Induced Socioeconomic Impacts

•

Air Quality

•

Water Quality

•

Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) Lands (recodified as 49 USC, Subtitle
I, Section 303 (c))

•

Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources

•

Biotic Communities

•

Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna

•

Wetlands

•

Floodplains

•

Coastal Zone Management Program

•

Coastal Barriers

•

Wild and Scenic Rivers

•

Farmlands

•

Energy Supply and Natural Resources

•

Light Emissions

•

Solid Waste Impacts

•

Construction Impacts

•

Potential Cumulative Impacts

•

Environmental Justice

The Airport Environmental Handbook also outlines the types of potential environmental
impacts and the thresholds that determine if a given impact is to be considered
significant. In general, projects fall into one of the following three categories:
Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-2

Categorical Exclusions – Projects that are categorically excluded include those actions
that have been found, under normal circumstances, to have no potential for significant
environmental impact.
Actions Normally Requiring an Environmental Assessment (EA) – Projects that normally
require an Environmental Assessment are actions that have been found to sometimes
have significant environmental impacts.
Actions Normally Requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – If a project is
found to have significant impacts during the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment, the FAA can determine that an Environmental Impact Statement is
required to investigate in greater detail a project’s potential environmental impacts.
It is important to note that this Environmental Overview chapter constitutes neither a
formal Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement. It has been
included to provide a limited degree of analysis for those proposed Airport development
projects that have the potential to be considered “categorically excluded” from further
environmental review. Those projects that are subsequently determined to be not
“categorically excluded” will require additional environmental analyses that will likely be
in the form of an EA or an EIS.
The following sections discuss the preliminary evaluation of the recommended Airport
development projects for each of the environmental impact categories included in the
Airport Environmental Handbook.
NOISE
Noise is generally defined as “unwanted sound,” which is a definition that encompasses
both its psychological and physical natures. While the physical nature of sound is
measurable and quantifiable, its psychological component, or the part that generally
encompasses the unwanted sound or annoyance factors, makes the determination of
acceptable levels of sound for people a subjective one. The standard practice
established by the FAA for evaluating noise impacts at airports involves the use of the
FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM), a program specially developed to model current
and future noise levels at and around airports. Specifically, INM version 6.2 was utilized
for this analysis to develop noise contours for Chandler Municipal Airport based on
aircraft operational activity for the existing year (2005) and the forecast year (2025). The
details and results of this analysis were presented previously in Chapter 4,
Development Alternatives.
Noise Exposure Impacts
Noise Exposure Impacts are measured using a metric known as Day-Night Level (DNL)
averages. The DNL (also sometimes referred to as Ldn) represents the 24-hour
average sound level expressed in decibels, including an additional 10-decibel penalty

Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-3

for night-time operations (defined as those operations occurring between the hours of
10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). As indicated in the previous chapter, FAA Order 5050.4B requires
that the 65, 70, and 75 DNL noise contours be developed for existing and future airport
conditions. Noise levels greater than 65 DNL are generally considered unacceptable for
noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, hospitals, and schools. Additionally, the
City of Chandler itself has established an Airport Impact Overlay District which uses a
more restrictive 55 DNL contour to determine if incompatible uses in the vicinity of the
Airport are acceptable. Exhibit 5.1 reflects the location of the above-described DNL
noise contours for the year 2025 based on the projected level of aircraft operations
presented in Chapter 2, Projections of Aviation Demand.
As shown in Exhibit 5.1, two of the noise contours required by FAA (75 DNL and 70
DNL) remain entirely on Airport property, while the third required contour (65 DNL)
exceeds the property boundary slightly to the north of Runway 22L and to the south of
Runway 4L. Specifically, the areas that lie off-Airport but within the 65 DNL to the north
are comprised entirely of unpopulated areas that include farmland and commercial
development, while the area that lies to the south crosses both Queen Creek Road and
McQueen Road, but overlies a heavy industry site. It is important to note that none of
the areas that lie within the 65 DNL contour, contain residences or other noise sensitive
land uses.
In terms of the total acreages that these contours will encompass throughout the
forecast period (2025), the 75 DNL area is approximately 57 acres in size, the 70 DNL
area is approximately 165 acres, and the 65 DNL covers a total of approximately 349
acres. (Note that as shown in the figure above, the 75 DNL and the 70 DNL contours
are wholly contained within the 65 DNL contour, and therefore their corresponding
acreages should not be considered to be additive.) While a relatively small amount of
the 65 DNL contour does lie outside of the Airport bounds, these areas are not currently
considered to be noise-sensitive land use areas. Additionally, from a long-term
development perspective and as reflected in the Chandler General Plan (adopted March
2002), these areas all lie within either the City’s Employment or Open Space land use
designations, neither of which is noise sensitive but are, in fact, considered to be
appropriate as “buffers” to noise sensitive residential areas. Therefore, they are viewed
as airport-compatible land uses.
As noted previously, the City of Chandler has an Airport Impact Overlay District (Ord.
No. 3063, § 3, 11-18-99) in place for Chandler Municipal Airport. This overlay district
establishes specific land uses, additional building code requirements, and other
restrictions for the explicit purpose of promoting airport noise attenuation. The overlay
district utilizes airport zones that correspond to the FAA-required 70 DNL and 65 DNL
noise contours, as well as establishes a zone based on a City-required 55 DNL noise
contour. Exhibit 5.1 shows that the Airport’s 55 DNL noise contour extends north of
Germann Road and south of Queen Creek Road along the extended runway centerline,
overlying approximately nine existing residences located south of the Airport.

Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-4

Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-5

Additionally, the 55 DNL noise contour extends along sides of the runways,
encompassing approximately three residences to the north of the Airport. In total, there
are approximately 12 existing residences within the City-required 55 DNL contour.
The land uses within the boundary of the 55 DNL contour also include Employment,
Open Space, Rural Residential, and Low Density Residential. While the first two uses
are not considered to be noise sensitive, new construction in the latter two within the 55
DNL may have some implications. Specifically, any new facility or residence should
incorporate noise attenuation into its design and construction in order to achieve a
maximum interior noise level of 45 decibels. It should also be noted that based on
Exhibit 5.1, as well as the City’s current land use plan, any additional restrictions and/or
requirements for the 65 DNL and 70 DNL noise contours as related to the Airport Impact
Overlay District should not come be an issue for Chandler Municipal Airport.
COMPATIBLE LAND USE
FAA Order 5050.4B states that the compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the
vicinity of an airport is usually associated with the extent of noise impacts related to that
airport. If the noise analysis concludes that there is no significant impact, a similar
conclusion usually can be made with regard to compatible land use. However, other
issues such as relocation of residences or businesses and alteration of floodplains,
wetlands or critical habitat may also influence property surrounding the airport. For
example, land use impacts also can occur if the proposed projects exceed the threshold
of significance of other impact areas that have land use ramifications, including
disruption of communities, relocation, and induced socioeconomic impacts (FAA’s
Airport Environmental Handbook, Chapter 5). For these reasons, the FAA requires that
airports and airport sponsors seek compatible uses for the land surrounding that airport
through appropriate zoning and municipal planning efforts.
The 2005 and 2025 noise contours were analyzed to evaluate the impact of aircraft
noise on sensitive land uses within the Airport area. Sensitive land uses typically
include residential areas, parks, hospitals, churches, amphitheaters, and libraries. FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports, has
identified land use compatibility guidelines that relate types of land uses to airport noise
levels. Based on these guidelines, FAA has determined that all land uses with yearly
day-night sound levels below 65 DNL based on airport activities are considered to be
compatible with the airport environment.
As such, at Chandler Municipal Airport, the 65 DNL noise contour has been shown to
overlie compatible land uses throughout the planning period. There are currently no
residences or other noise sensitive uses within this contour, and, based on the City’s
current land use plan, no future residential or other noise sensitive development should
occur within the 65 DNL contour. Additionally, none of the projects proposed within this
Master Plan would result in any direct significant land use impacts.

Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-6

SOCIAL IMPACTS
The purpose of a social impact analysis is to determine the effect airport development
could have on the human environment. The types of social impacts typically evaluated
are as follows:
•

Relocation of residences and/or businesses,

•

Alterations in traffic patterns that may permanently or temporarily restrict traditional
community access,

•

Division or disruption of established communities,

•

Disruption of orderly, planned development, and

•

Creation of appreciable change in employment.

Each of these considerations is directly addressed below with respect to the proposed
Airport development projects at Chandler Municipal Airport.
Relocation of residences and/or businesses: The proposed Airport development
projects will not result in the relocation of any residences and/or businesses.
Alterations in traffic patterns that may permanently or temporarily restrict traditional
community access: There may be temporary restrictions in access during the
construction of the access roadways on the south side of the Airport; however, these
restrictions will be short-term in nature and will be mitigated with the implementation of
traffic detours. It should also be noted the selection of the preferred Airport
development alternative, which keeps development primarily within the boundaries of
the Airport, was in large part made to help minimize any potential off-Airport or
community disruptions. Airport access is planned to be altered, providing more direct
access from Cooper Road, which has an exit ramp from the recently completed Loop
202.
Division or disruption of established communities: There will not be any division or
disruption of established communities or neighborhoods adjacent to the Airport as a
direct result of the proposed projects.
Creation of appreciable change in employment: The construction of the proposed
Airport development projects will not result in any appreciable negative change in
employment for the community. However, the proposed development program could
result in an appreciable positive change in employment directly through an increase in
short-term construction employment, as well as increased long-term employment that
would result both directly and indirectly from the construction of business-class airport
facilities. Specifically, it is projected that the Airport development projects would result
in a direct net increase of 44 employees at the Airport, as well as a number of other
unquantifiable jobs that would indirectly result from the economic growth that the
additional Airport activity would generate. This increased employment would also
Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-7

results in increased employment as well as economic spending that will be quantified as
part of follow-on analyses.
Based on this analysis, no social impacts would be anticipated within the planning
period resulting from the construction of the proposed Airport development program.
INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS/CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
For major airport development projects, there is a possibility of induced or secondary
impacts on surrounding communities. Such impacts include shifts in patterns of
population movement and growth, public service demands, and changes in business
and economic activity based on airport development. These induced impacts will
normally not be significant, except when there are also significant impacts in other
categories, especially noise, land use or direct social impacts. Cumulative impacts
occur if the proposed airport development projects, combined with other local
development projects, such as road improvements or economic development projects,
create significant socioeconomic impacts for the surrounding area.
At Chandler Municipal Airport, the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed Airport
development projects are expected to be positive in nature and would include direct,
indirect, and induced economic benefits to the local area. Improved facilities are
expected to enhance safety for the existing types of corporate and business aircraft
utilizing the Airport. These Airport improvements are expected to attract additional
users, which will, in turn, encourage business development, tourism, industry and trade
to enhance the future growth and expansion of the community’s economic base. As
such, no induced socioeconomic or cumulative impacts are anticipated within the
planning period that would require further analysis.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS
On April 15, 1997, the Department of Transportation (DOT) released DOT Order 5680.1
to comply with the Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations. This Order
requires the DOT to identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects resulting from their policies or programs on
minorities or low-income populations. Environmental Justice must be considered in all
phases of planning, since it is essential that any potential impacts to minority and lowincome populations be identified early in the planning process so that they can be
considered during the evaluation of project alternatives.
At Chandler Municipal Airport, the proposed Airport development projects will not result
in any disproportionate adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations since
there will be no significant impacts to any areas that are located off Airport and adjacent
to any residential areas.

Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-8

AIR QUALITY
As described in the findings of the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, “growth in
the amount and complexity of air pollution…has resulted in mounting dangers to the
public health and welfare.” As such, air pollution prevention and control is of critical
importance, and must be considered as it relates to airport improvement projects. The
primary laws that apply to air quality include the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA); the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended; and Title 49 U.S.C. 47106 (c) (1)
(B), as amended (formerly sections 509 (B) (5) and (B) (7) of the Airport and Airway
Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, PL 97-248). Specifically, for major federal
actions, including those of FAA, that have the potential to affect the quality of the
environment, including air quality, NEPA requires that federal agencies prepare an
environmental document, such as an EA or an EIS to analyze those potential impacts.
Additionally, the EPA has adopted air quality standards that specify the maximum
permissible short-term and long-term concentrations of various air contaminants. The
Clean Air Act (CAA) established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
consisting of primary and secondary standards for six pollutants, termed “criteria
pollutants,” that include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Carbon monoxide (CO)
Lead (Pb)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
Ozone (O3)
Particulates (PM10 and PM2.5)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

For the practical implementation of the NAAQS, the CAA requires that each state adopt
a plan (e.g. State Implementation Plan or SIP) to achieve the NAAQS for each pollutant
within the timeframes established under CAA. In addition to NEPA, the CAA 1990
Amendments required that the EPA issue rules that would ensure Federal actions
conform to the appropriate SIP. Under the CAA, the federal government requires that a
general conformity determination to the SIP be made for all federally approved/funded
projects which occur in a “non-attainment” area, defined as an area where air pollution
levels persistently exceed the national ambient air quality standards for a particular
pollutant.
Specifically, the General Conformity rule establishes the procedures and criteria for
determining whether certain federal actions conform to State or EPA (federal) air quality
implementation plans. To determine whether conformity requirements apply to a
proposed federal action, the following must be considered:
•
•
•
•

Non-attainment or maintenance status of the area
Type(s) of pollutant(s) or emission(s)
Exemptions from conformity and presumptions to conform
Project’s emission levels

Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-9

•

Regional significance of the project’s emissions

It should be noted that FAA actions are subject to the General Conformity Rule, but that
the General Conformity Rule only applies in areas that EPA has designated nonattainment or maintenance. This is important in that Chandler Municipal Airport is
located in Maricopa County, Arizona, currently designated as a non-attainment area for
Ozone and Particulate Matter-10 (PM10) pollutants, meaning that the proposed Airport
improvement projects are subject to the requirements of the General Conformity rule
(see http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/).
Additionally, FAA air quality analysis guidelines indicate that, if a proposed federal
action is in a state that does not have applicable Indirect Source Review (ISR)
requirements, then the projected airport activity levels should be examined to determine
if a detailed air quality analysis is required. The State of Arizona does not have ISR
requirements; therefore, the determination of whether or not a detailed air quality
analysis is required for a proposed project is based on annual aircraft operations.
According to FAA guidelines, an air quality analysis is required for general aviation
airports with more than 180,000 projected annual operations. Since Chandler Municipal
Airport is located in a non-attainment area, and because the current and projected
operations at the Airport are significantly greater than 180,000 annual general aviation
operations over the 20-year planning period, a detailed air quality analysis may be
required as part of the NEPA documentation for the implementation of the proposed
Airport improvement projects.
WATER QUALITY
Potential water quality impacts associated with airport development typically result from
the disturbance of large areas of soil during construction, significant alternation of site
grading and drainage, creation of large areas of impervious surface, altered storm water
runoff volumes and directions of flow, sewage disposal, and the storage and handling of
fuels and other solvents. As such, there are several regulatory requirements which
must be reviewed and considered with regards to water quality. Of primary importance
is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (commonly referred to as the
Clean Water Act), which provides the authority to establish water quality standards,
control discharges, develop waste treatment management plans and practices, prevent
or minimize the loss of wetlands, establish location with regard to an aquifer or sensitive
ecological area such as a wetlands area, and regulate other issues concerning water
quality including all proposed federal actions.
Further requirements could apply, such as the triggering of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, if a proposed federal action would impound, divert, drain, control, or
otherwise modify the waters of any stream or other body of water, unless that project is
for the impoundment of water covering an area of less than 10 acres. The Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act requires the responsible federal agency to consult with the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the applicable state agency to identify means to

Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-10

prevent loss or damage to wildlife resources resulting from the proposal. Additionally, if
a proposed federal project has the potential to result in contamination of an aquifer
designated by the EPA as a sole-source or principal drinking water resource for an
area, the project needs to be coordinated with the EPA, as required by Section 1424 (e)
of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended.
A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would be required if
more than five acres of existing vegetated land are disturbed as a result of the proposed
federal action, with “disturbance” being defined as activities such as clearing, grading,
and excavating that leave soil exposed. The general NPDES Construction Permit
requires the submittal of a Notice of Intent and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to
the county conservation district. If less than five acres is disturbed, only an Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan would be required. This Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
would include procedures for the development, implementation, and maintenance of
best management practices to be used during the construction phase to minimize nonpoint source pollution. Additionally, measures identified in FAA Advisory Circular
150/5370-10A, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, Item P-156,
Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation Control, should also be
incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed Airport development
projects to minimize adverse water quality effects, including control of water pollution
during construction.
At Chandler Municipal Airport, the proposed Airport improvement projects would not
impound, divert, drain, control, or otherwise modify the waters of any stream or other
body of water. Therefore, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act does not apply to
these projects. In addition, Chandler Municipal Airport is not within an area of a Sole
Source Aquifer; therefore, Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended,
does not apply. With regard to proposed construction activities, the Airport and all
applicable contractors will need to comply with the requirements and procedures of the
construction related NPDES General Permit, including the preparation of a Notice of
Intent and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, prior to the initiation of product
construction activities.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT, SECTION 4(f)
The Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f), recodified at 49 USC,
Subtitle I, Section 303, provides that no project shall be approved if it requires the use of
land from a publicly owned park, recreational area, wildlife refuge or historic site, unless
there is “no feasible and prudent alternative.” Additionally, Section 6(f) of the Land and
Water Conservation Act prohibits the taking of lands purchased with land and water
conservation funds.
At Chandler Municipal Airport, because the proposed Airport development projects will
occur within Airport property and the areas of potential impact, including the areas

Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-11

within the 65 DNL contour, do not include any Section 303 (c) lands, there will be no
direct or indirect impacts to Section 303 (c) or Section 6(f) lands.
HISTORIC,
ARCHITECTURAL,
RESOURCES

ARCHAEOLOGICAL,

AND

CULTURAL

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, provides for the
preservation of historic and archaeological resources including districts, sites, buildings,
structures, objects, and landscapes included in or eligible for inclusion in the state and
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or areas designated as historically or
archaeologically sensitive. In addition, Section 106 of the NHPA directs the heads of
federal agencies and departments, or independent agencies that have direct or indirect
jurisdiction over a federal or federally assisted action to “take into account the effect of
the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register.”
The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 provides for the survey,
recovery, and preservation of significant scientific, prehistoric, archaeological, or
paleontological data when such data may be destroyed or irreparably lost due to a
federal, federally licensed, or federally funded project.
At Chandler Municipal Airport, data from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
including locations of Official Historical Markers and National Register of Historic Places
properties indicates that there are no historical sites located on Airport property or within
areas associated with the proposed Airport development program. However, prior to
construction of the proposed projects, further coordination with the Arizona State
Historic Preservation Office should be undertaken to confirm the action’s adherence to
NHPA requirements.
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES/THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended, applies to federal agency
actions and requires each agency, generally the lead agency, to ensure that any action
the agency authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any federally listed endangered or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act requires that agencies consult with the state wildlife agencies and
Department of the Interior (FWS) concerning the conservation of wildlife resources
where the water of any stream or other water body is proposed to be controlled or
modified by a federal agency or any public or private agency operating under a federal
permit.
Chandler Municipal Airport is located within a highly urbanized area. As part of the
environmental studies that would be performed for the environmental documentation in
conjunction with the proposed Airport projects, an on-site biological survey would be

Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-12

performed to ensure that no threatened and endangered wildlife or plant species occur
within the project area.
WETLANDS
EO 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” DOT Order 5660.1A, the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899, and the Clean Water Act, Section 404, address activities in wetlands.
Specifically, E.O. 11990 requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions minimize
the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands. It also ensures the protection,
preservation, and enhancement of the nation’s wetlands to the fullest extent practicable
during the planning, construction, funding, and operation of transportation facilities and
projects (7CFR Part 650.26, August 6, 1982). DOT Order 5660.1A establishes DOT
policy that transportation facilities should be planned, constructed, and operated to
ensure protection and enhancement of wetlands.
At Chandler Municipal Airport, there are no wetlands located within or adjacent to the
Airport. Therefore, there will be no impacts to wetlands resulting from the proposed
Airport development projects.
FLOODPLAINS
Floodplains are land areas adjacent to a river or stream or other body of flowing water
which is, on the average, likely to be covered with flood waters resulting from a 100year frequency storm. Maintaining floodplains are critical in that they provide important
flood water storage functions, and projects that propose building or filling a floodplain
must provide compensation for any waters that might be displaced during a flood event.
Development in a floodplain must also be managed so as to prevent any potential
release of hazardous materials or wastes during a flood.
EO 11988 directs federal agencies to take action to reduce the risk of flood loss,
minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and restore and
preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Agencies are required
to make a finding that there is no practicable alternative before taking action that would
encroach on a base floodplain based on a 100-year flood (7 CFR Section 650.250).
According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Maricopa County, Arizona dated
September 30, 2005 (Panel 2665 of 4350), a 100-year floodplain (Flood Zone AH)
exists along the eastern side of the levee on the western and northwestern borders of
the Airport, including the existing approach end of Runway 4L, the existing southwest
end of Taxiway A, and a portion of the aircraft parking apron on the north side of the
airfield. It should also be noted that Flood Zone AH is the flood insurance rate zone that
corresponds to the areas of 1-percent annual chance shallow flooding with a constant
water-surface elevation (usually areas of ponding) where average depths are between 1
and 3 feet. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply.

Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-13

Based on review of FEMA maps, the southwestern-most portion of the proposed
extension of Taxiway B to the end of Runway 4L would extend into this Zone AH
floodplain boundary. This designation indicates that this portion of the study area is
within the boundaries of the 100-year floodplain and that base flood elevations and flood
hazard factors have been determined.
Federal regulations allow development
encroachment into the floodplain if the encroachment does not increase the base flood
elevation by more than one foot. During construction of the proposed Airport
improvement projects, local regulations must be complied with and precautions taken to
minimize potential impact to the existing floodplain and floodway areas.
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND COASTAL BARRIERS
The Coastal Barriers Resources Act (CBRA) and the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) govern federal activities involving or affecting coastal resources. Since neither
Chandler Municipal Airport nor its host community lie within the vicinity of a coastal zone
or barrier, these requirements do not apply to the proposed Airport improvements.
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542, as amended) protects rivers that are
listed on the National Inventory of Wild and Scenic Rivers. However, there are no rivers
in the vicinity of the Chandler Municipal Airport listed in the U.S. Department of Interior’s
Inventory
of
National
Wild
and
Scenic
Rivers
(see
http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wildriverslist.html#az). Therefore, there can no impacts to
designated wild and scenic rivers as a result of the implementation of the Airport
projects included in the Master Plan Update.
PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requires that federal actions consider the
impact to prime or unique farmland, and that such actions must be compatible with
state, local, and private programs intended to protect farmland. The requirements of
FPPA are not applicable to farmland already committed to urban development by
designation as commercial, industrial and residential use in a state or local zoning
ordinance or land use plan.
At Chandler Municipal Airport, the proposed Airport development projects will occur on
Airport property which is dedicated to Airport use. There will be no impacts to farmlands
as a result of the proposed projects.
ENERGY SUPPLY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
FAA Order 1053.1, Policies and Procedures for Energy Planning and Conservation,
provides for assessing energy demands related to airport improvement projects. The
effects of the airport development on energy supply typically relate to the amount of
energy required for the following:
Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-14

•
•

Stationary facilities (such as terminal building heating and cooling and airfield
lighting)
Movement of air and ground materials

At Chandler Municipal Airport, the effects of Airport development on natural resources
typically relate to the transportation and installation of basic construction materials, such
as gravel, fill dirt, etc. From an airfield and facilities operations and maintenance
perspective, it is anticipated that the local power company will have no difficulty in
meeting the future energy demands of the proposed hangar facilities. Additionally, it
should be noted that total aviation activity at the Airport is projected to increase
approximately 2.7 percent compounded annually. At these levels of total growth,
energy consumption by aircraft and vehicles will not be expected to appreciably
increase as a result of implementing the proposed Airport development program.
LIGHT EMISSIONS
Airport-related light emissions and the resulting glare from lighted and flashing airport
lighting facilities have the potential to create an annoyance to surrounding residential
communities. In general, however, light emissions created by general aviation airports
are considered to be minimal. As indicated in FAA Order 5050.4B, light emissions
generally do not result in impacts to adjacent residential communities unless there are
unusual circumstances, such as high intensity strobe lighting aimed directly at an
individual house.
The proposed development projects at Chandler Municipal Airport include the extension
of Runway 4R-22L, the extension of parallel taxiways to the end of Runway 4L and both
ends of Runway 4R-22L which would include the installation of additional taxiway and
runway lighting. They will not include the installation of approach lighting systems,
which are most often the source of light emissions concerns. It is not expected that the
installation of standard runway and taxiway lights would result in an increase to any
existing light emission impacts currently being realized by nearby residences. In fact, it
should also be noted that there have never been any complaints regarding the existing
taxiway and runway lights on the Airport.
SOLID WASTE IMPACTS
Two of the most important statutes in the construction and operation of airport facilities
and navigational aids are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as
amended by the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992, and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended
(also known as Superfund). RCRA governs the generation, treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous wastes and CERCLA provides for the cleanup of any releases of
a hazardous substance (excluding petroleum) into the environment. FAA actions to
fund, approve, or conduct an activity require consideration of hazardous material and
solid waste impacts.
Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-15

In an effort to identify any presence of known hazardous waste sites within the areas
that could be impacted by the construction of the proposed Airport improvement
projects, the EPA databases of hazardous waste information was reviewed. These
databases include information on hazardous waste generators, as well as hazardous
waste sites (see http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/rcris/). Based on this review, two
RCRA-listed sites were identified in the vicinity of Chandler Municipal Airport. One is
Estergard Aviation Inc, located at 2330 S. Airport Boulevard, and the other is Varga
Enterprises located at 2350 S. Airport Boulevard. Estergard Aviation is not located on
Airport property.
In addition to these two sites, there are no aged crop duster areas on the Airport as well
as underground storage tanks that have been remediated through the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). These remediation sites will be
evaluated in subsequent environmental analyses to determine their impact as a result of
the proposed Airport development plan.
Prior to further Airport development, the project areas will be the subject of further
investigations so as to identify and remediate any other areas of potential hazardous
waste contamination in accordance with state and federal regulations.
In addition to hazardous waste sites, solid waste impacts must be evaluated in
conjunction with airport development. These impacts include the following:
•
•

Impacts on solid waste generation
Location of existing solid waste disposal facilities in the vicinity of proposed
runways

At Chandler Municipal Airport, no significant increases in solid waste generation are
anticipated as a result of the proposed Airport improvements, with the only additional
waste expected to be that which will be associated with the construction of the aviation
facilities. Existing waste collection and disposal facilities will be adequate to handle the
waste associated with the construction of these Airport facilities.
FAA Order 5200.5, FAA Guidance Concerning Sanitary Landfills On or Near Airports,
states that “sanitary landfills will be considered as an incompatible use” if located within
1,500 meters (approximately 4,921 feet) of all runways planned to be used by piston
type aircraft and within 3,000 meters (approximately 9,843 feet) of all runways planned
to be used by turbo aircraft. Airports located closer than these distances to sanitary
landfills have an increased risk of bird hazards. There are no active sanitary landfills
within five miles of Chandler Municipal Airport; therefore, there would be no potential
bird hazards as a result of the proposed runway improvements.

Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-16

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Specific impacts that can occur as a result of construction activities include noise of
construction equipment on the site, noise and dust from delivery of materials through
local streets, disposal of soil, air pollution from construction equipment exhaust and
dust, and water pollution from erosion. To the extent necessary, mitigation of
construction impacts would be accomplished by incorporating in the project
specifications from the provisions of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10, Standards for
Specifying Construction of Airports, and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10A,
Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, Item P-156, Temporary Air and Water
Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation Control. Potential construction-related water quality
impacts would be minimized through the implementation of a sediment and erosion
control plan.
Note that construction activities would require workers and machinery to be present in
and about the operations areas of the Airport. In some cases, runway or taxiway
closures may be required for short periods of time. Guidelines as cited in FAA Advisory
Circular 150/5370/2C, Operation Safety on Airports, During Construction, would be
enforced where applicable. Runway or taxiway closure conditions will be kept to a
minimum in an effort to minimize inconvenience to Airport users.
SUMMARY
There are no major environmental issues on or around Chandler Municipal Airport that
would preclude or impede the implementation of the proposed Airport development
projects. As part of the NEPA documentation process, additional coordination with
resource agencies will be required prior to project construction, but no significant
impacts are apparent.

Chapter Five: Environmental Overview
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

5-17

CHAPTER SIX: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AND
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter details the various projects required for the continued improvement and
operation of Chandler Municipal Airport throughout the Master Plan Update’s 20-year
planning period. These projects, by phase (time period), include estimates of probable
project costs in constant 2006 dollars. The estimates are intended to be used for
planning purposes only and should not be construed as construction cost estimates,
which can only be compiled following the preparation of detailed design documentation.
The 20-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is broken down into the following three
development phases:
•
•
•

Phase I:
Phase II:
Phase III:

Short–Term (first five years)
Intermediate-Term (second five years)
Long-Term (last 10 years)

This chapter also presents a financial evaluation of Chandler Municipal Airport and
examines various facets of the financial operating condition of the Airport. In addition,
this chapter examines historic operating revenues and expenses at the Airport and
develops projections of future operating results. Financial projections of revenues and
expenses at the Airport focus on the short- and mid-term planning period and are used
to identify the ability of the Airport to contribute to the local share of anticipated project
costs, as necessary.
PHASING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
A list of capital improvement projects has been assembled based on the preferred
development alternative established in Chapter 4, Development Alternatives, of this
Master Plan Update. This project list has been coordinated with the Airport Layout Plan
(ALP) drawing set and the CIP that is continuously updated by Airport management and
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The CIP itself has three primary purposes:
it identifies improvement projects that will be required at an airport over a specific period
of time; it estimates the order of implementation of the projects included in the plan; and
it estimates the total costs and funding sources of the projects. It is important to note
that as the CIP progresses from projects planned in the current year to projects planned
in future years, the plan becomes less detailed and more flexible. Additionally, the CIP
is typically modified on an annual basis as new projects are identified or as projects or
funding change.

Chapter Six: Airport Development Schedule and Financial Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

6-1

Phase I: Short-Term Development (0-5 Years)
A. FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update
Since the Airport’s Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study was last updated in 1998,
aircraft activity has significantly exceeded that which was projected. As such, per
FAA and ADOT requirements, the Part 150 Study should be updated based on
the current operational levels, as well as those forecasted in this Master Plan
Update.
B. Airport Pavement Preservation – Runway 4L/22R and Apron
The Airport airfield pavement surfaces, including runways, taxiways and apron
areas, require periodic maintenance to extend their useful lives. This project is
comprised of two phases: maintenance of Runway 4L/22R and maintenance of
the aircraft parking apron.
C. Airport Storm Drain
This project is Phase II of the Airport Terminal Area Storm Drainage System
improvement program that will allow apron area runoff from storm water events
to drain and be retained properly on Airport property. This will help prevent
deterioration of the affected apron pavement subgrade and extend the pavement
life. Phase I was completed in 1996.
D. North Airport Apron Construction
An aircraft parking apron on the north side of the Airport is needed to provide
additional aircraft tiedown areas. This project will develop apron areas on the
north side of the Airport in two phases. Phase I will encompass the design and
construction of the “Armory Apron,” located directly north of the existing Santan
Apron, while Phase II (referred to as the Northwest Apron) will include the design
and construction of a new apron area located north of Ryan Road and west of
Curtis Road.
E. Airport Boulevard & Terminal Parking
Airport Boulevard must be relocated to provide access from Cooper Road to the
Airport areas immediately north of Ryan Road. This is critical since Cooper Road
will become the primary means of entry to the Airport with the completion of the
Santan Freeway (Loop 202). Additionally, new automobile parking areas are
needed to meet a current deficiency in parking spaces, as well as increasing
demand for parking spurred by continued development in the north terminal area.
F. Perimeter Road
This project includes the construction of a paved airport perimeter road to
eliminate mid-field crossing by fuel trucks serving future development on the
south side of the Airport.

Chapter Six: Airport Development Schedule and Financial Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

6-2

G. South Airport Apron Construction
Additional apron and development areas will be required to accommodate the
demand by additional aircraft as well as the need for an additional fixed-base
operator (FBO) and other specialized aviation services as reflected previously in
this Master Plan. The south side of the Airport offers prime parcels for this type
of development. As such, this project will begin development of this side of the
Airport with the construction of an apron area along the southeast side of the
runway/taxiway system.
H. Airport Light Vault Reconstruction
The existing Airport lighting control vault was installed in the early 1990s, and its
components are outdated, deteriorating, and require special orders/servicing. A
renovation of the existing lighting vault will update the facility, install climate
controls to extend the life of the facility and provide more reliable circuitry to the
Airport lighting system.
I. Upgrade Tower Voice Switch Gear/Transmitter
The FAA-contractor for air traffic control tower (ATCT) services will add additional
control personnel in the tower as the number of operations at the Airport
continues to grow. As such, additional equipment, including a voice switch gear
and transmitter/receiver, will be required to separate ground, flight, and weather
operational duties.
J. Airport Guidance Sign Replacement
This project involves two phases for replacing the existing or installing new
mandatory Airport guidance signs for the runway/taxiway. This first phase will
address signage changes requested by the FAA Runway Incursion Action Team
(RIAT) as well as changes resulting from updated FAA signage standards. The
second phase is needed to replace the remaining existing signs, originally
installed from 1990 to 1993.
K. Aircraft Storage Facilities
This project will consist of two primary construction phases. Phase I will include
the construction of two canopy or shade hangars that will each house 25 aircraft.
Phase II will include the construction of three T-hangar buildings, each having 11
hangar units.
L. Airport Erosion Control
This project will establish a shoulder along all movement area pavements. This
will prevent erosion of these edges and any resulting RSA safety concerns.
M. Existing Airport Terminal Apron Improvement
This project includes improvements to the existing terminal aircraft parking apron
that will upgrade the taxilane and tiedowns that serve the aircraft tiedown area
directly in front of the terminal building. The aircraft parking pavement in this

Chapter Six: Airport Development Schedule and Financial Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

6-3

area will be upgraded to sustain the same weight bearing capacity as the
runways and taxiways.
N. Taxiway B Construction
This project will extend Taxiway B to the southeast between Taxiways N and H.
This project is necessary in order to allow the ATCT to more efficiently handle
aircraft from both runways and help relieve aircraft congestion from Taxiway A.
O. Taxiway A Run-Up Area Construction
This project will provide a new aircraft run-up area near the east end of Taxiway
A to provide a large area off the taxiway where aircraft can perform engine
preflight tests prior to takeoff.
P. Runway 4R-22L Extension/Associated Taxiways
The extension of Runway 4R-22L has been discussed at length in Chapter 4,
Development Alternatives. It is anticipated that this project will encompass
several phases: the relocation of the Runway 4R threshold, and associated
taxiways, 250 feet to the southwest; the relocation of the Runway 22L threshold,
and associated taxiways, 600 feet to the northeast; and the overall rehabilitation
of the existing pavement to the full extent.
Phase II: Mid-Term Development (5-10 Years)
Q. Other Taxiway/Runway Modifications/Standards
This project establishes a new taxiway or taxiway extension around the end of
Runway 22R. Such a runway will greatly increase the efficiency and factor of
safety of the airfield by definitely helping to minimize the number of runway
crossings and the resultant possibility of incursions. Other taxiway improvements
will be needed to meet standards and provide a full taxiway to both runways.
R. South Airport Apron Access Improvements
As development progresses around the south Airport apron area, it is anticipated
that upgrades to the surface road infrastructure and an increase in automobile
parking will be required.
S. Update Airport Master Plan
The FAA typically recommends that airport master plans be update every five to
seven years, depending on the changes that have occurred since the completion
of the previous master plan. A master plan update will be needed in the midterm period.

Chapter Six: Airport Development Schedule and Financial Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

6-4

Phase III: Long-Term Development (10-20 Years)
T. Aircraft Storage Facilities
This project will consist of the construction of four T-hangar buildings, each
having 11 hangar units.
U. Update FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study
With a planned update in 2007, a subsequent update should be conducted in the
long-term planning horizon. The Part 150 Study should be updated based on the
operational levels at the time of conduct, as well as those forecasted in the
updated Master Plan.
COST ESTIMATES
Table 6.1 presents a summary of the proposed capital improvements over the 20-year
planning period, broken down by phase, with estimates of the eligibility for all projects
by funding source.
Table 6.1
SUMMARY TABLE
FAA Share

State Share1

Local Share

Total Cost

Phase I
Phase II

$22,678,540
$13,724,175

$14,660,482
$621,263

$5,423,181
$390,063

$42,762,203
$14,735,501

Phase III

$308,750

$633,125

$1,883,125

$2,825,000

$36,711,465

$15,914,870

$7,696,369

$60,322,704

Phase

TOTAL
1

Includes ADOT Airport Loan Program
SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: December 2006

Tables 6.2 through 6.4 list each proposed improvement and show a total cost estimate
for the planning, design, and construction of each project. The estimates contained in
these tables were derived from analyzing similar projects, but should be re-evaluated at
the time of project initiation. Tables 6.2 through 6.4 respectively depict anticipated costs
for the Short-Term (Phase I), Intermediate-Term (Phase II), and Long-Term (Phase III)
developments included in the Airport’s CIP. Phase I (shown in Table 6.2) contains
approximately $42.76 million in capital projects including the north Airport apron
projects, south Airport apron projects, airfield improvements including taxiway
construction, runway extension, T-hangar/shade hangar development and other
miscellaneous projects. It is estimated that the sponsor share of Phase I capital costs
will be approximately $5.42 million and the state share will be approximately $14.66
million with the balance ($22.68 million) being eligible for funding from the FAA.

Chapter Six: Airport Development Schedule and Financial Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

6-5

Table 6.2
PHASE I (0 – 5 Years)
Project
A. FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility
Study Update
B. Airport Pavement Preservation –
Runway 4L/22R and Apron
C. Airport Storm Drain
D. North Airport Apron Construction
E. Airport Boulevard & Terminal Parking
F. Perimeter Road
G. South Airport Apron Construction
H. Airport Light Vault Reconstruction
I. Upgrade Tower Voice Switch
Gear/Transmitter
J. Airport Guidance Sign Replacement
K. Aircraft Storage Facilities
L. Airport Erosion Control
M. Existing Airport Terminal Apron
Improvement
N. Taxiway B Construction
O. Taxiway A Run-Up Area Construction
P. Runway 4R-22L Extension
TOTAL

FAA Eligible

State Share

Local Share

Total Cost

$315,400

$8,300

$8,300

$332,000

$0
$935,750
$6,159,800
$527,440
$427,500
$8,379,000
$0

$985,050
$24,625
$348,850
$2,672,030
$11,250
$864,900
$489,150

$109,450
$24,625
$182,850
$40,730
$11,250
$307,600
$54,350

$1,094,500
$985,500
$6,691,500
$3,240,200
$450,000
$9,551,500
$543,500

$33,725
$1,072,550
$0
$785,175

$888
$90,325
1
$812,500
$20,663

$888
$35,125
$4,419,500
$20,663

$35,500
$1,198,000
$5,232,000
$826,500

$0
$1,820,200
$0
$2,222,000

$570,150
$188,300
$202,500
$58,500

$63,350
$63,500
$22,500
$58,500

$633,500
$2,072,000
$225,000
$2,339,000

$22,678,540

$14,660,482

$5,423,181

$42,762,203

1

ADOT Airport Loan Program
SOURCE: Chandler Municipal Airport
PREPARED: December 2006

Table 6.3
PHASE II (6 – 10 Years)
Project
G. South Airport Apron Construction
Q. Other Taxiway/Runway
Modifications/Standards
R. South Airport Apron Access
Improvements
S. Update Airport Master Plan
TOTAL

FAA Eligible

State Share

Local Share

Total Cost

$7,066,575

$446,063

$214,863

$7,727,500

$3,040,000

$80,000

$80,000

$3,200,000

$3,332,600

$87,700

$87,700

$3,508,000

$285,000

$7,500

$7,500

$300,000

$13,724,175

$621,263

$390,063

$14,735,501

SOURCE: Chandler Municipal Airport
PREPARED: December 2006

Table 6.4
PHASE III (11 – 20 Years)
Project

FAA Eligible

State Share

Local Share

Total Cost

T. Aircraft Storage Facilities
U. Update FAR Part 150 Noise
Compatibility Study

$0

$625,000

$1,875,000

$2,500,000

$308,750

$8,125

$8,125

$325,000

TOTAL

$308,750

$6 33,125

$1,883,125

$2,825,000

SOURCE: Chandler Municipal Airport and Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: December 2006

Chapter Six: Airport Development Schedule and Financial Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

6-6

Phase II contains approximately $14.74 million in total capital projects, as shown in
Table 6.3. These projects include the completion of the south Airport apron
development area, runway and taxiway modifications and standards, additional apron
access improvements, and updating the Airport Master Plan. The sponsor share of the
proposed development plan in Phase II is approximately $390,063 while the state share
is estimated at $621,263. Table 6.4 lists the Phase III development that includes
additional storage facilities and an update of the FAR Part 150 Study. Phase III capital
costs are currently estimated at $2.83 million.
When combined, the 20-year CIP for the Airport represents over $60 million in
development projects. Approximately 61 percent of the total is eligible for federal
participation, 26 percent is eligible for state grants and loans, and 13 percent will need
to be funded locally.
CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES
This section describes the various funding sources that are potentially available for
Airport development initiatives and their respective eligibility criteria.
FAA Funding
From the inception of flight to the advent of the first airparks, the United States
Government has been an active advocate for the establishment, maintenance, and
growth of aviation throughout the country. Recognizing aviation’s value as a resource
for national defense, as well as its value in promoting interstate commerce, the Federal
Government established a grant-In-aid funding program to units of State and local
government following World War II. That early program, the Federal Aid Airport
Program (FAAP), was authorized by the Federal Treasury Act of 1946 and provided its
funding to airports directly from the U.S. Treasury.
However, it was not until the Airport and Airway Revenue Act of 1970 that a
comprehensive aviation development program was formally established. This Act
created the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (also known as the Aviation Trust Fund),
which was funded exclusively through taxes on airline tickets, air freight, and aviation
fuel. The purpose of the Aviation Trust Fund was to establish a source of funding
collected only from the users of the nation’s airport system that could be used to finance
airport improvements at system airports. Through this trust fund, the Federal
Government was able to provide grants for airport planning and for airport development
throughout the country.
The current program, known as the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), was
established by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-248).
Since then, the AIP has been amended several times, most recently with the passage of
the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for 21st Century (AIR-21).
Administered by the FAA through its regional and airport district offices, the current AIP

Chapter Six: Airport Development Schedule and Financial Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

6-7

legislation provides for two types of funding (entitlement funds and discretionary funds)
that must be spent on FAA eligible projects as defined in FAA Order 5100.38C, Airport
Improvement Program Handbook. In general, the handbook states the following:
•
•
•

•
•

An airport receiving funding must be in the currently approved National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)
AIP provides up to 95 percent federal funding for most eligible public-use airport
improvements
Eligible projects include those that preserve or enhance safety, security, or
capacity of the national air transportation system; reduce noise or mitigate noise
impacts resulting from aircraft; and, if applicable, furnish opportunities for
enhanced competition between or among air carriers
Eligible projects must be shown on a current Airport Layout Plan
General aviation terminal buildings, T-hangars, and corporate hangars and other
private-use facilities may be eligible for federal funding, but are subject to other
funding requirements

Specifically, AIP provides entitlement grants to eligible commercial service airports
through a formula based primarily on passenger enplanements, and to eligible general
aviation airports through non-primary entitlements and state apportionments. Within the
entitlement amount granted, up to 95 percent of eligible project costs are funded, with
the remaining 5 percent provided from other non-federal, local airport sources. The
FAA also provides discretionary grants (also on a 95/5 basis), over and above
entitlement funding, to airports for projects that have a high federal priority, such as for
enhancing safety, security, and capacity of the airport, and would be difficult to fund
otherwise. The amount that individual grants vary can be significant in comparison to
entitlements and are awarded through an evaluation process based on need, the FAA's
project priority ranking system, and the FAA's assessment of a project's significance
within the national airport and airway system.
Other sources of funding within the FAA's budget appropriations include Facilities and
Equipment (F&E) funding for the installation and maintenance of various navigational
aids and equipment for the national airspace system, including facilities such as air
traffic control towers, approach lighting systems, and some runway instrumentation.
This funding is separate from the AIP program and typically requires no local match. It
is provided on a discretionary basis by the FAA. Federal noise funds (Part 150 funds)
may also be available for noise mitigation with an 80 percent federal and a 20 percent
state and/or local share.
State Funding
In support of the state aviation system, the State of Arizona also participates in airport
improvement projects through its own grant program. The source for State airport
improvement funds is the Arizona Aviation Fund administrated by the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) Aeronautics Division and funded mainly through
Chapter Six: Airport Development Schedule and Financial Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

6-8

flight property taxes, aircraft lieu taxes and aviation fuel taxes. The State Transportation
Board establishes the policies for distribution of these State funds across three major
categories of airport development assistance:
•
•
•

Airport Development Grants Program (including AIP, state and local funded
projects)
Airport Preventive Maintenance Services (APMS) (including projects maintaining
and protecting aviation pavement surfaces)
Airport Loan Program (including economic development/revenue generating
loans, and grant match loans)

Specifically, the State’s Airport Development Grants Program is designed to provide 50
percent of the local share for projects receiving federal AIP funding. Current sponsor
obligations on federal projects are 5 percent of a project’s total cost, making the state
share 2.5 percent. The State’s Airport Preventive Maintenance Services also may fund
up to 90 percent of a primary airport project and 95 percent of a secondary airport
project (primary and secondary are Arizona airport classifications) which is not eligible
for AIP funding, such as pavement maintenance.
Additionally, ADOT Aeronautics Division has an Airport Loan Program, established to
enhance the utilization of state funds and provide a flexible funding mechanism to assist
airports in funding improvement projects. Eligible projects include runways, taxiways,
aircraft parking ramps, aircraft storage facilities (hangars), fueling facilities, general
aviation terminal buildings or pilot lounges, utility services (power, water, sewer, etc.) to
the airport runway or taxiway lighting, approach aids (electronic or visual), ramp lighting,
airport fencing, airport drainage, land acquisition, planning studies, and under certain
conditions, the preparation of plans and specifications for airport construction projects.
Projects not eligible for funding under other programs but are designed to improve an
airport’s ability to be financially self-sufficiency may also be considered.
There are three types of loans available through the program: Grant Advance, Matching
Grant, or Revenue Generating. Grant Advance loan funds are provided when the
airport can demonstrate the ability to accelerate the development and construction of a
multi-phase project. The project(s) must be compatible with the Airport Master Plan and
be included in the ADOT 5-year Airport Development Program. The Matching Grant
loan funds are provided to meet the local matching fund requirement for securing
federal airport improvement grants or other federal or state grants. These loans cannot
be repaid with future airport development grant funds. The Revenue Generating loan
funds are provided for airport related development/construction projects, which are not
eligible for funding, in whole or part, under other programs and are designed to improve
airport financial self-sufficiency.

Chapter Six: Airport Development Schedule and Financial Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

6-9

Sponsor Funding
Airport Operating Revenues and Expenses
Airport revenues are typically generated through user fees charged by the airport for the
facilities and services that are provided. These user fees are typically established by
the airport based on market conditions in the area and vary airport-to-airport. Airport
operating revenues are collected at Chandler Municipal Airport from the following
primary sources:
•
•
•
•
•

Fixed Leases (Hangar & Field Fees)
Tie Down Fees
Fuel Sales
Concessions (Fuel Flowage Fee)
Other Revenues

Landside facility development and levels of aviation activity are typically the primary
factors affecting airport operating revenues. As additional development occurs, the
number of based aircraft and itinerant aircraft operations increase and leases are
updated at the Airport, it is likely that operating revenues will increase in a
corresponding fashion. Projections of future Airport operating revenues are developed
in a subsequent section.
Airport operating revenues are offset by operating expenses, typically referred to as
Operation and Maintenances (O&M) costs. Airport operating expenses are comprised
of the day-to-day costs incurred by operating the Airport. They do not include non-cash
and capital costs associated with depreciation, debt service, and infrastructure
development. Primary components of O&M costs at Chandler Municipal include the
following:
•
•
•
•
•

Salaries, Wages and Related
Professional Services
Operating Supplies (aviation fuel)
Repairs and Maintenance
Other Expenses

Like operating revenues, certain components of Airport operating expenses fluctuate
with activity levels. However, there are some significant fixed expenses, such as
personnel, that could be maintained at or near current levels while accommodating
significant increases in Airport activity.
Historic Airport operating revenues and expenses for Chandler Municipal Airport over
the five most recent fiscal years are presented in Table 6.5.

Chapter Six: Airport Development Schedule and Financial Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

6-10

Table 6.5
ON-AIRPORT OPERATING REVENUES AND EXPENSES
Project

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

Operating Revenues
Fixed Leases
Tiedown Fees
Fuels Sales
Fuel Flowage Fees
Other Revenues

$118,897
$337,108
$227,574
$48,746
$8,429

$123,680
$335,135
$293,506
$44,682
$34,292

$125,688
$368,380
$346,321
$38,485
$22,736

$141,240
$380,041
$362,203
$47,936
$18,067

$154,141
$400,311
$405,329
$49,448
$24,937

Total Operating Revenues

$740,754

$831,295

$901,610

$949,487

$1,034,166

Operating Expenses
Salaries, Wages and Related
Office / Utilities / Admin / Equip / Misc.
Repairs and Maintenance
Revenue Supplies (aviation fuel)

$156,997
$136,448
$17,200
$179,037

$217,702
$129,557
$25,414
$252,717

$249,285
$101,356
$29,011
$301,175

$295,100
$109,633
$40,935
$322,158

$402,846
$113,721
$27,962
$358,927

Total Operating Expenses

$489,682

$625,390

$680,827

$767,826

$903,456

Net Operating Income

$251,072

$205,905

$220,783

$181,661

$130,710

Capital Improvements &
Annual Debt Service
Capital Airport Improvements
Internal Service Transfer (debt service)
ADOT Debt Service

$2,588,794
$161,039
$68,911

$63,058
$137,605
$68,911

$120,308
$12,840
$68,911

$2,818,202
$11,833
$68,911

$1,688,526
$4,456
$126,350

Total Improvements / Debt Service

$2,818,744

$269,574

$202,059

$2,898,946

$1,819,332

SOURCE: Chandler Municipal Airport
PREPARED: November 2006

As shown in Table 6.5, while total operating revenues at the Airport increased between
fiscal year (FY) 2002 and FY 2006 at an aggressive rate, operating expenses increased
at a higher rate. Operating revenues at Chandler Municipal increased $293,412 from
FY 2002 to FY 2006, representing a compound annual growth rate of approximately 8.7
percent. Unfortunately, operating expenses increased $413,774 over that same time
period, representing a compound annual growth rate of approximately 16.55 percent.
Over the same period, the net operating profit of the Airport, on an annual cash-flow
basis, declined from a profit $251,072 in FY 2002 to a profit of $130,710 in FY 2006.
Growth in operating revenues at the Airport has primarily been driven by increases in
leases, leasing rates and fuel sales. The increase in Airport operating expenses
experienced between FY 2002 and FY 2006 was realized primarily in increased aviation
fuel costs and increased staff expenditures.
Projected Operating Revenues and Expenses
The continued growth of Chandler Municipal Airport, in terms of activity, tenants, new
leases and facility development, will impact the Airport’s operating revenues and
expenses over the planning period. Actual future financial outcomes will be determined
Chapter Six: Airport Development Schedule and Financial Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

6-11

by a variety of factors, many of which are impossible to identify at the current time.
However, the projections developed in this evaluation depict future Airport operating
revenues and expenses based on recent financial results, budgeted revenues and
expenses for 2007, and activity and tenant growth trends identified in previous chapters.
Projections of future Airport operating revenues and expenses at Chandler Municipal for
the period 2007 through 2025 are presented in Table 6.6. The following information for
operating revenues was established through close consideration of historical trends, as
well as of proposed Airport development initiatives and how they might impact those
future revenues. In most cases, revenue projections resulted from normal growth
factors refined to more closely reflect the unique circumstances of this Airport. On the
operating expense side, increases in salaries and wages, as well as overall operational
activities are based on normal growth (primarily a 3 percent annual growth), with a
slightly higher growth factor for fuel costs in order to account for some of the volatility in
that supply market.
Table 6.6
PROJECTED ON-AIRPORT OPERATING REVENUES AND EXPENSES
Project

FY2007
(budget)

FY2010

FY2015

FY2020

FY2025

Operating Revenues
Fixed Leases
Tiedown Fees
Fuels Sales
Fuel Flowage Fees
Other Revenues

$235,680
$412,970
$421,390
$54,340
23,610

$292,200
$451,400
$506,200
$56,300
$26,600

$364,500
$532,700
$694,600
$68,700
$32,300

$454,900
$629,400
$952,800
$82,800
$37,100

$567,300
$743,100
$1,307,000
$98,400
$40,800

$1,147,990

$1,332,700

$1,692,800

$2,157,000

$2,756,600

$444,808
$210,515
$36,960
$328,750

$486,100
$230,000
$40,400
$394,300

$563,500
$266,700
$46,800
$548,200

$653,200
$309,100
$54,300
$761,900

$757,300
$358,400
$62,900
$1,059,200

$1,021,033

$1,150,800

$1,425,200

$1,778,500

$2,237,800

$126,957

$181,900

$267,600

$378,500

$518,800

Total Operating Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries, Wages and Related
Office / Utilities / Admin / Equip / Misc.
Repairs and Maintenance
Revenue Supplies (aviation fuel)
Total Operating Expenses
Net Operating Income

SOURCE: Chandler Municipal Airport & Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: November 2006

The projected operating revenues presented in Table 6.6 are based on historical yearend financial results for fiscal years 2002-2006 and budgeted revenues for 2007.
Additionally, forecasted increases in Airport based and itinerant aircraft activities, as
well as Airport tenant populations presented earlier in this Master Plan, have been
incorporated in these projections. Note that considerations have also been made
regarding increasing tenant lease rates and the general growth in jet fuel services.
Based on projected activity growth and assumptions regarding future tenant growth and

Chapter Six: Airport Development Schedule and Financial Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

6-12

development at Chandler Municipal Airport, operating revenues are projected to
increase from $1,147,990 in 2007 to approximately $2,756,600 by 2026.
Over the same period, Airport operating expenses are projected to increase from
$1,021,033 in 2007 to approximately $2,237,800 in 2025. Based on these projections,
the Airport’s net operating outcome is projected to improve each year between 2007
and 2025, with the Airport having an operating income potential of approximately
$518,800.
Other Funding
Other funding opportunities primarily encompass private development sources and/or
public/private development partnerships. These investors may construct needed airport
facilities as part of a lease agreement with the airport which would, in turn, provide for
an adequate time frame to amortize their investments. For example, leasehold
financing refers to a developer or tenant financed improvements which occur under a
long-term ground lease. The obvious advantage of such an arrangement is that it
relieves the community of all responsibility for raising the capital funds for
improvements. This type of funding is particularly suitable for corporate hangar
development and other privately owned projects in that these types of projects are not
typically eligible for the FAA or state funding described above.
However, the private development of facilities based on a ground lease, particularly on
property owned by a municipal agency, produces a unique set of problems. It is more
difficult to obtain private financing in that only the improvements and the right to
continue the lease can be claimed in the event of a default. Ground leases normally
provide for the reversion of improvements to the lessor at the end of the lease term
(typically 20 years), which reduces their potential value to a lender taking possession.
Also, companies that want to own their property as a matter of financial policy may not
locate where land is only available for lease.
Conversely, ground leases offer a substantial financial advantage to a private developer
in that there are no up-front property acquisition costs and lease payments are fully
deductible for tax purposes and can be depreciated. Additionally, this option could be
structured as a straight ground lease or as a joint venture. Under a straight ground
lease to a developer, the City would not be involved in the construction, financing, sale,
or lease of buildings for tenants. However, there may be circumstances where the City
will want to participate in the construction of facilities, either as part of a joint venture or
to provide inducements to attract certain tenants. The simplest way to do this is to
underwrite the construction and financing of those facilities, keeping them in City
ownership and leasing them to tenants.
In a joint venture arrangement, the City would provide funds for construction and
permanent financing. A joint venture could be structured so that the various benefits
would be available for each partner according to their highest use; for example: tax
benefits (such as depreciation) would go to the private developer while cash income

Chapter Six: Airport Development Schedule and Financial Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

6-13

would go to the City. This could be used successfully to fund individual buildings for
specific tenants, where lower rents could be charged in exchange for partial ownership,
producing income from both rents and interest payments.
These financing techniques offer marketing inducements, as they assume the City can
obtain lower-cost funds than are available in the private market. These lower costs can
then be passed through to the development process to reduce lower rental rates. To
avoid the appearance of unfairly competing with the private sector, it will be important to
establish comparable market rental rates.
SUMMARY
The primary goal is for Chandler Municipal Airport is to evolve into a facility that will best
serve the air transportation needs of the region while simultaneously developing into a
self-sustaining economic generator for the City of Chandler. This Master Plan Update
can be best described as being the road map to helping the Airport achieve those goals.
But it should be recognized that planning is a continuous process that does not end with
completion of the Master Plan in that the fundamental basic issues that have driven this
Master Plan will remain valid for many years. Therefore, the ability to continuously
monitor the existing and forecast status of Airport activity will be a key ingredient in
maintaining the applicability and relevance of this study.
In order to realize those goals through the successful implementation of Airport
development projects, sound and measured decisions by the City of Chandler must be
made. Two of the most important factors in influencing the decision to move forward
with a specific improvement are Airport activity and funding timing. Both factors must be
considered in the implementation of this Master Plan in that while Airport activity levels
provide the “why” in the establishment of Airport improvements, the timing of funding
provides the “how.” Through the course of this Master Plan effort, the “why” has been
discussed in detail in previous chapters. This chapter has addressed the “how” by
detailing the practical financial realities required to implement this overall Airport
development program. However, it can not be understated that although every effort
has been made in this effort to conservatively estimate when facility development may
be needed, aviation demand will ultimately dictate when facility improvements need to
be accelerated or delayed.

Chapter Six: Airport Development Schedule and Financial Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

6-14

APPENDIX A: AIRSPACE CONFLICTS ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
As part of the Master Plan Update for Chandler Municipal Airport, a separate, more
detailed analysis of the airspace was conducted. This separate airspace analysis
provides the City of Chandler with detailed information on the potential for airspace
conflicts given the changing conditions in the region. The analysis starts with an
overview of the airspace, including definitions of the types of airspace in the region
affecting aviation activities at Chandler Municipal Airport. Identification of potential
conflicts based on existing and future conditions are then analyzed. The analysis is
reported in the following sections:
•
•
•
•
•

General Airspace Overview
Air Traffic Control
Current Airspace Issues
Future Potential Airspace Issues
Summary

GENERAL AIRSPACE OVERVIEW
The Chandler Municipal Airport is located among several of the busiest airports in the
country in terms of aircraft take-offs and landings or operations. According to Airports
Council International (ACI) Annual Traffic Data, during calendar year 2005 the Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) accommodated 555,256 aircraft operations while
the Phoenix Deer Valley Airport (DVT) had 378,255 annual operations. This level of
activity ranked the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and Deer Valley airports as
the 8th and 22nd busiest airports in the United States respectively. In addition to these
airports, the Phoenix metropolitan area contains several other major general aviation
airports, including Chandler Municipal. All combined these airports accounted for well
over 2 million annual operations in 2005.
The high concentration of aircraft operations in the Phoenix area has necessitated the
development of a complex airspace structure, numerous procedures, and specific
equipment designed to separate aircraft from each other. The following information is
intended to explain how the FAA air traffic and airspace system functions in relation to
the Chandler Municipal Airport. Additionally, information will be presented on existing
and future airspace conditions and developments which have the potential to impact
operations at the Chandler Municipal Airport.
Aircraft operate under two general sets of operating rules, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). The airspace and air traffic control (ATC) system is
primarily designed to separate aircraft operating under VFR from aircraft operating
under IFR.
Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-1

Under VFR, pilots are responsible to “see and avoid” other aircraft and terrain. In order
to accomplish this, specific cloud clearance, terrain and visibility minimums are required
by FAA regulations to be maintained. These requirements vary depending on the
classification of airspace and day or nighttime operations. VFR aircraft are not required
to file a flight plan or contact Air Traffic Control (ATC) unless they are planning to enter
an area of restricted or controlled airspace where contact is mandatory. These areas
are most commonly the airspace surrounding an airport with an operating air traffic
control tower. The FAA publishes recommended procedures and altitudes for VFR
flight. However, it should be noted that because contact with ATC is not required, the
FAA’s ability to monitor or enforce the required or recommend flight altitudes and
procedures outside of controlled airspace is limited. VFR flight plans are voluntary and
are used by the FAA to assist in locating lost or overdue aircraft, and not for the purpose
of controlling or approving VFR flight operations.
Under IFR, aircraft are separated by ATC using radar and direct radio communications.
Under IFR, aircraft may operate inside of clouds with little or no outside visibility. IFR
operations occur in what is termed “controlled airspace.” Controlled airspace includes
five different classifications: Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, and Class E airspace,
which are different in each region served by airports. Class B, Class C, and Class D
airspace are designated around at least one primary airport. For IFR operations in any
class of controlled airspace, a pilot must file an IFR flight plan and receive an
appropriate ATC clearance. With few exceptions, scheduled passenger and business jet
aircraft operate under IFR in controlled airspace.
The following sections provide additional information and descriptions of each airspace
classification.
Controlled Airspace
Controlled airspace is primarily designated to insure separation between VFR and IFR
aircraft. Controlled airspace and the requirements to operate within, differ depending on
the type and number of aircraft operations occurring in the area. The following sections
describe the unique characteristics of each type of controlled airspace in the Phoenix
metropolitan area.
Class A Airspace. The Class A airspace includes all the airspace in the Region from
18,000 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) upward through 60,000 feet MSL. This airspace
includes jet routes, area high routes, and additional control areas at or above 18,000
MSL. All flights within the Class A airspace are conducted under IFR, and are under
positive control by the Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) or military controller.
The ARTCC for the Phoenix Metropolitan area is located in Albuquerque New Mexico.
Exhibit A.1 shows the Area High Routes that overlay the Region which are contained in
Class A airspace.
Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-2

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-3

Class B Airspace. The Phoenix Class B Airspace is controlled airspace, centered on
the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX), extending upward from the surface,
or higher altitudes around the periphery, to specified altitudes. The top of the Class B
Airspace is 10,000 feet above MSL, and the base extends from the surface at PHX to
varying altitudes between 3,000 and 8,000 feet MSL. The boundaries and altitudes of
each portion of the Phoenix Class B Airspace are depicted in Exhibit A.2. The altitude
figures depicted on Class B airspace maps are displayed in hundreds. Thus a Class B
airspace boundary labeled 100
50 would indicate that the top or ceiling of this portion of
airspace is 10,000 feet MSL and the floor or bottom of this portion of airspace is 5,000
feet MSL.
Rules for operating in the Class B Airspace are found in Federal Aviation Regulation
(FAR) Part 91. In general, the following are required:
•
•
•
•

An ATC clearance is mandatory prior to entering the Class B Airspace.
The pilot in command of the aircraft must hold a private pilot certificate or higher
rating.
If a student pilot, the requirements of FAR Part 61.95 must be met.
The aircraft must possess a two-way radio, VOR receiver, and a Mode C
transponder.

Class C Airspace. Currently there is no Class C airspace in Phoenix region. Class C
airspace generally surrounds airports which have an operating control tower, are
serviced by a radar approach control, and have a certain number of IFR operations or
passenger enplanements. The airspace surrounding the Tucson International airport is
currently designated as Class C airspace.
Class D Airspace. Class D airspace is located at the following airports in the Phoenix
region:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Chandler Municipal Airport
Williams Gateway Airport
Falcon Field
Scottsdale Airport
Phoenix Deer Valley Airport
Luke Air Force Base
Glendale Municipal Airport
Phoenix Goodyear Airport

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-4

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-5

Class D airspace can be considered, generally, as the traffic pattern airspace serving an
airport. It is generally a 5 statute mile circle centered on an airport with an operating
control tower, extending upward to 2500 feet Above Ground Level (AGL). All operations
within Class D airspace are controlled by an air traffic control tower. Exhibit A.3 depicts
the Class D airspace surrounding the Chandler Municipal Airport. The Class D airspace
boundary is identified by the dashed blue circle. The Class D airspace surrounding
Chandler Municipal Airport is a 4 statute mile circle centered on the Airport because of
the close proximity to Williams Gateway Airport. As shown in Exhibit A.3, the Williams
Class D airspace supersedes a portion of the Chandler Municipal Airport Class D
airspace.
Class E Airspace. Class E airspace is general controlled airspace. The airspace
includes Federal Airways, area low routes and additional control areas specified by the
Regulation, all of which are outside (below) Class A airspace. Exhibit A.4 depicts
Federal Area Low Routes located in the Region. Surface areas for airports with
instrument approaches are also classified as Class E airspace. The Class E airspace is
configured to contain all instrument approach procedures. Class E airspace is also
generally extended around Class B, C, and D airspace to provide controlled airspace to
contain standard instrument approach procedures without imposing a communications
requirement on pilots operating under VFR. VFR aircraft are not required to
communicate with or receive clearance from ATC to enter Class E airspace.
VFR aircraft operating in Class E airspace are simply required to maintain the specified
cloud clearance and flight visibility requirements in order to “see and avoid” other
aircraft, including those operating under IFR. Exhibit A.5 graphically depicts Class E
airspace extended around Class D airspace. This is a typical representation, however,
each airspace configuration is slightly different depending on local conditions. Class E
airspace provides controlled airspace for transition to or from the enroute or terminal
environment where there is a requirement to provide IFR enroute ATC services but the
Federal airway system is inadequate. Currently the entire Phoenix Metropolitan area is
Class E airspace from 700 AGL to 18,000 MSL, with the airspace below 700 AGL
designated as Class G or uncontrolled airspace. Exceptions are the PHX Class B
airspace, the areas of Class D airspace listed above, and an area northeast of the Deer
Valley Airport, where the Class E airspace begins at the surface.

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-6

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-7

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-8

Exhibit A.5
CLASS D AND CLASS E AIRSPACE

SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates
PREPARED: July 2006

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-9

Special Use Airspace
Restricted Areas. There are seven different restricted areas in the region. Restricted
areas are established, pursuant to FAR Part 73, to restrict but not prohibit flight, to
permit the user (normally the military) large blocks of unimpeded airspace for their
operations. These areas with the exception of the A-231 Alert Area are located well
outside the Phoenix Class B airspace boundary; North of Florence, and South of Gila
Bend. The restricted areas include R-2301E, R-2304, R-2305, R-2310A, R-2310B and
R-2310C. A-231 Alert Area is located directly against the northwest boundary of the
Phoenix Class B airspace, and provides airspace for training operations associated with
Luke Air Force Base.
Military Operations Areas. There are two Military Operations Area (MOA) in the region.
The Outlaw MOA begins approximately 25 miles east of Chandler Municipal Airport and
extends to the east approximately 45 miles to the boundary of the Jackal MOA. The
Sells MOA is located 45 nautical miles southwest of Chandler Municipal and extends to
the U.S./Mexico border. This airspace is utilized by all military flying organizations in
the State of Arizona. MOAs are airspace blocks outside positive control areas assigned
to segregate certain military activities from IFR traffic, to identify VFR traffic to the user
and to make non-participating aircraft aware of these operations. Scheduling,
coordination and flight procedures for MOAs are established by letters of agreement
between local military authorities and concerned ATC facilities. MOAs are intermittently
used. They are scheduled by the designated military scheduling point and are activated
by ATC.
Military Training Routes. There are numerous designated Military Training Routes
(MTRs) in the Region. MTRs are air corridors of defined lateral dimensions established
for the conduct of military training at speeds in excess of 250 knots. MTRs may be bidirectional or unidirectional. The MTRs in the Phoenix area are located along the outer
edges of the Phoenix Class B airspace boundary, and have limited impact on aircraft
operating to and from Chandler Municipal Airport. Exhibit A.6 depicts the MTRs in the
Phoenix area.
Skydiving and Parachute Jumping Areas. There are 2 designated skydiving/parachute
jumping areas in the Region located near the Buckeye and Coolidge airports. These
areas are normally activated by Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) whenever parachute
jumping is planned. There are additional areas occasionally used for parachuting
activities, and these are identified by NOTAM. Skydiving is an FAA-recognized activity
and is conducted in accordance with FAR Part 105.
Available VFR Airspace
When the volume of controlled airspace, special use airspace and restricted airspace is
superimposed on a chart of the Region, the minimal amount of airspace available for
VFR flying becomes apparent.
Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-10

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-11

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
Air Traffic Control Facilities
From the preceding information it is clear that a large portion of the airspace above the
Phoenix area is controlled airspace. The FAA, acting through several subordinate
agencies, manages the complex task of separating aircraft. Each agency, or subagency, has responsibility for a portion of the system. These air traffic control agencies
work in harmony with one another and the various users of controlled airspace to
ensure a safe and efficient environment for the flying public.
Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). Airspace control throughout
most of the southwestern United States rests with the Albuquerque ARTCC, frequently
referred to as "Albuquerque Center", or locally as "Center". The Center controls the
airspace between 16,000 feet and FL 600 encompassing most of Arizona, New Mexico,
and western portions of Texas. Albuquerque ARTCC is located in Albuquerque, NM and
exercises its control through remote radar and radio facilities located throughout its
region. The ARTCC maintains letters of agreement with other FAA ATC agencies and
users throughout its area of responsibility. These agreements establish procedures for
handing off air traffic from one agency to another and define local air control procedures
and responsibilities. The Center also maintains a letter of agreement with the other
radar-equipped FAA agencies to assume enroute air traffic control responsibilities in the
event of an emergency which renders the Center incapable of control.
Phoenix Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON). The TRACON is the next level
down of air traffic control provided in the Phoenix region. The TRACON exercises radar
traffic control in the terminal area from a facility located at the Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport. The terminal area includes the Phoenix Class B airspace as well
as portions of controlled airspace surrounding the Class B airspace used by aircraft
arriving and departing the Phoenix area. The TRACON manages all traffic in the in the
terminal area which is not under center or tower control. The TRACON coordinates its
many and varied responsibilities through letters of agreement with other controlling
agencies and some users. The TRACON operates twenty-four hours a day and handles
IFR arrivals and departures for most of the airports in the region, including Chandler
Municipal Airport.
Luke Radar Approach Control (RAPCON). In conjunction with Phoenix TRACON, Luke
RAPCON exercises radar traffic control in the West Valley of Phoenix’s terminal area.
When Luke Air Force Base is flying, RAPCON provides air traffic service in the portion
of the Phoenix Class B airspace overlying Luke. As TRACON, the RAPCON
coordinates its many and varied responsibilities through letter of agreement with other
agencies. Luke RAPCON operates Monday through Friday from 6:30 am until 10:30
pm, weekends by notices to airmen (NOTAMs) and handles IFR arrival and departures
to West Valley airports.
Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-12

Air Traffic Control Towers. There are nine airports with operating control towers in the
Phoenix metropolitan area. With the exception of the tower at the Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport, each tower controls the Class D airspace associated with the
airport as well as ground operations at each airport. Each Class D airspace is contained
within or underlies the Phoenix Class B airspace. Many of the tower facilities including
the Chandler Municipal ATCT are equipped with a terminal area radar repeater system
(D Bright) which gives the tower controllers better awareness of aircraft operating in the
vicinity, including all aircraft with an operating transponder. The D Bright presentation is
a duplicate of the TRACON primary radar picture, including flight track data. This
system improves tower controllers’ ability to control airplanes safely under reduced
visibility conditions.
Published Instrument Approaches
Under IFR, aircraft transition from the enroute system to a point where a landing can be
made at an airport using a series of predetermined maneuvers called an instrument
approach. An instrument approach or instrument approach procedure (IAP) is a method
that allows pilots to land an aircraft during periods of restricted visibility known as
instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Instrument approaches are classified as
either precision or non-precision, depending on the accuracy and capabilities of the
navigational aids used. Precision approaches utilize both lateral or course, and vertical
or glideslope information. Non-precision approaches provide course information only.
Pilots refer to charts known as terminal procedures or approach plates during an
instrument approach. IAP’s depict the horizontal and vertical approach path and radio
frequencies used in addition to landmarks, airspace, and other relevant data. The
majority of IAP’s are aligned with the airport runway to allow for a straight-in landing
once the airport environment is in sight. However, if wind conditions do not favor a
straight-in landing or if the approach procedure does not line up with the runway a
“circling approach” is used. During a circling approach, once the airport environment is
in sight, the pilot maneuvers the aircraft while maintaining visual reference to the airport,
to line the aircraft up with the runway favored by the prevailing wind. Exhibit A.7 depicts
the VOR non-precision IAP for Chandler Municipal Airport. The procedure includes
both straight-in and circling minimums, which are the lowest altitudes that an aircraft can
descend to before having the runway environment in sight. Within a 15 nautical mile
(NM) radius of Chandler Municipal Airport there are four airports that currently have
published instrument approaches. Table A.1 summarizes the instrument approaches for
the IFR capable airports within 15 NM of Chandler Municipal Airport. Exhibit A.8
depicts the typical flight tracks of aircraft utilizing instrument approach procedures in the
vicinity of Chandler Municipal Airport.

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-13

Exhibit A.7
NON-PRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE
CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-14

Table A.1
INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES
Chandler Municipal Airport (CHD)
2005 Total Operations
Instrument Approach Procedures

235,111
NDB Runway 4R
GPS Runway 4R
VOR Runway 4R

Stellar Airpark (P19)
Distance and Location from Chandler Municipal Airport

5.5 NM West-Northwest

2005 Total Operations
Instrument Approach Procedures

45,800
VOR or GPS-A

Williams Gateway (IWA)
Distance and Location from Chandler Municipal Airport

8.2 NM East

2005 Total Operations
Instrument Approach Procedures

Falcon Field (FFZ)
Distance and Location from Chandler Municipal Airport
2005 Total Operations
Instrument Approach Procedures

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX)
Distance and Location from Chandler Municipal Airport
2005 Total Operations
Instrument Approach Procedures

261,021
GPS Runway 30C
ILS Runway 30C
GPS Runway 12C
GPS Runway 12R
GPS Runway 30L
VOR or TACAN Runway 30C

12.2 NM North-Northeast
257,028
GPS Runway 4R
NDB or GPS-A

14.1 NM Northwest
559,887
ILS Runway 7L
ILS Runway 7R
ILS Runway 8
ILS Runway 25L
ILS Runway 26
Localizer Back Course Runway 25R
GPS Runway 7L
GPS Runway 7R
GPS Runway 8
GPS Runway 25L
GPS Runway 25R
GPS Runway 26
VOR/DME Runway 25R
VOR/DME – A

*Colors of the instrument approach procedures correspond to the flight path colors in the following exhibits.

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-15

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-16

CURRENT AIRSPACE ISSUES
As mentioned, Chandler Municipal Airport is located in close proximity to some of the
most active airports in the county. Exhibit A.9 shows the standard traffic pattern
airspace for Chandler Municipal Airport in addition to the typical traffic patterns used at
the airports surrounding the City of Chandler. In general the traffic pattern is the
prescribed path for an airplane that is preparing to land at an airport. The pattern varies
in size and shape depending on size and speed of aircraft that regularly uses the
airport. Airports regularly used by large aircraft with faster landing approach speeds
have larger traffic patterns.
The following sections describe the airspace issues related to Chandler Municipal
Airport and how activities at surrounding airports affect operations at Chandler
Municipal Airport.
Stellar Airpark
The standard traffic patterns of Stellar Airpark and Chandler Municipal Airport are
separated by approximately 2 miles at the closest point. Stellar Airpark is a privately
owned, public use facility located approximately 5.5 NM west of Chandler Municipal
Airport. The privately owned facility has numerous private homes and commercial
facilities with direct taxiway and runway access. Stellar Airpark does not have a control
tower. Exhibit A.10 depicts the standard traffic patterns of Stellar Airpark and Chandler
Municipal Airport. The Stellar Airpark traffic pattern is located in uncontrolled airspace
underneath the Phoenix Class B Airspace shelf. While this is relatively close, VFR
operations can be conducted at each airport with minimal impact on each facility.
Additionally, aircraft are required to receive clearance before entering the Chandler
Class D Airspace which is located less than one mile east of Stellar Airpark. This
requirement tends to keep aircraft operating at Stellar Airpark outside of the Chandler
Municipal Airport Traffic area.
Stellar Airpark is served by a VOR and GPS IAP that arrives from the south. This
approach procedure crosses the final approach course of all three IAPs to Chandler
Municipal Airport. Because of the intersecting approach courses, aircraft operating
under IFR to either airport must be sequenced by ATC to avoid conflicts. However, due
to the low number of aircraft operating IFR at Stellar Airpark, separating IFR arrivals at
the two facilities has seldom been an issue. Exhibit A.11 shows the instrument
approach procedures to Stellar Airpark and Chandler Municipal Airport.

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-17

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-18

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-19

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-20

Memorial Airfield
Memorial Airfield is a private airport owned and operated by the Gila River Indian
Community. Because the airport is privately owned pilots must receive prior permission
from the Gila River Airport Authority before using this airport. This requirement
significantly reduces the amount of activity at this facility. Currently the only aircraft
operations conducted at the airport are from aircraft based at the airport. Memorial
Airfield is located approximately six miles west of Chandler Municipal Airport
underneath the southern shelf of the Phoenix Class B Airspace. Memorial Airfield does
not have a control tower or IAPs. The standard VFR traffic patterns for Chandler
Municipal Airport and Memorial Airfield are relatively close to each other. However, the
Chandler Class D airspace boundary is located less the one mile east of the Memorial
Airfield, and requires an ATC clearance before entering. Because of restrictions on
entering Chandler Class D airspace and the limited amount of activity at Memorial
Airfield the two facilities currently have limited impact on each other during VFR
conditions.
Currently Memorial Airfield is not served by an IAP and does not accommodate IFR
operations. Exhibits A.12 and A.13 illustrate the traffic pattern airspace of Memorial
Airfield, and the IAP’s for Chandler Municipal Airport. It should be noted that the traffic
pattern airspace and the IAPs depicted on the exhibits illustrate the routes and altitudes
that aircraft typically fly. Some aircraft may fly a smaller pattern and remain closer to the
airport, while others may fly a larger pattern further away from the airport. The three
IAPs to Chandler Municipal Airport cross from west to east directly over, through, or
under the Memorial Airfield traffic pattern airspace. Because the IAPs to Chandler are
all non-precision procedures, the altitudes that aircraft cross over the Memorial Airfield
traffic pattern airspace can vary. The altitudes depicted on the exhibits represent the
lowest altitude aircraft are allowed to descend before the runway environment is in site.
Because Memorial Airfield is a private facility, a traffic pattern altitude is not published. A
standard traffic pattern altitude is typically 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL). Utilizing
this standard, the traffic pattern altitude at Memorial Airfield would be 2,200 feet MSL.
Aircraft utilizing the VOR approach to Chandler Municipal Airport cross over the
Memorial Airfield traffic pattern at or above 3,000 feet MSL. Aircraft utilizing the GPS
approach to Chandler Municipal airport cross over the Memorial Airfield traffic pattern at
or above 2,900 feet MSL. Aircraft utilizing the NDB approach are authorized to descend
from 2,800 feet MSL to 1,780 feet MSL once the aircraft is within 10 NM of the Airport,
and established inbound on the approach. Aircraft utilizing the NDB approach to
Chandler Municipal Airport could cross over at or even below the Memorial Airfield
traffic pattern altitude. These intersecting flight paths create the potential for conflict
between aircraft operating under VFR in the traffic pattern at Memorial Airfield and
aircraft on an instrument approach to Chandler Municipal Airport. Currently the low level
of activity and the lack of operations at Memorial Airfield during IMC conditions make
the potential for conflict limited. Additionally, radar coverage in the area enables ATC to
identify aircraft in the pattern at Memorial and issue traffic advisories to aircraft on
approach to Chandler.
Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-21

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-22

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-23

Stellar Airpark – Memorial Airfield
Memorial Airfield is located less the 2 NM south of Stellar Airpark. Exhibit A.14 depicts
the current traffic patterns of both airports. As shown in the exhibit, the standard traffic
pattern on the northeast side of Memorial Airfield overlaps a significant portion of the
traffic pattern at Stellar Airpark, creating the potential for a conflict at both facilities.
Currently the limited activity and the requirement for prior permission to use the
Memorial Airfield have reduced any conflicts between these airports. Because of the
requirement to receive prior permission, pilots using Memorial Airfield are likely to be
familiar with the location of Stellar Airpark and aware of the potential conflicts with the
Stellar Airpark traffic pattern. If Memorial Airfield becomes a public use facility, and is
utilized by transient pilots less familiar with the local area, there could be a greater
potential for a conflict between the two facilities. To reduce this conflict the FAA has
recommended that Memorial Airfield implement a right traffic pattern on runway 30. In
addition, a left traffic pattern should be exercised when accessing from southwest of
Memorial Airfield for landing on runway 12. Implementing this change would shift the
pattern for runway 30 and runway 12 to the southwest side of the airport. This would
reduce conflicts with Chandler IAPs and with Stellar Airpark traffic patterns. In
recognition of the potential for conflicts, Stellar Airpark has prohibited practice
instrument approaches to its runway.
Exhibit A.15 depicts the traffic patterns of both airports with this recommended change
in place. As shown, this action would not entirely eliminate the conflict between Stellar
Airpark and Memorial Airfield, but would significantly reduce it.

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-24

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-25

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-26

Williams Gateway Airport
Williams Gateway Airport is a public use reliever airport that was previously the Williams
Air Force Base. The airport is located approximately 8 miles east of Chandler Municipal
Airport and services a wide variety of general aviation and cargo operations. The
Williams Gateway has an operating control tower with the associated Class D airspace
slightly overlapping that of Chandler Municipal Airport. The distance between the two
facilities is sufficient for VFR operations to occur at each airport with very little impact on
each other. Operating control towers at both facilities further limit conflict between these
two airports during both VFR and IFR conditions. Exhibit A.16 depicts the traffic pattern
airspace of both facilities.
Due to conflicts with aircraft arriving and departing Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport, the IFR approaches to Williams Gateway arriving from the northwest are seldom
utilized. Almost all aircraft operating IFR to Williams Gateway arrive from the southeast,
outside the area used by the majority of aircraft operating to and from Chandler
Municipal Airport. Exhibit A.17 shows the IAP flight paths to both airports.

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-27

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-28

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-29

FUTURE POTENTIAL AIRSPACE ISSUES
The previous analysis indicated where airspace conflicts in the existing airspace
structure could occur relative to activity at Chandler Municipal Airport. There are several
future potential aviation-related changes that may impact the airspace in the region. The
following sections describe these potential future airspace issues as they relates to
Chandler Municipal Airport
Memorial Airfield
The Memorial Airfield is currently in the process of a Master Plan Update. One of the
development alternatives of the draft plan proposes to realign the existing runway and
equip the airport with a GPS instrument approach. The proposed runway realignment
would rotate the runway eleven degrees to a more north – south alignment and shift the
runway approximately 2,400 feet north. The intent of the propose runway realignment
and shift is to minimize the impacts of aircraft over flight on the Sun Lakes community
located south of Memorial Airfield. The runway realignment and shift are not anticipated
to have a significant effect on operations at Chandler Municipal Airport. The most
significant impact on Chandler Municipal Airport will be the increased utilization of
Memorial Airfield that will occur as a result of the airport being improved and designated
as a public use facility. The draft Master Plan Update indicates the potential for
construction of 418 hangar units. With the strong demand for hangar facilities in the
Phoenix area, it is anticipated that new hangars at Memorial Airfield would be in high
demand, creating the potential for a significant increase in aircraft activity at Memorial
Airfield. The Master Plan Update projects Memorial Airfield to accommodate
approximately 60,000 total operations at the end of the planning period (20 years). This
level of activity would not meet FAA requirements for the establishment of an air traffic
control tower. However, if the Gila River Airport Authority were to establish an air traffic
control tower, the facility would most likely be a Non-Federal Control Tower, and would
not have associated Class D airspace.
Currently Memorial Airfield does not have an IAP. The Master Plan Update proposes
that the airport be designed to accommodate an instrument approach with not lower
than one-half mile visibility minimums to the south end of the runway, and an approach
with not lower the one mile visibility to the north end of the runway. Similar to the
approach at Stellar Airpark, the approach to the south end of the runway would cross
the approach paths of aircraft utilizing the instrument approach procedures at Chandler
Municipal Airport. To eliminate this conflict, approaches to each airport would require
sequencing by ATC, meaning that from and ATC standpoint the two airports would be
treated as one, with only one aircraft being allowed to execute an instrument approach
to either airport at one time. The approach to the north end of the runway is not
anticipated to have a significant impact on operations at Chandler Municipal Airport, but
could effect operations at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Exhibit A.18
depicts the anticipated approach path of the IAP arriving from the south to Memorial
Airfield with the proposed runway realignment.
Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-30

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-31

Class B Airspace Redesign
The current Phoenix Class B airspace configuration was published in November 1998.
Since that time the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport has experienced a
significant increase in air carrier traffic. In order to accommodate the increase in airline
traffic, the FAA has proposed a series of revisions to the Class B airspace. Exhibit A.19
depicts the Phoenix Class B airspace with the proposed changes.
Numerous changes are proposed for the Phoenix Class B airspace. The following lists
the major airspace changes proposed:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Lowers the top of the Class B airspace from 10,000 feet MSL to 9,000 feet MSL
Lowers the floor of the Class B airspace directly east of Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport from 3,000 feet MSL to 2,700 feet MSL
Lowers the floor of the far eastern shelf of the Class B airspace from 8,000 feet
MSL to 5,000 feet MSL
Creates a new 4,000 to 9,000 feet MSL Class B shelf over Luke AFB
Lowers the floor of the Class B shelf over Goodyear Airport from 6,000 to 4,000
feet MSL
Raises the floor of the airspace directly south of Chandler Municipal from 4,000
to 6,000 feet MSL
Adds an 8,000 to 9,000 feet MSL shelf north of Deer Valley Airport
Adds an 8,000 to 9,000 feet MSL shelf on the northeast and southeast outer
portion of the Class B airspace, extending just beyond the 30 NM Mode C
boundary
Adds an 4,000 to 9,000 feet MSL shelf west of Goodyear Airport

The proposed changes to the Class B airspace will have varying impacts on the airports
in the Phoenix region.
The impact on operations at Chandler Municipal Airport appears to be minimal. The
altitude of the Class B airspace shelf overlying Chandler Municipal Airport remains the
same, or is higher in some areas than the existing airspace configuration. The intent of
the proposed airspace changes is to increase the capacity for operations at Phoenix
Sky Harbor International. IFR arrivals and departures to and from Chandler Municipal
Airport are sequenced with arrivals and departures at Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport. Thus improvements to the IFR capacity of Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport, will improve ATC’s ability to sequence IFR traffic to and from Chandler
Municipal Airport.

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-32

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-33

Other airports in the Phoenix area appear to have more significant impacts as a result of
the proposed changes. Luke Air Force base is currently outside the boundaries of the
Class B airspace. The proposed changes include a 4,000 to 9,000 feet MSL Class B
shelf over most of the Luke Air Force base Class D airspace; when Luke Air Force Base
is flying, RAPCON will retain air traffic control service. The Goodyear Airport would see
the Class D airspace lowered over the northwest portion of the Goodyear Class D
airspace from 6,000 feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL. Other minor changes include small
portions of the Class B airspace overlying the Williams Gateway and Falcon Field Class
D airspace that would be lower than before. The primary effect of these changes will be
on aircraft who choose not to receive ATC services, or those who are not able to
receive ATC clearance through the Class B airspace. These aircraft who are trying to
avoid the Class B airspace will be required to fly at lower altitudes that before in order to
remain outside of the Class B airspace boundaries. In these cases aircraft will be
required to fly at lower altitudes over heavily populated areas increasing the potential for
noise complaints in these areas. It should be noted that the currently proposed Class B
airspace redesign is being reviewed with additional changes proposed by a wide cross
section of organization representing various local aviation interests.
SUMMARY
The airspace in the Phoenix metropolitan area is a precious commodity. Proper
allocation of airspace and coordination between controlling agencies becomes
increasingly important as traffic density increases, as is projected for Chandler
Municipal Airport, and the other airports in the Phoenix area. The projected increase in
aircraft activity and the development of additional facilities to accommodate this demand
will make day-to-day air traffic management and airspace control in this heavily
congested area a continuing challenge. The purpose of this analysis is to identify
existing and potential future airspace conflicts as they relate to the existing conditions at
Chandler Municipal Airport, as well as potential improvements that would affect future
development at Chandler Municipal Airport. Early identification of conflicts will provide
local stakeholders and controlling agencies a better opportunity to find solutions to
mitigate current and potential future airspace conflicts.
The following is a list of the current and potential future airspace conflicts identified in
this analysis.
Current Issues
•

IFR approaches to Chandler Municipal Airport cross through the VFR traffic
pattern airspace of Memorial Airfield.

•

The traffic pattern airspace at Memorial Airfield overlaps the traffic pattern
airspace of Stellar Airpark.

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-34

•

The instrument approach to Stellar Airpark crosses the three instrument
approach paths to Chandler Municipal Airport.

Future Issues
•

A future instrument approach at Memorial Airport would cross the current
instrument approaches at Chandler Municipal Airport. This will require ATC to
sequence aircraft using the IAPs at either airport.

•

Activity at Memorial Airfield is projected to significantly increase if the airfield is
redeveloped and improved. As activity at Memorial increases, the potential for
airspace conflicts increases as well.

Airspace Conflicts Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

A-35

APPENDIX B: ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT
INTRODUCTION
This appendix encapsulates an analysis of the economic impacts that could result from
the implementation of the findings of the Chandler Municipal Airport Master Plan
Update. Specifically, this analysis assesses the direct economic impacts that would be
projected to result from the enhancements of the existing infrastructure at the Airport,
with principal consideration given to an extended primary runway. The analysis
includes a comparative review of the potential economic and market impacts of the
Airport under existing conditions, under conditions of an enhanced infrastructure, as
well as a review of other selected, comparable airports.
BACKGROUND
Chandler Municipal Airport serves as one of seven “reliever” airports for Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport as designated by the Federal Aviation Administration’s
(FAA) National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The role of a reliever
airport is to provide an alternate location for general aviation aircraft to operate away
from a large commercial service airport. As a reliever, Chandler Municipal supports
general aviation aircraft activity in the Phoenix metropolitan area and the City of
Chandler. In 2005, Chandler Municipal Airport accommodated over 235,000 operations
and had over 450 based general aviation aircraft.
As an important part of the economic infrastructure of both the City of Chandler and the
Phoenix metropolitan area, Chandler Municipal Airport generates significant economic
impacts for the region and stimulates economic development through its provision of
aviation services and transportation infrastructure. The primary airport activities at
Chandler Municipal include those conducted by private and non-commercial aircraft
operators, flight schools, and other general aviation operations or fixed base operators
(FBOs). These types of activities generally consist of providing support services for
general aviation aircraft, including fuel and maintenance; providing aircraft charter
operations; corporate aircraft support operations; as well as services for local residents
who own and operate general aviation aircraft.
Note that the types of activities and aircraft that can be accommodated at an airport are
largely dependent on the basic airfield infrastructure that is available for use. Different
aircraft have different needs with regards to runway length, approaches, fuel and
maintenance services, and parking and/or hangar size. The availability of these
services and required infrastructure are considered each time a pilot opts to utilize an
airport that lies within the vicinity of the aircraft passengers’ final destination.

Appendix B: Economic Impact of Airport Infrastructure Development
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

B-1

The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the potential change in economic impact that
could result from infrastructure improvements at Chandler Municipal Airport. While this
analysis is being prepared separately from the Airport Master Plan, its objective is to
provide more information on the economic impacts of the potential airport improvements
being considered as part of that plan. Therefore, relevant findings of the Master Plan
will be incorporated directly into this analysis.
RELEVANT MASTER PLAN FINDINGS
The on-going Master Plan Update for Chandler Municipal Airport is currently being
concluded, having reached consensus on establishing a long-term airport development
program for the 20-year planning period. For the purposes of this economic impact
analysis, key development concepts and their potential impacts on airport operations
must be identified and quantified. Specifically, and of greatest relevance, is the
proposed extension of the Airport’s primary runway, and how this extension could
impact the Airport’s future operational levels and aircraft fleet mix.
Through the master planning process, an 830-foot extension to Runway 4R-22L,
bringing its total usable length up from 4,870 feet to 5,700 feet, has been identified as
being a key component of the Airport’s long-term development program. In general, this
extension will:
•
•
•
•
•

Enhance the overall level of airport operational safety;
Improve the stage length capabilities of aircraft that operate on the runway;
Reduce or eliminate any operational weight limitations currently being realized by
aircraft operating on the existing runway;
Result in quieter aircraft operations; and
Enhance the Airport’s overall economic benefits to the surrounding communities.

Directly attributable to the benefits listed above, the extended runway is projected to result in
an increase in corporate jet aircraft activity at the Airport. This increase is detailed in the
following table (Table B.1). Note that these projections are based on airport operations
being constrained by airfield infrastructure conditions; in this case the constraint is runway
length. As shown in this table, the extended runway is projected to result in an increase of
2,404 jet operations at the Airport, or approximately 6.6 operations per day.

Appendix B: Economic Impact of Airport Infrastructure Development
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

B-2

Table B.1
CONSTRAINED JET OPERATIONS FORECAST
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025

4,870 ft Runway
Jet Ops
Total Ops
3,527
235,111
4,029
265,915
4,604
303,831
5,259
345,341
6,009
392,588

5,700 ft Runway
Jet Ops
Total Ops
NA
NA
5,641
267,527
6,445
305,672
7,363
347,445
8,413
394,992

Net Difference
Jet Ops
Total Ops
NA
NA
1,612
1,612
1,841
1,841
2,104
2,104
2,404
2,404

SOURCE:
Wilbur Smith Associates.
PREPARED: September 2006

As important as it is to quantify the overall operational benefits of a longer runway, it is
equally important to identify its qualitative benefits. In this case, an analysis of the
runway length requirements of corporate jet aircraft through application of the FAA’s
Runway Design 4.2 model analysis (reflected in Chapter Three, Capacity Analysis and
Facility Requirements) indicates that a 5,700 foot runway at Chandler Municipal would
be capable of handling 75 percent of the business jet fleet at 60 percent useful load
throughout the entire year (Table B.2).
Table B.2
AIRPLANES THAT MAKE UP 75% OF FLEET
Manufacturer
Aeospatiale
BAE
Beech Jet
Beech Jet
Beech Jet
Bombardier
Cessna
Cessna
Cessna
Cessna
Cessna
Cessna
Cessna
Cessna
Cessna
Cessna
Cessna

Model
Sn-601 Corvette
127-700
400A
Premier I
2000 Starship
Challenger 300
500 Citation/501 Citation Sp
Citation I/II/III
525A Citation II (CJ-2)
550 Citation Bravo
550 Citation II
551 Citation II/Special
552 Citation
560 Citation Encore
560/560 XL Citation Excel
560 Citation V Ultra
650 Citation VII

Manufacturer
Dassault
Dassault
Dassault
Dassault
IAI
IAI
Learjet
Learjet
Learjet
Learjet
Mitsubishi
Raytheon
Raytheon Hawker
Raytheon Hawker
Sabreliner
Sabreliner
Sabreliner

Model
Falcon 10
Falcon 20
Falcon 50/50EX
Falcon 900/900B
Jet Commander 1121
Westwind 1123/1124
20 series
31/31A/31A ER
35/35A/36/36A
40/45
Mu-300 Diamond
390 Premier
400/400XP
600
75A
80
T-37

SOURCE:
FAA AC 150/5324-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design
PREPARED: July 2006
NOTE:
Those aircraft noted in bold currently operate at Chandler Municipal Airport.

It should also be noted that many of the aircraft that are included in the remaining 25
percent of the business jet fleet mix not shown above are currently operating at the
Airport. As such, Chandler Municipal would continue to accommodate those aircraft,
albeit at some reduced operational capabilities.

Appendix B: Economic Impact of Airport Infrastructure Development
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

B-3

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
General aviation airports are an integral component of a region’s overall multi-modal
transportation infrastructure. Furthermore, general aviation airports serve as an
important economic stimulus by generating revenues, payroll, and jobs. Additionally,
not only do the airports themselves generate direct economic benefits, but many nonaviation employers who rely on airports to support their daily business activities also
contribute to the overall economy.
Economic Impact at Comparable Airports
It is important to note that no two airports, whether they are commercial service or
general aviation, are exactly alike. However, by comparing airports based on
similarities such as FAA role (i.e. commercial, reliever, general aviation), Airport
Reference Code (ARC), proximity to a metropolitan area, facilities, activity levels, as
well as the many other commonalities that airports share, the economic impact derived
from an airport and its facilities can be estimated.
As such, the four airports that share such commonalities with Chandler Municipal and
whose economic impacts will be compared include Phoenix Deer Valley (DVT) in the
Phoenix area; Spirit of Saint Louis (SUS) in St. Louis, Missouri; Charles B. Wheeler
Downtown (MKC) in Kansas City, Missouri; and Van Nuys Regional (VNY) in Los
Angeles, California. These airports are all located in major metropolitan areas which
have experienced similar socioeconomic growth and have similar types of airport
activity. Further, all airports have an ARC of either C or D and serve as reliever facilities
for major metropolitan commercial service airports.
Table B.3 shows that while Chandler Municipal Airport has a shorter runway length than
the other four comparable airports, it actually exceeds the based aircraft and annual
operational levels of two of those other airports. However, when the most recent
available economic impact is examined, Chandler Municipal’s economic impact is
significantly lower than all but one. One reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from
this information is that if Chandler Municipal Airport had a longer runway, the economic
benefit to the community and the region could increase. This increase would be due to
the ability to support operations by more jet aircraft year round with limited or no
restrictions to payload and/or fuel capacity. While precise estimates of additional
economic impacts resulting from additional runway length at Chandler Municipal are
impossible, it is reasonable to expect gains in economic benefit if the runway at the
Airport were extended to better accommodate jet aircraft activities.

Appendix B: Economic Impact of Airport Infrastructure Development
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

B-4

Table B.3
ECONOMIC IMPACT AND FACILITIES AT COMPARABLE AIRPORTS

Primary Runway Length
Based Aircraft Total
Jets
Annual Operations

Employment
Payroll (in millions)
Economic Activity (in millions)

Facilities
CHD
DVT
SUS
4,870'
8,208'
7,485'
457
890
416
1
13
126
235,095 290,791 146,145
Economic Activity*
CHD
DVT
SUS
845.0 2,209.0 3,053.0
$24.3
$59.4
$116.0
$58.4
$135.4
$411.6

MKC
7,002'
202
43
102,807

VNY
8,001'
712
155
504,502

MKC
591.0
$12.5
$46.0

VNY
12,014.0
$327.5
$1,471.2

SOURCE:

Chandler Municipal Airport Records; www.airnav.com; The Economic Impact of Aviation in Arizona,
2002; The Economic Benefit of Missouri's Airport System, 2005; Economic Impact of Van Nuys
Airport-Update 1998, 1999
PREPARED: August 2006
NOTE:
All impacts associated with the economic activity have been adjusted for inflation.

From a business standpoint, the presence of a modern general aviation airport is
commonly listed in business location studies as being one of the top ten reasons a firm
chooses a specific location to base its operations. Over 90 percent of Fortune 500 firms
own and operate general aviation aircraft, and a majority of these are business jet
aircraft. Moreover, the business jet segment of the nation’s general aviation fleet is
currently the fastest-growing segment, and the FAA expects this trend to continue at
least through 2017. The ability to safely and efficiently operate at Chandler Municipal
Airport would allow large companies to more effectively conduct business in Chandler
and nearby communities. Similarly, Chandler-area businesses would also benefit from
a longer runway, as many of those firms’ clients and vendors would have an easier,
more efficient means of access via a local, full service, jet-capable runway.
Economic Impact of Jet Aircraft Operations
An economic impact analysis of reliever airports throughout the U.S. conducted by
Wilbur Smith Associates indicates that, on average, reliever airports similar to Chandler
Municipal experience an economic impact of $961 per jet aircraft operation. Based on
this level of economic impact, Table B.4 presents the possible economic impacts of the
proposed 5,700-foot runway, as well as the economic impact that could be expected to
be realized from jet aircraft operations with the current runway length of 4,870 feet. The
totals represent the sum of the annual projected economic impacts from 2010 to 2025.
The analysis indicates that if the runway were extended to 5,700 feet, almost $31 million
of additional economic impact could be realized over the 15-year period between 2010
and 2025.

Appendix B: Economic Impact of Airport Infrastructure Development
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

B-5

Table B.4
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF JET AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Year
2010
2015
2020
2025
Total 2010 – 2025
Economic Impact
Total 2010 – 2025
Additional Economic
Impacts

Total Annual Economic
Impact @ 4,870 ft
$3,871,869
$4,423,964
$5,053,899
$5,774,649

Total Annual Economic
Impact @ 5,700 ft
$5,420,617
$6,193,549
$7,075,459
$8,084,509

$76,328,867

$106,860,413

$0

$30,531,547

SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates.
PREPARED: September 2006

Additionally, a Wilbur Smith Associates economic impact analysis of airports throughout
the U.S. indicates that a typical corporate flight department employs, on average, 11
workers and has an annual output of $4,032,000. These facilities tend to provide high
paying jobs comprised of corporate pilots, mechanics and aircraft operational
dispatchers. The flight departments themselves also purchase goods and services from
local vendors such as catering companies and FBOs. Presented below, Table B.5
summarizes the potential economic impact generated by corporate flight departments
located at Chandler Municipal Airport, assuming that the runway were to be extended to
5,700 feet. The scenario also assumes that additional corporate flight departments will
locate at the Airport in five-year increments. In this capacity alone, corporate flight
departments based at the Airport could potentially contribute over $137.0 million to the
local Chandler economy over a 20-year period.
Finally, it is noteworthy that many corporations’ insurance policies require aircraft
operations to be conducted on runways of at least 5,000 feet in order for coverage to be
in effect. In other words, corporate aircraft under this type of insurance restriction would
be effectively prohibited from operating at Chandler Municipal in its current
configuration. It is also notable that the availability of developable land and a
convenient location gives Chandler Municipal Airport an advantage in attracting
corporate flight departments over the other airports in the Phoenix area, again provided
that the runway length is sufficient to meet aircraft performance and insurance
requirements.

Appendix B: Economic Impact of Airport Infrastructure Development
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

B-6

Table B.5
5,700-FOOT LONG RUNWAY EXTENSION
CHD CORPORATE FLIGHT DEPARTMENT ECONOMIC IMPACT
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Total

Number of
Corporate
Flight
Departments
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4

Number of
Employees
11
11
11
11
11
22
22
22
22
22
33
33
33
33
33
44

Annual Output
$4,032,000
$4,032,000
$4,032,000
$4,032,000
$4,032,000
$8,064,000
$8,064,000
$8,064,000
$8,064,000
$8,064,000
$12,096,000
$12,096,000
$12,096,000
$12,096,000
$12,096,000
$16,128,000
$137,088,000

SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates.
PREPARED: September 2006

Economic Impact of Corporate Flight Departments
Airports located in metropolitan areas, especially those located near major corporations,
typically accommodate corporate flight departments. Corporate flight departments are
utilized by many businesses, including most Fortune 500 companies, in order to
transport their employees for business purpose on aircraft that are owned or leased by
the corporation. With a longer runway that could accommodate a higher level of service
for these corporate-class aircraft, Chandler Municipal Airport would likely attract
corporate flight departments of existing or new businesses in the metropolitan area.
According to a study conducted by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT),
the economic impact of Chandler Municipal Airport was $53.8 million in 2002. Applying
the Airport Master Plan’s based aircraft forecast annual growth rate of 2.44 percent to
the total economic impact for the 20-year period indicates that the Airport’s economic
impact is estimated to grow to $87.1 million by 2025 without any significant
improvements to the airfield. If the runway were extended to 5,700 feet and corporate
flight departments were to locate on the Airport, the impact by 2025 would be $105.5
million, a 17.5 percent increase. Table B.6 summarizes the total annual economic
impacts of a 5,700-foot long runway.

Appendix B: Economic Impact of Airport Infrastructure Development
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

B-7

Table B.6
TOTAL ANNUAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF A 5,700-FOOT RUNWAY EXTENSION
AND CHD CORPORATE FLIGHT DEPARTMENT
Year

Economic Impact
Forecast for CHD
Based on Current
Runway Length

Economic Impact
Forecast for CHD
Based on 5,700-ft
Runway Length

Economic Impact
from Additional
Operations

Scenario A
Corporate Flight
Department(s)

Total New
Impacts

2005
2010
2015
2020
2025

$53,800,000
$60,689,164
$68,460,495
$77,226,956
$87,115,974

NA
$66,270,296
$78,293,696
$91,344,900
$105,554,218

NA
$1,549,132
$1,769,201
$2,021,944
$2,310,244

NA
$4,032,000
$8,064,000
$12,096,000
$16,128,000

NA
$5,581,132
$9,833,201
$14,117,944
$18,438,244

SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates.
PREPARED: September 2006

Benefits
Benefits are defined as the services that a community receives by developing and
maintaining an airport, and differ from the economic impact discussed in the previous
section. Airports support a variety of public benefits, the most substantial of which is the
time and cost saved by utilizing air transportation. Other benefits can include increased
levels of safety, comfort and convenience, the access to the national airport system that
an airport provides, and enhancements to the community sense of well-being. Note that
these benefits cannot always be expressed in terms of dollars.
Transportation Benefits
Jet aircraft that are currently operating at Chandler Municipal are often doing so at
various degrees of constraints because of the constraining impact of the primary
runway’s existing length. As a result, weight and fuel restrictions may require flights to
further destinations may be forced to stop en route for refueling purposes.
Additionally, there are quantifiable costs associated with each refueling stop. These
associated operational costs are described below on a per incident basis:
•

Stopping to refuel adds approximately 50 minutes (30 minute average turnaround
time for actual refueling and 20 minute average to climb to appropriate altitude)
of flight time to operating costs. Per minute average operating costs for the
planes being used and projected to be used (i.e., Beech Jet 400A or Citation X)
is $35.321. Thus, every re-fueling stop avoided saves on average $1,765.85.

•

With a longer runway, aircraft are more capable of operating at optimum capacity
and weights. Each gallon of Jet A fuel that an aircraft cannot take due to weight

1

Source: Aviation Research Group/US Inc. Fractional Program Cost Comparison Utility between a
Beech Jet 400A and Citation X results in a direct cost per flight hour of $1,900 and $2,338, respectively.
The average per minute flight cost for these two aircraft is $35.32.

Appendix B: Economic Impact of Airport Infrastructure Development
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

B-8

restrictions results in an average loss of $4.972 per gallon to the local fixed base
operator (FBO), as well as any fuel flowage fee realized by the Airport. Thus, for
every 1,000 pounds of additional fuel weight taken on results in fuel sales of
$596.64.
SUMMARY
The Chandler Municipal Airport 2010 Master Plan Update has concluded that in order
for the Airport to better fulfill its designated role of “reliever” airport within the national
transportation system, an extension of the Airport’s primary runway to 5,700 feet is
necessary to better accommodate corporate-class aircraft. While some corporate-class
aircraft currently operate at Chandler Municipal, they are projected to use the Airport
with greater frequency as population and employment in the City of Chandler continues
to grow. As such, from Airport safety, operational, and economic impact perspectives, it
is desirable to upgrade the existing Airport and airfield infrastructure to meet the
projected needs of these aircraft. This appendix has identified the potential economic
impact and benefits that could be realized by the City of Chandler, the surrounding
communities, and the other users of the Airport if the runway were upgraded to better
accommodate larger corporate-class aircraft.

2

Source: Aviation Research Group/US Inc., ARG/US Fuel Price Survey, September 2006. Western
average for Jet A fuel is $4.97 per gallon. The national average as of September 2006 for Jet A fuel is
$4.68 per gallon.

Appendix B: Economic Impact of Airport Infrastructure Development
Wilbur Smith Associates
Prepared: April 2010

B-9

APPENDIX C: AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWINGS
At the conclusion of the Alternatives Analysis, an evaluation was made of future options
for airfield and landside development. This resulted in the selection of an alternative for
the future development of Chandler Municipal Airport. Specific improvements needed
to accommodate previously identified requirements for airport facilities were noted in the
Airport Development Schedule and Financial Analysis. This appendix provides the
Airport Layout Plan drawings that depict the results of the previous analysis, including
the specific projects recommended for development, the impact of these projects on
airspace and approaches to the Airport, land uses around the Airport, and the Airport’s
property map.
A set of plans, referred to as Airport Layout Plans, has been prepared to graphically
depict the recommendations for airfield layout, disposition of obstructions, and future
use of land in the vicinity of Chandler Municipal Airport. This set of plans includes the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Sheet Index
Airport Layout Plan
Part 77 Airspace Plan
Approach Zones Profiles
Runway Protection Zone Plans and Profiles
Land Use Plan
Airport Property Map

The airport layout plan set has been prepared on a computer-aided drafting system for
future ease of use. The computerized plan set provides detailed information of existing
and future facility layout on multiple layers that permit the user to focus in on any
section of the Airport at any desirable scale. The plan can be used as base information
for design, and can be easily updated in the future to reflect new development and more
detail concerning existing conditions as made available through design surveys. The
plan set is provided in 22-inch x 34-inch reproducible hard copy in accordance with
current FAA standards. The airport layout plan set has been developed in accordance
with FAA-Western Pacific Region and ADOT-Aeronautics Division through the use of
checklists provided by both agencies.
In order to comply with A.R.S. 28-8486, the Land Use Plan was developed to include
overlays of the traffic pattern airspace and the airport noise contours for the 2025
condition using 60 and 55 DNL contours (55 DNL is required by the City of Chandler).
The drawings comprising the airport layout plan set for Chandler Municipal Airport are
depicted in the following sheets.

Airport Layout Plan Drawings
Wilbur Smith Associates
Revised: April 2010

C-1

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

Airport Layout Plan

Chandler, Arizona

AZDOT PROJECT NO. E5S64 - MARICOPA COUNTY

AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SET
SHEET INDEX
1. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
1A. ALP DETAIL TABLES
2. TERMINAL AREA PLANS
3. PART 77 AIRSPACE PLAN
4. APPROACH ZONES PROFILES
5. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 4R
6. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 22L
7. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE PLANS AND PROFILES RUNWAY 4L-22R
8. LAND USE PLAN

LOCATION MAP

9. "EXHIBIT A" AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP

VICINITY MAP

RUNWAY 4R-22L

AIRPORT DATA

RUNWAY 4L-22R

RUNWAY DATA
ULTIMATE

EXISTING

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT (CHD)

ULTIMATE

EXISTING

CITY:
C-II

B-II

AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE

49.6261

RUNWAY AZIMUTH

SAME

B-II

B-II

49.6154

49.6154

CHANDLER, ARIZONA

RANGE: 5 EAST

COUNTY:

TOWNSHIP:

2 SOUTH

N

MARICOPA

CIVIL TOWNSHIP:
EXISTING

ULTIMATE

SAME
NATIONAL PLAN OF INTERGRATED AIRPORT SYSTEMS (NPIAS) SERVICE LEVEL

43’ 6"

63’ 7"

54’ 6"

54’ 6"

9’ 4"

10’ 7"

17’ 2"

17’ 2"

RUNWAY EFFECTIVE GRADIENT (in %)

0.16%

0.16%

0.18%

0.18%

RUNWAY MAXIMUM GRADIENT (in %)

0.16%

0.16%

0.18%

0.18%

>1 MILE / >1 MILE

>1 MILE / >1 MILE

>1 MILE / >1 MILE

>1 MILE / >1 MILE

Latitude
Longitude

GERMANN ROAD

ROTATING BEACON

AIRPORT and TERMINAL NAVIGATIONAL AIDS

250’

250’

OFZ LENGTH BEYOND EACH RUNWAY END

200’

200’

200’

200’

RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) WIDTH

500’

800’

500’

500’

ROFA LENGTH BEYOND EACH RUNWAY END

300’

1000’

300’

300’

DISTANCE FROM RWY CENTERLINE TO HOLDLINE

200’

200’

125’

125’

VISUAL / VISUAL

VISUAL / VISUAL

240’

240’

PRECISION / VISUAL

400’

400’

65.5’

65.5’

65.5’

65.5’

TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA WIDTH

131’

131’

131’

131’

TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA WIDTH

79’

79’

79’

79’

TAXIWAY WINGTIP CLEARANCE

26’

26’

26’

26’

1235.7’ / 1243.1’

1235.3’ / 1244.0’

1230.9’ / 1236.4’

1230.9’ / 1236.4’

1238.2’ / 1244.0’

1234.4’ / 1236.4’

1234.4’ / 1236.4’

1243.1’

1244.0’

1236.4’

1236.4’

RUNWAY LOW POINT (ABOVE MSL)

1235.7’

1235.3’

1230.9’

1230.9’

LINE OF SIGHT REQUIREMENT MET

YES

YES

YES

YES

RUNWAY SURFACE TYPE

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

TAXIWAY SURFACE TYPE

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

34:1 / 20:1

34:1 / 20:1

20:1 / 20:1

20:1 / 20:1

P
L
12
38

4401’ x 75’

17

4
3
2
1

17

17

APRON/TAXILANE
AREA (STAGE II)

RUNWAY APPROACH SLOPES

MIRL

6
2
2
1

NONPREC / VISUAL

PRECISION / VISUAL

VISUAL / VISUAL

VISUAL / VISUAL

NONE

NONE

NONE

NONE
NONE
VISUAL / VISUAL

NONE

NONE

NONE

NONE

RUNWAY APPROACH LIGHTING

MITL

CENTERLINE / EDGE

CENTERLINE / EDGE

3C

17

O
R
P
A

4

O
S
T

Q:
\
Chandl
erALP Updat
e 2009\
bor
der
.
dwg M ay 05,2010 -7:
38am

12
0

S
E

W
S

0
23

N
K
S
T
O
S
N
T
K
O
.5 KN
13 .0
16

SS
W
2
0
0

E
SS
S

1
9
0

180

0
7
1

13
0

.5
10

0.0

P
L

P
L

12
32

1
2
3
4

1230

P
L

1230

1
2
3
4

12
32

B

C

ACREAGE

A

B

C

4R

500

700

1000

13.77

500

1010

1700

29.47

100% - FEE

ACREAGE

22L

500

700

1000

13.77

500

1010

1700

29.47

100% - FEE

ULTIMATE RWY. 4R
END EL. 1235.3
RWY LOW POINT
TDZ EL. 1238.2
33 15’ 55.071" N
111 48’ 53.140" W

28% - AV EASEMENT

46% - FEE
4L

500

700

1000

13.77

500

700

13.77

1000

46% - FEE

54% - FUTURE AV
EASEMENT

22R

500

700

1000

13.77

500

700

1000

54% - AV EASEMENT
NO CHANGE

100% - FEE

13.77

C O M M E R C I A L
L A N D

U S E

LEGEND
11

12

13

14

EXISTING

ULTIMATE

P
L

0
15

0
6
1

EXIST. RWY. 4R
END EL. 1235.7
RWY LOW POINT
TDZ EL. 1239.6
33 15’ 56.608" N
111 48’ 50.987" W

DESCRIPTION

"THE CONTENTS OF THIS PLAN DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY

AIRPORT PAVEMENT

OF THE FAA OR ADOT AERONAUTICS. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT BY THE FAA OR ADOT
P
L

AERONAUTICS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE

P
L

AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

UNITED STATES OR THE STATE OF ARIZONA TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED

AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP)

HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY

AIRPORT ROTATING BEACON

ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS."

BUILDING ABANDONMENT (To Be Removed)

RELOCATED WIND TEE /
SEGMENTED CIRCLE

1
2
3
2

EXIST. RPZ
500’ x 700’ x 1000’
34:1 APPROACH
NON-PRECISION
+1-MILE VISIBILITY MIN.

ULTIMATE RPZ
500’ x 1010’ x 1700’
34:1 APPROACH
PRECISION
+1-MILE VISIBILITY MIN.

0
14

BUILDINGS

C O M M E R C I A L /
I N D U S T R I A L
L A N D
U S E

HELIPAD

H

H

BRL 35’

BRL 35’

BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL)

OFA

OFA (U)

RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA

RSA

RSA (U)

RUNWAY SAFETY AREA

OFZ

OFZ (U)

OBJECT FREE ZONE

TSA

TSA (U)

TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA

TOFA

TOFA (U)

TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION

NOTES:

x

x

x

VASI-4

ALL WIND COVERAGE
RUNWAY 4-22

12 MPH (10.5 KNOTS)

2. THERE ARE NO THRESHOLD SITING SURFACE OBJECT PENETRATIONS.

15 MPH (13.5 KNOTS)

3. THE TOPOGRAPHICAL BASE (2-FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL) FOR
THE CHANDLER AIRPORT ALP WAS REATED BY COOPER AERIGI OF
PHOENIX, INC. USING GROUND SURVEY, FLIGHT SURVEY, AND END

USAFETAC

EXISTING AND FUTURE FACILITIES

35

FENCING
NAVIGATIONAL AID INSTALLATION (GVGI)

SECTION CORNER

3 2

SEGMENTED CIRCLE/WIND INDICATOR

THE EXISTING AND FUTURE FACILITIES TABLE,

TOPOGRAPHY (Source: Digital Survey Data)

1080

"This signature certifies the Sponsor’s approval of the information

WIND INDICATOR (Lighted)

AS WELL AS ASSOCIATED ELEVATIONS, ARE

contained in this plan"

LISTED ON SHEET 1A OF THIS PLAN.

ANALYTICS. (DATE: 01-28-1997)

Air Weather Service (MAC)

x

RUNWAY THRESHOLD LIGHTS and REIL
34

18 MPH (16.0 KNOTS)

x

PAPI-4

1. THERE ARE NO OFZ PENETRATIONS.

DEVELOPMENT STAGES

4. PROPERTY LINES ESTABLISHED BASED ON SURVEY AND AIRPORT

STAGE I

STAGE II

Williams Air Force Base, Mesa, Arizona

OWNER INFORMATION. TO BE USED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES

0-5 YEARS

6-10 YEARS

SPONSOR’S NAME

OBSERVATIONS:

ONLY.

TITLE

DATA STATION:

53,403 Observations, 1983-1992

500

0

500

1000

SCALE: 1" = 500’

SP

DATE

11/06

DRAWN BY

LKH

DATE

04/10

PLANS PREPARED FOR

PLANS PREPARED BY

1500

DESIGNED BY

TITLE

DATE

TITLE

DATE

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
CHANDLER, ARIZONA

PROJECT NO. (CLIENT)

CHECKED BY

JM

DATE

04/10

TITLE

STAGE III
11-20 YEARS

DATE

APPROVALS:

REVISIONS:
DESCRIPTION OF REVISION

ULTIMATE

42% - AV EASEMENT

ALL WEATHER WINDROSE

DATE

EXISTING

72% - FEE

x

REV. NO.

RPZ OWNERSHIP

A

D
A

QUEENCREEKROAD

P
L

280
0
24

0.0

EXIST. / ULT. RPZ
500’ x 700’ x 1000’
20:1 APPROACH
+1-MILE VISIBILITY MIN.
(EXIST. PARTIALLY OWN IN FEE,
ULT. FEE ACQUISITION)

123
0

31
0

30
0

NW

29
0

W

0.0

ULTIMATE RPZ DIMENSIONS

EXISTING RPZ DIMENSIONS
RUNWAY END

ABANDONED PAVEMENT (To Be Removed)

100

0.0

0.0

21
0

90

11
0

ES
E

.2

0.0

0.0

22
0

P
L

P
L

P
L

0.0

0.0

’
2
2
1

11

PL

W
WS

0
25

.3

.1

.3

’
0
0 .
4 P
Y
T

2.4

N

260

.3

2.2

Y

E

0.0

0.0

4.7
1.8

.4
.1

L

.1

U S E

58% - FEE

17

E
R
U
T
U
F

200’

RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE DATA

Y

.5

.4

L A N D

AWOS
(TO BE RELOCATED)

PL

13

7.1

2.3

W
T

7.3

0-3
MPH

3.7

0.0

’
5
4
7

0.0
.1
1.4

.4
.1

PL

O
R

C

I N D U S T R I A L

1
2
3
8

S
S
E
C
C
A

RUNWAY

A

C O M M E R C I A L /

D
A

EXIST. NDB
1D: CHD CLASS: MH
FREQ: 407
EL. 1234’
33 15’ 59.400" N
111 48’ 28.500" W

17

17

PL

8.1

.1 .5

0.0

H

.8
3

E
R
U
T
U
F

S
S
E
C
C
A

O
R

AWOS AND
RELOCATED NDB

17

17

43.5

270 W

Y

2.4
4.4

W
T

0.0

.3

15

17

0.0
.1

.7

PL

17

8A

’
0
0
1 YP
T

.1

1.3

80

.1

’
0
0 .
7 P
Y
T

0.0

0.0
.1

70

.1

E
EN

0.0

N

1
2
4
0

17

11

RUNWAY
PROTECTION
ZONE

L
I
E
R

L
P

0.0

0.0

F

24

18
0.0
15
.1
12
1.1

W

D

0
3
2
1

60

0.0

0.0

O
D
E
I
T

8B

O
I
T
C
U
R
T
S
N
O EA
C R
E A
R N
U
T RO
U
17
F AP
/

O
T G
U IN
A K
R
A
P

17
17

A
E
R
A

S
T

E

0.0
0.0

N
W
O A
D
E RE
I
T A

5
0
0
’
R

.
T
S -4
I
I
X
E AP
P

17

14

P
L

X
A
T

L
I
E
R
.
T
L
U

12

W

N

17

’
0
4 P
Y
T

O

N

W

50

31 MPH

N

EXIST. / ULT. RWY. 4L
END EL. 1230.9
RWY LOW POINT
TDZ EL. 1234.4
3315’ 50.808" N
111 49’ 11.827" W

’
P
5
R
7
A
x
.
’
T
0
L
7
U
8
,
4
P
R
Y
A
A
)
.
.
T
W
P
S
N
Y
I
T
X
U
(
E
R
E
G
N
I
N
L
I
D
T
L
S
I
O
X
H
E
L
2
2
R
4
Y
A
W
C
N
Y
U
A
R
W
I

Y

40

-4
I
P
A
P
.
T
S
I
X
E

L
R
I
M
.
T P
S
I Y
X T
E

W
T

30

S
T
O
S
N
T
K
O
.0 KN
16 .5
13

NN
E

N
K

0
32

N

W
NN

.5
10

0
33

2
0

U S E

D
E
T
A
C
O 4
L I
E
R AP
P

15

B

N

Y

L A N D

’
0
4 P
Y
T

5
W
T

M I X E D

/ LE
E
E RC D
T I
E
D C T
N D A
I
W TE OC
.
T EN EL
S M R
I
X
E EG BE
S O
T

’
0
0
2
P
Y
T

SAME

’
0
4 P
Y
T

’
0
0
2
P
Y
T

Longitude

L

SAME

RUNWAY 22R

’
5
2
1
P
Y
T

Latitude

W
N
U
R
.
T
L
U
/
.
T
S
I
X
E

Y
A

H

SAME

Y

Longitude

RUNWAY 4L

W
T

SAME

’
0
4 .
2 P
Y
T

Latitude

A

Y
A

R
2
-2
L
4

’
0
4 P
Y
T

Y

Longitude

Y
A

5

T
R
O
P 12
R
I
A

W
N
U
R

W
T

RUNWAY 22L

W
I
X
A
T

’
5
9
4

.
D
V
L
B

’
5
2
1
P
Y
’
T
5
2
1
P
Y
T
L

Longitude

0
4
3

Y

P
L

Latitude

O
H

’
5
x7
’
1
0
4
,
4

ULTIMATE

Latitude

1
0

’
0
5
3 YP
T

12

RUNWAY 4R

360

W

N
W
O A
D
E RE
I
T A

5

0
5
3

O
D
E
I
T

N

W
T

0
3
2
1

3G

O
D
E
I
T

W
T

9

H

EXISTING

’
0
1
1
P
Y
T

A
E
R
A

E
N
I
L
D
L

’
0
4
P
Y
T

N

10

)
.
P
Y
(T

Y

O
D
E
I
T

6

HELICOPTER
AUTOROTATION PAD
(ABANDONED)

LIMITS OF HELIPORT
SAFETY AREA AND
APPROACH/DEPARTURE
SURFACES

RELOCATED
HELIPORT

A
E
R
A

W
T

3B

W

N

M
.
T
S YP
I
X
T
E

’
0
0 .
4 P
Y
T

A
E
R
A

L
R
I

’
0
0 .
3 P
Y
T

O
R
P
A

2

15

-4
I
P
A
P
.
T
S
I
X
E

N

N

P
L

RUNWAY END COORDINATES (NAD 83)

W

Y
A

-4
I
P )
A E
P T
. A
T
S OC
I
X L
E E
(R

3E

1

3A

OLD HELIPORT
(ABANDONED)

O
D
E
I
T

3F

W
I
X
A
T

Airports District Office prior to construction. FAA’s
review takes approximately 60 days.

7

P

1Pavement strengths are expressed in Single(S) and Dual(D) wheel loading capacities.

A
E
R
A
N

coordinated by the airport owner with the FAA

Y

MITL

CENTERLINE / EDGE

17
1
2
3
2

B

HOLDING
POSITION
MARKING (TYP)

W
T

MITL

CENTERLINE / EDGE

3D

W
N
U
R
.
T
L
U

8
3
2
1

TIEDOWN AREA

Y
A

To protect operational safety and future development,
all proposed construction on the airport must be

N

MITL

TAXIWAY MARKING

BASIN

’x
0
0
7
,
5

’
0
0
1

Y

TAXIWAY LIGHTING

M I X E D
L A N D U S E

TWY P

P

NONE
VISUAL / VISUAL

EXISTING RETENTION

Y

NONE
NONPREC / VISUAL

PARKING

RYAN ROAD

0
3
2
1

P
L

W
T

NONE
NONPREC / VISUAL

PAVEMENT SURFACE TREATMENT
RUNWAY MARKING

18

1240

RUNWAY THRESHOLD DISPLACEMENT

18

17

CO
NS
O L
ID

RUNWAY INSTRUMENTATION

SECTION OF ROADS
TO BE CLOSED OR
ABANDONED (STAGE 1)

P
L

H

PAPI-4 (BOTH ENDS)

AREA (STAGE I)

CONSTRUCTION NOTICE REQUIREMENT

Q

PAPI-4 (BOTH ENDS)

13
APRON/TAXILANE

ULT. RWY 22L
END EL. 1244.0
RWY HIGH POINT
TDZ EL. 1244.0
33 16’ 31.598" N
111 48’ 01.994" W

PL

D
E
T
A
C
O
L -4
E I
R AP
P

Y

LPV (RWY 4R)
PAPI-4 (BOTH ENDS)
REIL (BOTH ENDS)

EXIST. / ULT. RWY. 22R
END EL. 1236.4
RWY HIGH POINT
TDZ EL. 1236.4
33 16’ 19.014" N
111 48’ 32.350" W

A.N.G.

TAXIWAY "A"
RUNUP AREA

W
T

RNAV (GPS)(RWY 4R)
PAPI-4 (BOTH ENDS)
REIL (BOTH ENDS)

17

17

W
T

NAVIGATIONAL AND VISUAL AIDS

RE RET
.
BASI
N

30(S)

MIRL

FUTU

30(S)

MIRL

P
L

75 (D)

MIRL

CA
NA
L

30(S)

AT
ED

PAVEMENT STRENGTH (in thousand lbs.)
RUNWAY LIGHTING

PL

P
Y
’T
0
0
2

17

1

12
50

1
2
4
0

P
L

17

L
I
E
R
.
T
L
U

Q

4401’ x 75’

EXIST. RWY 22L
END EL. 1243.1
RWY HIGH POINT
TDZ EL. 1243.1
33 16’ 27.812" N
111 48’ 07.295" W

Y

5700’ x 100’

12

P
L

P
L

L
P

P
L

W
T

4870’ x 75’

REALIGNMENT

MAGNETIC VARIANCE

P
L

1
2
3
6

ULT. AIRPORT BLVD.

PL

1

2
11

1239.6’ / 1243.1’

RUNWAY DIMENSIONS

C O M M E R C I A L /

I N D U S T R I A L

RUNWAY HIGH POINT (ABOVE MSL)

TOUCHDOWN ZONE ELEVATION (above MSL)

EXIST./ULT. RPZ
500’ x 700’ x 1000’
20:1 APPROACH
+1-MILE VISIBILITY MIN.
(OWN IN FEE)

GERMANN ROAD

STANDARD SEPARATION - TAXIWAY CENTERLINE

RUNWAY END ELEVATION (above MSL)

P
L
1 NDB and VOR will eventually be phased out (circa 2020), in
accordance with the 1999 revison of the "Federal Radionavigation Plan".

1
2
4
8

NONPREC / VISUAL

STANDARD SEPARATION - RUNWAY CENTERLINE

EXIST. RPZ
500’ x 1000’ x 700’
20:1 APPROACH
+1-MILE VISIBILITY MIN.
(OWN IN FEE)

P
L

400’

P

250’

O
T
S

RUNWAY OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ) WIDTH

FAR PART 77 CATEGORY

AWOS

AWOS
1 NDB (Rwy. 4R)

1
2
4
2

300’

P
L

150’

300’

1
2
4
0

150’

1000’

GPS LPV

P
L

500’

300’

ATCT

1 VOR / GPS (Rwy. 4L)

12
36

150’

RSA LENGTH BEYOND EACH RUNWAY END

U S E

PL

RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) WIDTH

L A N D

ROTATING BEACON

ATCT
APPROACH VISIBILITY MINIMUMS

ULTIMATE RPZ
500’ x 1010’ x 1700’
20:1 APPROACH
+1-MILE VISIBILITY MIN.

M I X E D

AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT
(ARP) COORDINATES (NAD 83)

1240

103.5

COOPER ROAD

12,500

103.5

SAME

COOPER ROAD

12,500

139

1244 MSL

STOP

30,000

105

1243 MSL
105.8 (July)

P
L

16,100

CITATION X

TI
EDOW N
AREA

CDA MAXIMUM CERTIFIED TAKEOFF WEIGHT (lbs)
CDA APPROACH SPEED (KNOTS)

AIRPORT ELEVATION (above MSL)
MEAN MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE OF HOTTEST MONTH

C-II

BEECH 400A

1236

CDA UNDERCARRIAGE WIDTH

DESIGN AIRCRAFT

SAME

B-II

1236

CDA WINGSPAN

AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE

1246

KING AIR B200

P
L

KING AIR B200

1244

CITATION X

M AG

12 MPH 98.02% / 15 MPH 99.88%

BEECH 400A

GNM ENT
REALI

12 MPH 98.02% / 15 MPH 99.88%

WIND COVERAGE (12 mph/15 mph)
CRITICAL DESIGN AIRCRAFT (CDA)

RELIEVER (RL)

S W AY
ULT.CURTI

RUNWAY BEARING

DATE

AZDOT - E5S64

AI
RPORTL
AYOUTPL
AN

PROJECT NO. (WSA)

A31476

1

EXISTING BUILDINGS / FACILITIES
ULTIMATE
DESCRIPTION

NO.

DISPOSITION

EXISTING ELEVATION

1

TERMINAL / ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

UNCHANGED

1252.53

2

AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTOL TOWER (ATCT) & ROTATING BEACON

UNCHANGED

1319.49

AIRPORT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

UNCHANGED

1256.60

3B

FIXED BASE OPERATOR / TENANTS

UNCHANGED

1245.18

3C

FIXED BASE OPERATOR / TENANTS

UNCHANGED

1254.96

3D

FIXED BASE OPERATOR / TENANTS

UNCHANGED

1257.22

3E

FBO / TENANTS AND FUEL STORAGE FACILITY

UNCHANGED

1266.14

3F

FIXED BASE OPERATOR / TENANTS

UNCHANGED

1252.61

FIXED BASE OPERATOR / TENANTS

UNCHANGED

1276.48

SHADE HANGAR

UNCHANGED

1246.89

5A

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1253.19

5B

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1250.00

5C

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1249.48

5D

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1252.13

5E

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1250.32

5F

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1250.83

5G

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1251.30

5H

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1251.72

3A

3G
4

FUTURE BUILDINGS / FACILITIES
NO.

DESCRIPTION

8B

RELOCATED NDB / AWOS SITE

11

WIND TEE / SEGMENTED CIRCLE

5I

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1251.50

5J

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1248.19

14

CONVENTIONAL HANGAR

5K

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1250.10

15

FBO OFFICE

5L

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1247.88

16

T-HANGAR

5M

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1254.79

17

CORPORATE PARCELS

5N

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1250.47

18

T-SHADE HANGARS

5O

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1248.58

5P

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1250.08

5Q

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1253.91

5R

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1245.99

5S

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1246.52

5T

T-HANGARS

UNCHANGED

1248.70

6

UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE FACILITY

UNCHANGED

1228.00

7

RELOCATED HELIPORT

UNCHANGED

1244.06

REMOVE

1234.00

UNCHANGED

1230.00

8A
9

EXISTING NDB / AWOS SITE
FUEL FACILITY

10

OLD TERMINAL BUILDING

REMOVED

- -

12A

CONVENTIONAL HANGAR

UNCHANGED

1255.43

12B

CONVENTIONAL HANGAR

UNCHANGED

1257.62

12C

CONVENTIONAL HANGAR

UNCHANGED

1255.67

12D

CONVENTIONAL HANGAR

UNCHANGED

1257.24

12E

CONVENTIONAL HANGAR

UNCHANGED

1256.65

12F

CONVENTIONAL HANGAR

UNCHANGED

1256.64

12G

CONVENTIONAL HANGAR

UNCHANGED

1256.72

12H

CONVENTIONAL HANGAR

UNCHANGED

1256.41

12I

CONVENTIONAL HANGAR

UNCHANGED

1257.53

12J

CONVENTIONAL HANGAR

UNCHANGED

1255.46

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

UNCHANGED

1260.19

13

* INDIVIDUAL BUILDING NUMBERS AND LOCATIONS CAN BE FOUND ON SHEET 2 "TERMINAL AREA PLAN"

Q:
\
Chandl
erALP Updat
e 2009\
bor
der
.
dwg M ay 05,2010 -7:
41am

** BUILDING ELEVATIONS WERE SURVEYED BY AZTEC ENGINEERING IN MARCH 2010

APPROVALS:

REVISIONS:
REV. NO.

DATE

DESCRIPTION OF REVISION

500

0

500

1000

SCALE: 1" = 500’

DESIGNED BY

SP

DATE

11/06

DRAWN BY

LKH

DATE

04/10

PLANS PREPARED FOR

PLANS PREPARED BY

1500

TITLE

DATE

TITLE

DATE

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
CHANDLER, ARIZONA

PROJECT NO. (CLIENT)

CHECKED BY

JM

DATE

04/10

TITLE

DATE

AZDOT - E5S64

AL
P DETAI
LTABL
ES

PROJECT NO. (WSA)

A31476

1A

12
34

N

P
L

P
L

12
26

T
IO
E
B R
A E
S T
IN E
N

M
M

17

T
U

U
L
T
.
A
I
R
P
O

F
U

P
O

R

T

B
LV
D

.

P
L

L
A
N
A
C

17

R

12
30

18

17

A
A PR
R O
E
A N/
(S TA
T X
A I
G LA
E N
I
) E

A
G

G
A

N
E
T
I
C
V
A
R
I
A
N
C
E

R
T

17

B
L
V
D
.
P
R
L
E
A
L
I
G
N
M

G
E
R
M

A
N
N

R
O
A
D

E
N
T

12E

12F

12G

E
N
M
N
E
A
L
IG
R

A
Y
W
T
IS
R

A
A PR
R O
E
A N/
(S TA
T X
A I
G LA
E N
I
) E

12I
12H
10
2

3F

9

12
30
5N

5F
5A

5B

5C

5D

5G

T
I
E
D
O
W

5R

5H
5O

5K

5E

5S

5P

A
R
E
A

13
P
L

TIEDOWN AREA

TIEDOWN AREA

TIEDOWN
AREA
5L

N

TIEDOWN AREA

12J

P
L

C

P
L

18

4
3
2
1
5J

P
L

3E

5Q

5M

5I

P
L

O

12D

17

O

12C

P
A
R
K
I
N
G

1

T
I
E
D
A O
R W
E
A N

TAXIWAY "A"
RUNUP AREA
(STAGE I)

5T

P

12B

15

2
T 5-U
H -S N
A H I
N A T
G D
A E
R
S

S
T
O

12
30

AIRPORT BLVD.

A
U
T
O

3D

A
D

6

17

O

P
L

3B

P
L

R

P
L

P
L

17

1236

OLD HELIPORT
(ABANDONED)

A
T
E

4

L
T
IM

3A

H
A
2
N
G
T 0-U
-S N
A
R
17
H I
S
T
A
D
E
H
A
N
G
A
R
S

C

T
N AX
E IL
W
A
A NE
P
R T
O O
N /F
A R
R O
E M
A

H

HELICOPTER AUTOROTATION PAD
(ABANDONED)

12A

R
E
T
E
N
T
R
I
O
Y
A
N
N
B
R
A
O
S
I
A
N
D

3C

P
L

U

P
L

17
T -U
-S N
H I
A T
D
E

P
E
R

E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G

17

U

P
L

T

P
L

32
12

A
IR

D
E
T
A
D
LI
O
S
N
O
C

N

SECTIONS OF ROADS
TO BE CLOSED OR
ABANDONED (STAGE I)

P
L

P
L

TAXIWAY A

R
2
2
L
RUNWAY4
f
HWESTo
NORT

NOTES:
1. THE TOPOGRAPHICAL BASE (2-FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL) FOR
THE CHANDLER AIRPORT ALP WAS CREATED BY COOPER AERIGI OF

7

PHOENIX, INC. USING GROUND SURVEY, FLIGHT SURVEY, AND END

FUTURE CONSTRUCTION

ANALYTICS. (DATE: 01-28-1997)

TIE DOWN AREA

/ APRON AREA

TIE DOWN AREA

TIE DOWN AREA

ABANDONED PAVEMENT (To Be Removed)
AIRPORT PAVEMENT
P
L

17

36
12

17
8
17
AWOS
(TO BE RELOCATED)

AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE
AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP)
AIRPORT ROTATING BEACON

LP
1283.76
EL

17

17

17
0
4
2
1

LP
1287.22
EL

0

BUILDING ABANDONMENT (To Be Removed)

0

BUILDINGS
H

14

FUTURE ACCESS ROAD

BRL 35’

BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL)

OFA

OFA (U)

RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA

RSA

RSA (U)

RUNWAY SAFETY AREA

OFZ

OFZ (U)

OBJECT FREE ZONE

TSA

TSA (U)

TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA

TOFA

TOFA (U)

BRL 35’

Q:
\
Chandl
erALP Updat
e 2009\
bor
der
.
dwg M ay 05,2010 -7:
43am

HELIPAD

H

LP
1284.86
EL

17

EXIST. NDB
1D: CHD CLASS: MH
FREQ: 407
EL 1234’
N33 15’ 59.400"
W111 48’ 28.500"

38
12

P
L

LP
1285.10
EL

STOP

DESCRIPTION

LP
1285.72
EL

15

17

17

LP
1283.86
EL

35’
TYP
LANE
TAXI

ULTIMATE

LANE
TAXI

40
12

LEGEND
EXISTING

17

AWOS
(PROPOSED RELOCATION)

H

RELOCATED
HELIPORT

2. BUILDING LEGEND WITH ELEVATIONS CAN BE FOUND ON SHEET 1A.

LP
1287.78
EL

15

LP
1288.18
EL

LP
1286.72
EL

3G

FUTURE ACCESS ROAD

AUTO PARKING

TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION

x

x

x

x

x

VASI-4

x

PAPI-4

FENCING
NAVIGATIONAL AID INSTALLATION (GVGI)
RUNWAY THRESHOLD LIGHTS and REIL

34 35

SECTION CORNER

3 2

SEGMENTED CIRCLE/WIND INDICATOR

SOUTHEAST of RUNWAY 4R-22L

TOPOGRAPHY (Source: Digital Survey Data)

1080

WIND INDICATOR (Lighted)
LP
1283.86
EL

"THE CONTENTS OF THIS PLAN DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY

LIGHT POLE (with elevation)

OF THE FAA OR ADOT AERONAUTICS. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT BY THE FAA OR ADOT

DEVELOPMENT STAGES
STAGE I

STAGE II

0-5 YEARS

6-10 YEARS

AERONAUTICS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE
UNITED STATES OR THE STATE OF ARIZONA TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED

STAGE III
11-20 YEARS

HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY
ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS."

REVISIONS:
REV. NO.

DATE

200

0

200

400

APPROVALS:

600

PLANS PREPARED FOR

PLANS PREPARED BY

DESCRIPTION OF REVISION
SCALE: 1" = 200’

DESIGNED BY

SP

DATE

11/06

DRAWN BY

LKH

DATE

04/10

TITLE

DATE

TITLE

DATE

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
CHANDLER, ARIZONA

PROJECT NO. (CLIENT)

CHECKED BY

JM

DATE

04/10

TITLE

DATE

AZDOT - E5S64

TERMI
NALAREA PL
ANS

PROJECT NO. (WSA)

A31476

2

GENERAL NOTES

N

1.OBSTRUCTIONS, CLEARANCES, AND LOCATIONS ARE CALCULATED FROM
ULTIMATE RUNWAY END ELEVATIONS AND ULTIMATE APPROACH SURFACES,
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
2.DEPICTION OF FEATURES AND OBJECTS WITHIN THE PRIMARY, TRANSITIONAL,

1
:
0
2

AND HORIZONTAL PART 77 SURFACES, ARE ILLUSTRATED ON THIS DRAWING,
THE PART 77 AIRSPACE PLAN.

AIRPORT EL. 1244.0
3.DEPICTION OF FEATURES AND OBJECTS WITHIN THE OUTER PORTION OF THE

HORIZONTAL SURFACE EL. 1394.0

M AG

O
C

L
A
C
I
N

E
C
A
F
R
U
S

APPROACH SURFACES IS ILLUSTRATED ON THE APPROACH PROFILES
DRAWING, SHEET 4 OF THESE PLANS.
4.DEPICTION OF FEATURES AND OBJECTS WITHIN THE INNER PORTION OF THE
APPROACH SURFACES, IS ILLUSTRATED ON THE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE

1
:
0
5

PLAN AND PROFILE DRAWINGS, SHEETS 5, 6 AND 7 OF THESE PLANS.
5.EXISTING AND FUTURE HEIGHT AND HAZARD ORDINANCES ARE TO BE AMENDED

MAGNETIC VARIANCE

AND / OR REFERENCED UPON APPROVAL OF UPDATED AIRPORT AIRSPACE

1
:
0
2

25

23
21

5
9
3
1

7:1 TRANSITIONAL
SURFACE

’@
0
0
0
,
0
1

DRAWING.
6.ADDITIONAL OBSTRUCTION DATA IS ILLUSTRATED ON NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY

24

22

DOCUMENT OC 6494, AIRPORT OBSTRUCTION CHART.

34

EL. 1236.4
18

95
13

EL. 1230.9

95
13

50
13
1

4
13

4,000’

10,000’ R
TYP

00
13

2

00
13

14

7:1 TRANSITIONAL
SURFACE
EL. 1244.0

20

50
13

19
29

26

15

OBSTRUCTION TABLE

30

EL. 1235.3

12

OBSTRUCTION
NUMBER

16

10

28

5
9
3
1

1
:
0
5

1
:
0
4

7

1

3
5

RUNWAY 4L

31
33

32

94
13

2
ROAD

50
14
00
15

17

3

0
0
6
1

0
5
5
1

50
15 94
15

POLE

4

POLE
POLE

0
0
7
1

POLE

0
5
7
1

8
POLE

00
17

0
0
8
1

1
:
0
4

9

POLE

:1
7

10

0
0
9
1

00
18

ROAD

11

0
0
0
2

LIMITS OF RECOMMENDED
F.A.R. PART 77 HEIGHT ZONING

TREE

12

0
5
0
2

00
19

POLE

13
POLE

1246

1246

SURFACE PENETRATION
/ CLEARANCE

15
13

ULTIMATE
OBJECT DISPOSITION
UNCHANGED

UNCHANGED

UNCHANGED

1264

4

1244

9

UNCHANGED

1264

26

UNCHANGED

1263

22

1257

15

1263

19

1264

18

1246

0

1290

41

1266

16

0
0
1
2
E
F
A
C
R

’
00
50

A
L

0
5
2
2

NOTE: THIS ISOMETRIC IS FOR ILLUSTRATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT AN ACTUAL
REPRESENTATION OF THE RUNWAY(S)
DEPICTED ON THIS PART 77 AIRSPACE
DRAWING.

S
IT
IO

N

’
00
80

TREE
17

A
N

18
7:
1

00
22

POLE

16

RUNWAY 22R

T
R

0
5
3
2

TREE

ANTENNA

19

BUSH

20
00
23

PRECISION
INSTRUMENT APPROACH

’
00
50

FENCE
21
TOWER

VISUAL OR NONPRECISION
APPROACH

21

1263

9

1265

12

1286

24

1289

27

UNCHANGED

UNCHANGED

UNCHANGED

UNCHANGED

UNCHANGED

UNCHANGED

UNCHANGED

VENT

23
TREE

V*

24
POLE

40
:
1

20
:
1

40
,
@ 000
40 ’
:
1

25
TREE

:1
7

26

HORIZONTAL SURFACE
150’ ABOVE ESTABLISHED
AIRPORT ELEVATION

10
,
0
@ 00’
50
:
1

00
25
00
26 0
0
27
00
28 00
29 00
30

V* = DIMENSION VARIES ACCORDING
TO TYPE OF RUNWAY APPROACH
(e.g., PRECISION, NONPRECISION, VISUAL)

1
7:

50
,
00
0’

7:
1

’
0
0
,0
6
1

00
24

V*
V*

27
TREE

V*

28
TREE

V*

RUNWAY
CENTERLINES

29
CANTENARY
30

ISOMETRIC VIEW OF SECTION

POLE

THRU CENTERLINE OF RUNWAYS

10

TREE

RUNWAY 4R

’
00 1
40 0:
2
@

1337

10

1238

1

1245

-4

1319

52

1259

6

1265

2

1272

13

1281

-5

UNCHANGED

UNCHANGED

UNCHANGED

UNCHANGED

UNCHANGED

REMOVE

RELOCATE

UNCHANGED

BUILDING
22

CONICAL SURFACE

7:
1

1200’

10
I-

40
:
1

7:
1

5
3
4
2

0
0
4
2

’
0
0
,0
5 YP
T

1
:
0
4

LIGHT POLE

15

S
U

0
0
2
2

00
20

00
21

0
0
3
2

1274

UNCHANGED

CAMERA ON
14

00
31

ELEVATION
(MSL)

ROAD

7

0
5
1
2

:1
7

0
0
4
2

ROAD

6

0
5
9
1

0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2

0
0
9
1

9

6

OBJECT
DESCRIPTION

5

0
5
8
1

E
C
FA
R
SU
AL
N
O
0
TI
0
SI
0
2
AN
TR
0
0
1
2

0
5
6
1

0
0
8
1

0
0
7
1

11

8

0
0
5
1

:1
7

’@
0
0
0
,
0
4

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
3
0
9
0
2
0
8
0
2
0
7
0
2
0
6
2
0
0
5
2

10

27

31
POLE

1266

16

1282

1

1275

21

1263

16

1266

4

1265

7

UNCHANGED

REMOVE

UNCHANGED

REMOVE

UNCHANGED

REMOVE

UNCHANGED

UNCHANGED

UNCHANGED

UNCHANGED

N.T.S.

32
TREE
33
POLE

RUNWAY 22L

34
POLE

1267

2

1264

3

1261

-3

REMOVE

UNCHANGED

REMOVE

Q:
\
Chandl
erALP Updat
e 2009\
bor
der
.
dwg Apr09,2010 -4:
53pm

NOTE:
THE OBSTRUCTION DATA WAS COLLECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAA
AREA NAVIGATION APPROACH (ANA-LPV) SURVEY SPECIFICATIONS
NOAA - NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY - (4-1-2005)

"THE CONTENTS OF THIS PLAN DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY
OF THE FAA OR ADOT AERONAUTICS. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT BY THE FAA OR ADOT
AERONAUTICS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE
UNITED STATES OR THE STATE OF ARIZONA TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED
HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY
ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS."

REVISIONS:
REV. NO.

DATE

0

4000

4000

8000

APPROVALS:

12000

PLANS PREPARED FOR

PLANS PREPARED BY

DESCRIPTION OF REVISION

SCALE: 1" = 4000’
DESIGNED BY

SP

DATE

11/06

DRAWN BY

LKH

DATE

04/10

TITLE

DATE

TITLE

DATE

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
CHANDLER, ARIZONA

PROJECT NO. (CLIENT)

CHECKED BY

JM

DATE

04/10

TITLE

DATE

AZDOT - E5S64

AN
RSPACE PL
7AI
PART7

PROJECT NO. (WSA)

A31476

3

LBERT
TY OF GI
CI

GREENFEI
LD RD

L
N
D

L

L
N
D

GERMANN RD

5
5

L
N
D

0
6

QUEEN CREEK RD

0
7
L
N
D

5
5

D

5
6

0
7

HI
GLEY RD

LI
NDSEY RD

C
I
F
F
A
R
T
L
N
D NL
0
7 D NL
5
7 D
L
5
7
N
L
D
5 DN
7
5
7

M AG

VAL VI
STA DR

TY OF CHANDLER
CI

N
R
E
T
T
A
P

PECOS RD

MAGNETIC VARIANCE

N

PRI
CE RD

A
A
F

CHANDLER BLVD

GI
LBERT RD

E
C
A
P
S
R
I
A

202 - SANTAN FREEWAY

GERMANN RD

COOPER RD

M CQUEEN RD

ARI
ZONA AVE

DOBSON RD

ALM A SCHOOL RD

N

L
N
D
60

L
N
D

QUEEN CREEK RD

L
DN
65

LAND USE LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL
OCOTILLO RD

AIR PARK AREA BOUNDARY

A
A
F

REGIONAL COMMERCIAL

RECREATION / OPEN SPACE

TY OF CHANDLER
CI

N
R
E
T
T
A
P

COOPER RD
M CQUEEN RD

ARI
ZONA AVE

Q:
\
Chandl
erALP Updat
e 2009\
bor
der
.
dwg M ay 05,2010 -7:
52am

CHANDLER HEIGHTS RD

E
C
A
P
S
R
I
A

C
I
F
F
A
R
T

LBERT
TY OF GI
CI

GI
LBERT RD

INDUSTRIAL / COMMERCIAL

55 DNL

55 - DNL NOISE CONTOUR

60 DNL

60 - DNL NOISE CONTOUR

65 DNL

65 - DNL NOISE CONTOUR

70 DNL

70 - DNL NOISE CONTOUR

75 DNL

75 - DNL NOISE CONTOUR

NOTE:
1.

RIGGS RD

NOISE CONTOURS REFLECT MASTER PLAN DATA AND INM MODELING
FROM 2006. THESE CONTOURSE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE
PREPARED AS A PART OF THE FAR PART 150 STUDY CONDUCTED
BETWEEN 2008 AND 2010.

"THE CONTENTS OF THIS PLAN DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY
OF THE FAA OR ADOT AERONAUTICS. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT BY THE FAA OR ADOT
AERONAUTICS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE
UNITED STATES OR THE STATE OF ARIZONA TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED
HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY
ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS."

REVISIONS:
REV. NO.

DATE

2000

APPROVALS:

0

2000

4000

PLANS PREPARED FOR

PLANS PREPARED BY

6000

DESCRIPTION OF REVISION

SCALE: 1" = 2000’

DESIGNED BY

SP

DATE

11/06

DRAWN BY

LKH

DATE

04/10

TITLE

DATE

TITLE

DATE

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
CHANDLER, ARIZONA

PROJECT NO. (CLIENT)

CHECKED BY

JM

DATE

04/10

TITLE

DATE

AZDOT - E5S64

L
AND USE PL
AN

PROJECT NO. (WSA)

A31476

8

ELEVATION
(in MSL)

2400

2200

200’
EL.1235.
7

200’
EL.1235.
3

EL.1230.
7’(
32’CLEARANCE)

QUEEN CREEK ROAD

LEVEE ROAD
(
184’CLEARANCE)

ARI
ZONA AVE.

EL.1212’

ALM A SCHOOL ROAD
EL.1202’

(
359’CLEARANCE)

EX
I
ST
I
NG
3
4
:
U
1A
L
PAR
TI
PP
MA
T7
RO
7T
E
AC
5
0
3
:
1AP
4
HS
:
1A
PRO
UR
PP
ACH
FA
R
SUR
OA
CE
F
CH
ACE
SU
RF
AC
E

EL.1193’(
552’CLEARANCE)

DOBSON ROAD

1400

EL.1192’(
766’CLEARANCE)

1600

PRI
CE ROAD

I
NDI
AN ROUTE 10
EL.1182’(
921’CLEARANCE)

1800

EL.1251.
0’(
49’CLEARANCE)

2000

1200

1000

50000

48000

46000

44000

42000

40000

38000

36000

34000

32000

30000

28000

26000
24000
DISTANCE (in FEET)

22000

20000

18000

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

RUNWAY 4R PRECISION APPROACH ZONE PROFILES
SCALE: 1" = 2000’ HORIZ.
1" = 200’ VERT.

ELEVATION

GI
LBERT ROAD
EL.
1253’
(
31’CLEARANCE)

2000

3000

(in MSL)

1500

1500
EL. 1486.4

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

10,000

11,000

1200

12,000

5000

SERVI
CE ROAD
EL.
1239.
8’
(
CLEARANCE 34’
)

NG
I
ST
I
EX

CE
FA
R
SU

1400

EL.
1244’
(
CLEARANCE 141’
)

1200

200’

200’

E
AT
M
TI
L
U
/

H
AC
O
PR
AP
1
:
20
REALI
GNED
GERM ANN ROAD

1300

SU
RF
AC
E

SERVI
CE ROAD
EL.
1238’
(
CLEARANCE 12’
)

1300

20
:
1
AP
PR
OA
CH

EL.1236.
4

1400

EL.1230.
9

1400

/
UL
TI
M
AT
E

AI
RPORT BLVD.

EX
I
ST
I
NG

EL.
1230’
(
CLEARANCE 15’
)

(
14’CLEARANCE)

REALI
GNED
GERM ANN ROAD
EL.
1244’

CE
CE
FA
FA
R
R
SU
SU
H
CH
C
A
OA
RO
PR
PP
P
A
A
1
:
1
:
20
20
E
G
N
AT
I
M
ST
TI
I
L
X
U
E

1000

ELEVATION

(in MSL)

EL. 1480.9

EL.
1269’
(
CLEARANCE 218’
)

EL.1243.
1
0

ELEVATION

1500

LI
NDSAY ROAD

EL.1244.
0

200’
200’

(
14’CLEARANCE)

SERVI
CE ROAD
EL.
1244’
(
37’CLEARANCE)

(in MSL)

1300

1200

4000

3000
2000
DISTANCE (in FEET)

1000

0

0

1000

2000
3000
DISTANCE (in FEET)

4000

5000

DISTANCE (in FEET)

RUNWAY 4L

RUNWAY 22R
RUNWAY 4L-22R APPROACH ZONES PROFILES

RUNWAY 22L APPROACH ZONE PROFILE

SCALE: 1" = 1000’ HORIZ.
1" = 100’ VERT.

SCALE: 1" = 1000’ HORIZ.
1" = 100’ VERT.

Q:
\
Chandl
erALP Updat
e 2009\
bor
der
.
dwg M ay 05,2010 -7:
54am

NOTES:

OBSTRUCTION TABLE

1. TERRAIN PROFILE REPRESENTS THE HIGHEST POINT ACROSS THE WIDTH
AND ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE APPROACH SURFACE AND PRIMARY SURFACE.

OBJECT
DESCRIPTION

OBJECT
ELEVATION

OBSTRUCTED
SURFACE
OBJECT
PART 77 SURFACE ELEVATION PENETRATION

PROPOSED
OBJECT DISPOSITION

2. THE TOPOGRAPHICAL BASE (2-FOOT CONTOURS) FOR THE CHANDLER AIRPORT
ALP WAS CREATED BY COOPER AERIGI OF PHOENIX, INC. USING GROUND
SURVEY, FLIGHT SURVEY, AND END ANALYTICS. (DATE: 01-28-1997)

NO OBSTRUCTIONS NOTED
"THE CONTENTS OF THIS PLAN DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY
OF THE FAA OR ADOT AERONAUTICS. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT BY THE FAA OR ADOT
AERONAUTICS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE
UNITED STATES OR THE STATE OF ARIZONA TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED
HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY
ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS."

APPROVALS:

REVISIONS:
REV. NO.

DATE

PLANS PREPARED FOR

PLANS PREPARED BY

DESCRIPTION OF REVISION

SCALE: AS NOTED

DESIGNED BY

SP

DATE

11/06

DRAWN BY

LKH

DATE

04/10

TITLE

DATE

TITLE

DATE

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
CHANDLER, ARIZONA

PROJECT NO. (CLIENT)

CHECKED BY

JM

DATE

04/10

TITLE

DATE

AZDOT - E5S64

APPROACH ZONE PROFI
L
ES

PROJECT NO. (WSA)

A31476

4

A
.
N
.
G

P
L

T
R

P
L

4

8

P
S
T
O

M
M

12
38

P
L

L
NA
CA

P
L

TAXIWAY "A"
RUNUP AREA
(STAGE I)

7

11

N

EXISTING / ULTIMATE RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE
500’ x 700’ x 1000’
20:1 APPROACH SURFACE
+1-MILE VISIBILITY MIN.

TAXIWAY A

TAXI
W AY N

P
L

10
9

6

EXIST. / ULTIMATE RWY. 22R
END EL. 1236.4 (HIGH POINT)
TDZ EL. 1236.4
33 16’ 19.014" N
111 48’ 32.350" W

A
G

G
A

N
E
T
I
C
V
A
R
I
A
N
C
E

P
L
T
A
(S X
W
T I
A
G AY
E
P
I
I
I
)

P
L

P
L
TAXIWAY B

TAXIWAY B

P
L

200’

Q
U
E
E
N

C
R
E
E
K

P
L

H
12 V28 103
.
03
1

30
12

R
O
A
D

TAXI
W AY P

EXISTING / ULTIMATE RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE
500’ x 700’ x 1000’
20:1 APPROACH SURFACE
+1-MILE VISIBILITY MIN.

200’
TYP
300’

12
30

TAXI
W AY Q

TYP
300’

TAXI
W AY N

D
TE
DA
I
L
O
NS
CO

TAXIWAY A

EXIST. / ULTIMATE RWY. 4L
END EL. 1230.9 (LOW POINT)
TDZ EL. 1234.4’
33 15’ 50.808" N
111 49’ 11.827" W

12

.

P
L

13

O
P
IR
A

.
D
V
L
B

TAXI
W AY D

11

F
U
T
T
U
A
R
X
I
W E
A AP
Y
R
A
R ON
E
/
A

2
4
2
1

TAXIWAY C

12 HV39 10D
.
90
0

P
L

P
L

P
L

12
39
.
77
4

TIEDOWN AREA

TIEDOWN AREA

HV
10
1

TIEDOWN AREA

H

ELEVATION

ELEVATION (MSL)

(MSL)

OBSTRUCTION TABLE

1340

1340

OBSTRUCTION

OBJECT

ELEVATION

SURFACE PENETRATION

ULTIMATE OBJECT

NUMBER

DESCRIPTION

(MSL)

/ CLEARANCE

DISPOSTION

4
1320

UNCHANGED

1244

9

POLE

1263

32

POLE

1257

26

POLE

1263

32

POLE

1264

33

QUEEN CREEK RD.

1246

15

TREE

1290

59

AIRPORT BLVD.
6

UNCHANGED

7
8
1300

9
10
11

REMOVE
UNCHANGED
UNCHANGED

LEGEND

1280

1266

35

7

WIDTH AND ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE APPROACH SURFACE

P
L

(
34’CLEARANCE)

SERVI
CE ROAD

TERRAIN PROFILE REPRESENTS THE HIGHEST POINT ACROSS THE

EL.1239.
8

NOTE:

NG
I
ST
I
X
E

(
19’CLEARANCE)

200’

AIRPORT PAVEMENT

SERVI
CE ROAD

200’

H
AC
O
PR
AP
1
:
20

E
AC
RF
U
S

EL.1238.
0

POLE

P
L

AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE
AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP)

1260

AIRPORT ROTATING BEACON
BUILDING ABANDONMENT (To Be Removed)
BUILDINGS

1240

AND PRIMARY SURFACE

4

10

DESCRIPTION
ABANDONED PAVEMENT (To Be Removed)

NO OBSTRUCTIONS - RUNWAY 22R

8

ULTIMATE

UNCHANGED

EL.1236.
4

6

9

1300

NOAA - NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (4-1-2005)

AI
RPORT BLVD.

11

SU
RF
AC
E

REMOVE

EXISTING

12

EL.1230.
9

Q:
\
Chandl
erALP Updat
e 2009\
bor
der
.
dwg M ay 05,2010 -7:
54am

1240

12

2
0
:
1A
PP
RO
AC
H

QUEEN CREEK ROAD

1260

EX
I
ST
I
NG

QUEEN CREEK
ROAD

CONSOLI
DATED CANAL

1280

1320

REMOVE

HELIPAD

H

H

BRL 35’

BRL 35’

BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL)

OFA

OFA (U)

RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA

RSA

RSA (U)

RUNWAY SAFETY AREA

OFZ

OFZ (U)

OBJECT FREE ZONE

TSA

TSA (U)

TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA

TOFA

TOFA (U)

TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION

x

1220

1220
1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

0

200

400

600

800

x

x

x

x

VASI-4

PAPI-4

NAVIGATIONAL AID INSTALLATION (GVGI)

SECTION CORNER

3 2

DISTANCE (FEET)

SEGMENTED CIRCLE/WIND INDICATOR
TOPOGRAPHY (Source: Digital Survey Data)

1080

WIND INDICATOR (Lighted)

RUNWAY 4L-22R PROTECTION ZONES and PROFILES

"THE CONTENTS OF THIS PLAN DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY

FENCING

RUNWAY THRESHOLD LIGHTS and REIL

1000
34 35

DISTANCE (FEET)

x

OF THE FAA OR ADOT AERONAUTICS. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT BY THE FAA OR ADOT

DEVELOPMENT STAGES

AERONAUTICS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE
UNITED STATES OR THE STATE OF ARIZONA TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED
HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY

STAGE I

STAGE II

0-5 YEARS

6-10 YEARS

STAGE III
11-20 YEARS

ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS."

APPROVALS:

REVISIONS:
REV. NO.

DATE

DESCRIPTION OF REVISION

PLANS PREPARED FOR

PLANS PREPARED BY

SCALE: 1" = 200’ HORIZ
1" = 20’ VERT

DESIGNED BY

SP

DATE

11/06

DRAWN BY

LKH

DATE

04/10

TITLE

DATE

TITLE

DATE

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
CHANDLER, ARIZONA

PROJECT NO. (CLIENT)

CHECKED BY

JM

DATE

04/10

TITLE

DATE

AZDOT - E5S64

RUNWAY PROTECTI
ON ZONES
PL
AN AND PROFI
L
E
RUNWAY 4
L
2
2
R

PROJECT NO. (WSA)

A31476

7

.

B
L
V
D
M

A
G

G
A
D
TE
DA
I
L
O
NS
CO

N
E
T
I
C
V
A
R
I
A
N
C
E

L
NA
CA

0
3
2
1

EXISTING
ARP

2
3
2
1

TAXI
W AY L

M

0
3
2
1

TAXI
W AY H

P
L

TAXI
W AY F

TAXI
W AY D

P
L

A
IR

P
O

R

T

N

P
L

12
30

P
L

T
AXI
WAYB
EXI
ST
.
WI
NDT
EE/
SEGMENT
EDCI
RCL
E
(
T
O BEREL
OCAT
ED)

H
12 V28 103
.
03
1

EXIST. RWY. 4R
END EL. 1235.7 (LOW POINT)
TDZ EL. 1239.6

EXISTING RPZ
500’ x 700’ x 1000’
34:1 APPROACH
+1 MILE VISIBILITY MIN.

P
L

EXI
ST
I
NG
PAPI-4

30
12

C
R
E
E
K

PL

32

R
O
A
D

31
ULTIMATE RPZ
500’ x 1010’ x 1700’
34:1 APPROACH
PRECISION
+1 MILE VISIBILITY MIN.

P
E
R
I
M

ULTIMATE RWY. 4R
END EL. 1235.3 (LOW POINT)
TDZ EL. 1238.2
33 15’ 55.071" N
111 48’ 53.140" W
E
T
E
R

TAXI
W AY H

Q
33 UE
E
N

TAXI
W AY L

P
L

3

REL
OCAT
ED
PAPI-4

2
3
2
1

R
O
A
D

T
AXI
WAYC
P
L

30
29

12 HV
34 1
.
30 02
1

P
L

P
L

F
UT
URECONST
RUCT
I
ON
/
APRONAREA

REL
OCAT
EDWI
NDT
EE/
SEGMENT
EDCI
RCL
E
P
L

32
12

ELEVATION (MSL)
1300

29
31

QUEEN

CREEK RD.

33
@ C
L RUNW AY 4R

CREEK RD.

QUEEN

AI
RPORT BLVD.

EL.1230.
3
(
61’CLEARANCE)

1240

QUEEN CREEK RD.

32
3

1260

EX
I
ST
I
NG

3
4
:
1A
UL
PP
TI
RO
MA
AC
TE
HS
3
4
UR
:
1A
FA
PP
CE
RO
AC
HS
UR
FA
CE

200’

240’
EL.1235.
7

30

EL.1235.
3

PAR
T7
75
0
:
1AP
PRO
ACH
SUR
F
ACE

PERI
M ETER
ROAD

1280

LEGEND
EXISTING

ULTIMATE

DESCRIPTION
ABANDONED PAVEMENT (To Be Removed)
AIRPORT PAVEMENT

200’

P
L

P
L

AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE
AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP)

1220
3000

AIRPORT ROTATING BEACON

2800

2600

2400

2200

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

BUILDING ABANDONMENT (To Be Removed)

DISTANCE (FEET)

BUILDINGS

Q:
\
Chandl
erALP Updat
e 2009\
bor
der
.
dwg M ay 05,2010 -8:
03am

OBSTRUCTION TABLE
OBSTRUCTION

OBJECT

NUMBER

DESCRIPTION
POLE

3

ELEVATION
(MSL)
1264

SURFACE PENETRATION

ULTIMATE OBJECT

/ CLEARANCE

DISPOSTION

9

H

BRL 35’

BRL 35’

BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL)

OFA

OFA (U)

RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA

RSA

RSA (U)

RUNWAY SAFETY AREA

OFZ

OFZ (U)

OBJECT FREE ZONE

TSA

TSA (U)

TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA

TOFA

TOFA (U)

CATENARY

1263

4

TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA

REMOVE

FACILITY CONSTRUCTION
x

29

HELIPAD

H

NOAA - NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (4-1-2005)

REMOVE

x

x

x

VASI-4

x

x

PAPI-4

FENCING
NAVIGATIONAL AID INSTALLATION (GVGI)
RUNWAY THRESHOLD LIGHTS and REIL

34

POLE

30

1266

7

REMOVE

35

SECTION CORNER

3 2

SEGMENTED CIRCLE/WIND INDICATOR

NOTES:

TOPOGRAPHY (Source: Digital Survey Data)

1080

POLE

31

1265

2

1. TERRAIN PROFILE REPRESENTS THE HIGHEST POINT ACROSS THE WIDTH AND ALONG THE LENGTH

REMOVE

TREE

1267

3

2. THE TOPOGRAPHICAL BASE (2-FOOT CONTOURS) FOR THE CHANDLER AIRPORT ALP WAS CREATED

REMOVE

BY COOPER AERIGI OF PHOENIX, INC. USING GROUND SURVEY, FLIGHT SURVEY, AND END ANALYTICS.
POLE

33

1264

-4

DATE

APPROVALS:

1" = 20’ VERT

DESIGNED BY

SP

DATE

11/06

DRAWN BY

LKH

DATE

04/10

TITLE

DATE

TITLE

DATE

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
CHANDLER, ARIZONA

JM

DATE

6-10 YEARS

STAGE III
11-20 YEARS

04/10

TITLE

DATE

RUNWAY PROTECTI
ON ZONE
PL
AN AND PROFI
L
E
RUNWAY 4
R

PROJECT NO. (CLIENT)

CHECKED BY

STAGE II

0-5 YEARS

PLANS PREPARED FOR

PLANS PREPARED BY

SCALE: 1" = 200’ HORIZ

DESCRIPTION OF REVISION

STAGE I

ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS."

REVISIONS:
REV. NO.

DEVELOPMENT STAGES

AERONAUTICS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE
UNITED STATES OR THE STATE OF ARIZONA TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED
HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY

(DATE: 01-28-1997)

REMOVE

WIND INDICATOR (Lighted)

OF THE FAA OR ADOT AERONAUTICS. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT BY THE FAA OR ADOT

OF THE APPROACH SURFACE AND PRIMARY SURFACE.
32

"THE CONTENTS OF THIS PLAN DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY

AZDOT - E5S64

PROJECT NO. (WSA)

A31476

5

P
L

N

T
I
E
D
A O
R W
E
A N
PL

S
T
O

P

EXIST. / ULTIMATE RPZ
500’ x 700’ x 1000’
20:1 APPROACH
+1-MILE VISIBILITY MIN.
(OWN IN FEE)

PL

M
WAYA
AXI
T

M

P
L

G
E
R
M

TAXIWAY "A"
RUNUP AREA
(STAGE I)
12
38

A
Y

40
12

T
A
X
I
W

EXIST. / ULT. RUNWAY 22R
END EL 1236.4 (HIGH POINT)
TDZ EL 1236.4

P
L

R
O
A
D

ULTIMATE RPZ
500’ x 1010’ x 1700’
20:1 APPROACH
+1-MILE VISIBILITY
MINIMUM

EXISTING RPZ
500’ x 1000’ x 700’
20:1 APPROACH
+1-MILE VISIBILITY
MINIMUM

P
L

P

A
N
N

N
E
T
I
C
V
A
R
I
A
N
C
E

R
E
A
LI
G
N
M

E
N
T

P
L

P
L

P
L

P
L

A
G

G
A

P
L
TAXIWAY B

EXISTING RUNWAY 22L
END EL 1243.1 (HIGH POINT)
TDZ EL 1243.1

TAXI
W AY Q

TAXI
W AY P

TAXI
W AY N

P
L

ULTIMATE RUNWAY 22L
END EL 1244.0 (HIGH POINT)
TDZ EL 1244.0

44
12

2
4
2
1
TAXIWAY C

P
L
200’

410’
800’

P
L

TIEDOWN AREA

TIEDOWN AREA

P
L

TIEDOWN AREA

P
L

12
46

TAXI
LANE

H

HEL
I
PORT

T-HANGARS
T-HANGARS

ELEVATION (MSL)

SERVI
CE ROAD

LEGEND
EXISTING

ULTIMATE

DESCRIPTION

EL 1243.
4

1320

1300

ABANDONED PAVEMENT (To Be Removed)
AIRPORT PAVEMENT
P
L

P
L

NO OBSTRUCTIONS

AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

1280

BUILDING ABANDONMENT (To Be Removed)
BUILDINGS

BRL 35’

BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL)

OFA

OFA (U)

RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA

RSA

RSA (U)

RUNWAY SAFETY AREA

OFZ

OFZ (U)

OBJECT FREE ZONE

TSA

TSA (U)

TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA

TOFA

TOFA (U)

BRL 35’

Q:
\
Chandl
erALP Updat
e 2009\
bor
der
.
dwg Apr09,2010 -5:
10pm

HELIPAD

H

TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA

NO OBSTRUCTIONS ON RUNWAY 22L

FACILITY CONSTRUCTION
x

x

x

x

x

VASI-4

x

PAPI-4

EL.1243.
1

H

NG
I
ST
I
X
E

H
AC
O
PR
AP
1
:
20

CE
FA
R
SU

E
AT
M
I
T
UL

200’

CH
OA
R
P
AP
1
:
0
2

CE
FA
R
SU

RELOCATED
GERM ANN ROAD

AIRPORT ROTATING BEACON

200’

EL 1244.
0

AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP)

1260

EL. 1244.0

FENCING

1240

NAVIGATIONAL AID INSTALLATION (GVGI)
RUNWAY THRESHOLD LIGHTS and REIL

34 35
3 2

SECTION CORNER

NOTES:

SEGMENTED CIRCLE/WIND INDICATOR

1. TERRAIN PROFILE REPRESENTS THE HIGHEST POINT ACROSS THE WIDTH AND ALONG THE

TOPOGRAPHY (Source: Digital Survey Data)

1080

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

STAGE II
6-10 YEARS

1800

2000

2200

2400

2. THE TOPOGRAPHICAL BASE (2-FOOT CONTOURS) FOR THE CHANDLER AIRPORT ALP WAS

DEVELOPMENT STAGES
STAGE I

1600

2600

2800

3000

DISTANCE (FEET)

WIND INDICATOR (Lighted)

0-5 YEARS

1400

LENGTH OF THE APPROACH SURFACE AND PRIMARY SURFACE.

"THE CONTENTS OF THIS PLAN DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY

CREATED BY COOPER AERIGI OF PHOENIX, INC. USING GROUND SURVEY, FLIGHT SURVEY,
STAGE III
11-20 YEARS

AND END ANALYTICS.

OF THE FAA OR ADOT AERONAUTICS. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT BY THE FAA OR ADOT
AERONAUTICS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE

(DATE: 01-28-1997)

UNITED STATES OR THE STATE OF ARIZONA TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED
HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY
ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS."

APPROVALS:

REVISIONS:
REV. NO.

DATE

DESCRIPTION OF REVISION

1" = 20’ VERT

DESIGNED BY

SP

DATE

11/06

DRAWN BY

LKH

DATE

04/10

PLANS PREPARED FOR

PLANS PREPARED BY

SCALE: 1" = 200’ HORIZ

TITLE

DATE

TITLE

DATE

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
CHANDLER, ARIZONA

PROJECT NO. (CLIENT)

CHECKED BY

JM

DATE

04/10

TITLE

DATE

AZDOT - E5S64

RUNWAY PROTECTI
ON ZONE
PL
AN AND PROFI
L
E
RUNWAY 2
2
L

PROJECT NO. (WSA)

A31476

6

DEED RECORDING INFORMATION (COUNTY ASSESSOR - MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ)

ACREAGE

DEED DATE

RECORDING INFORMATION

303
32

Parcel:

303
32

303
32

City of Chandler
7.83

303-32-012M

9-6-1987

303
32

303
32

303-32-012Q

12-31-1986

8.914

303-32-012R

12-31-1986

303
32

860733678

Book:
Map:

44.834

303-32-012P

3-3-1986

Deed #:
Book:
Map:

303
32

City of Chandler
303-32-013J

24.65

5-29-2002

860101579
303
32

0.21

303-32-013K

5-29-2002

Book:
Map:

303

Deed #:
0.71

303-32-013L

5-29-2002

887110100
303
32

0.43

303-32-013M

5-29-2002

2.11

303-32-013N

5-29-2002

303
32

City of Chandler
19.536

303-32-014C

1-4-1993

303
32

1.464

303-31-001R

11-2-87

AJ Chandler Air Park LLC /
Warrranty

887110100
303
32

AJ Chandler Air Park LLC /
Warrranty

AIP-3-04-0008-11
ADOT E1135 ADOT E1102
7-14-2000, 7-1-2000,

1
2
3
2

0
3
2
1

HV-101
1239.774

PARCEL NO.
303-31-014A
PARCEL NO.
303-32-003

PARCEL NO.
303-32-005

P
L

AIP-3-04-0008-11
ADOT E1135 ADOT E1102

0
3
2
1

7-14-2000, 7-1-2000,
and 4-2-2001

HV-116
1224.391

’
5
x7
’
0
0
4
,
4

AIP-3-04-0008-11
ADOT E1135 ADOT E1102
7-14-2000, 7-1-2000,
and 4-2-2001

A
W
I
X
A
T

AIP-3-04-0008-11
ADOT E1135 ADOT E1102
7-14-2000, 7-1-2000,
and 4-2-2001

HV-106
1232.812

O
P
R
I
A

AIP-3-04-0008-11
ADOT E1135 ADOT E1102
7-14-2000, 7-1-2000,

T
R

.
D
V
L
B

G
N
I
T
S
I
X
E

PARCEL NO.
303-32-012P

W
N
U
R

Y
A
M
I
T
L
U
/

W
N
U
R

Y
A

303
32

G
N
I
T
S
I
X
E

E
T PARCEL
A

NO.
303-32-001

6.971

303-31-009F

6-10-1988

Deed #:
Book:
Map:

D.W. Patterson / Warranty

AIP-3-04-0008-06
5-18-1989

MIXED
LAND

870666054
303
31

City of Chandler
1.72

303-31-013C

1-4-1993

Spitler / Warranty

USE

AIP-3-04-0008-03
9-25-1986

PARCEL NO.
303-32-012L

City of Chandler
46.589

303-31-014A

6-11-1993

70

303-31-015B

9-2-1988

PARCEL NO.
303-32-001N

PARCEL NO.
303-32-002

L
P

PARCEL NO.
303-32-009B

L
P

P
L
R & E Farms / Special Warranty
Deed

AIP-3-04-0008-08
6-25-1992

PARCEL NO.
303-32-009C

PARCEL NO.
303-32-012R

001N
880282164
303
31

Chandler Airpark Limited
Partnership / Warranty

AIP-3-04-0008-04
8-25-1987
0
3
2
1

009F
930000185
303
31

L
P

C. Max Killian / Special
Warranty Deed

PARCEL NO.
303-32-012M

PARCEL NO.
303-32-012Q

L
P

--

013C

P
L

P
L

P
L

QUEENCREEKROAD

930370306
303
31

Parcel:
City of Chandler

C

PARCEL NO.
303-32-001H

12
32

303
31

Book:
Map:

Deed #:
Book:
Map:

Y
A

1234.301

940672607

Parcel:
Deed #:

W
I
X
A
T

1
2
3
8

001H

Parcel:
Deed #:
Book:
Map:

L
P

1
2
4
0

014C

Parcel:

City of Chandler

Y
A

’x
0
7
8
,
4

P
L

’
5
7

1240

9-12-1994

HV-10D
1239.900

PARCEL NO.
303-32-011C

D.W. Patterson / Special
Warranty Deed

AIP-3-04-0008-08
6-25-1992

014C
880437911
303
31

Parcel:

LEGEND
D.W. Patterson / Warranty

AIP-3-04-0008-08
8-25-1987 and 6-23-1988

EXISTING

123
0

22.076

303-31-001N

1246

PARCEL NO.
303-31-015B

HV-102

Deed #:
Book:
Map:

P
L

8
3
2
1

and 4-2-2001

013N

Parcel:

City of Chandler

HV-113
1246.560

PARCEL NO.
303-31-015E

930000184

Book:
Map:

Deed #:
Book:
Map:

Warrranty

013M

Parcel:

City of Chandler

AJ Chandler Air Park LLC /

887110100

Parcel:
Deed #:

Warrranty

013L

Book:
Map:

Deed #:
Book:
Map:

AJ Chandler Air Park LLC /

887110100

Parcel:

City of Chandler

AIP-3-04-0008-06
5-18-1989

and 4-2-2001

013K

Book:
Map:

Deed #:

Warrranty

013J

Parcel:

City of Chandler

AJ Chandler Air Park LLC /

32

Parcel:

City of Chandler

L
P

012X

Book:
Map:

Deed #:

Roosevelt Water
Conservation District / Warranty

887110100

Parcel:

City of Chandler

D.J. Patterson / Warranty

ADAP-5-04-0008-02
9-30-1978

012R

Parcel:
Deed #:

AIP-3-04-0008-07
7-25-1991

P
L

PARCEL NO.
303-32-014C

6
2
2
1

012Q

Parcel:

City of Chandler

4
3
2
1

860733678

Book:
Map:

Deed #:

D.J. Patterson / Warranty

PARCEL NO.
303-31-013C

012M

Parcel:

City of Chandler

Queen Creek Trust / Warranty

AIP-3-04-0008-03
9-26-1986

PARCEL NO.
303-31-015D

A.N.G.

H

6

Conservation District / Warranty

AIP-3-04-0008-01
9-24-1984

870499012

Book:
Map:

Deed #:

Roosevelt Water

PARCEL NO. 303-32-013J

012L

Parcel:

City of Chandler

COOPER ROAD

011C
11009-0175

Parcel:
Deed #:

1
2
4
0

P
L

1-27-1975

P
L

PARCEL NO.
303-31-009F

P

31.8

303-32-012L

--

Conservation District / Warranty

L
P

O
T
S

City of Chandler

Deed #:
Book:
Map:

P
L

ULT. AIRPORT BLVD. REALIGNMENT

12
50

P
L

Parcel:

Roosevelt Water

P
L

1
2
4
2

10-24-1985

1
2
3
6

P
L

860101579

L
P

1
2
4
0

6.625

303-32-011C

Deed #:
Book:
Map:

PARCEL NO.
303-32-013K

HV-108
1238.814

1240

City of Chandler

009C

PARCEL NO.
303-32-013M

PARCEL NO.
303-32-013N

1
2
4
8

Parcel:

Liability Company Warranty

AIP-3-04-0008-09
9-23-1993

COOPER ROAD

1-26-1994

Airpark Associates LTD.

STOP

35.702

303-32-009C

303
32

L
P

P
L

P
L

P
L

9400066751

Book:
Map:

HV-111
1247.001

P
L

GERMANN ROAD

P
L

Deed #:
City of Chandler

009B

L
P

1244

Parcel:

John Demetria LTD. / Warranty

PARCEL NO.
303-32-013L

AIP-3-04-0008-04
8-25-1987

1236

3-31-1988

303
32

1236

21.043

303-32-009B

880150742

Book:
Map:

PARCEL NO.
303-30-002B
PL

Deed #:
City of Chandler

State of Arizona / Warranty

5

P
L

Parcel:

MAGNETIC VARIANCE

12
32

5-28-1948

303
32

P
L

303-32-005

FAAP 9-02-008-6604
7-14-1959

NOD-44445

Book:
Map:

P
L

39

PARCEL NO.
303-30-007B

P
L

Deed #:
City of Chandler

State of Arizona / Warranty

3

PL

Parcel:

completeness of this information.
FAAP 9-02-008-6604
7-14-1959

P
L

303
32

GERMANN ROAD

Assessors Office. Wilbur Smith Associates makes no warranty as to the accuracy or

NOD-44448

12
36

Deed #:
Book:
Map:

record and is also available for review by the general public through the Maricopa County

2

12
38

303-32-003

5-28-1948

State of Arizona / Warranty

December 2006. All property description information contained herein is a matter of public

FAAP 9-02-008-6604
7-14-1959

1
2
3
4

38.96

and Maricopa County Assessors Office, was performed during the months of November and

NOD-44447

Book:
Map:
Parcel:

City of Chandler

search, utilizing the most up-to-date information and resources of both Wilbur Smith Associates

1230

5-28-1948

through a property title search which was conducted by Wilbur Smith Associates. This title

1

CA
NA
L

39

Unless otherwise specified, the deed recording information presented on this map was obtained

FAAP 9-02-008-6604
7-14-1959

CO
NS
O L
ID
AT
ED

Deed #:
City of Chandler

State of Arizona / Warranty

M AG

Book:
Map:

P
L

5-28-1948

1
2
3
4

40

NOD-44446

P
L

City of Chandler

303-32-002

FAAP/ADAP/AIP NUMBER
GRANT ACCEPTANCE

NOTICE
Deed #:

303-32-001

GRANTOR / DEED TYPE

1230

OWNER:
PARCEL NUMBER

N

ULTIMATE

1
2
3
2

DESCRIPTION
ABANDONED PAVEMENT (To Be Removed)

015B
AIRPORT PAVEMENT

Deed #:
City of Chandler
3

303-31-015D

8-31-1990

900394579

Book:
Map:

303
31
015D

Q:
\
Chandl
erALP Updat
e 2009\
bor
der
.
dwg M ay 05,2010 -8:
05am

Parcel:
City of Chandler
6.728

303-31-015E

8-31-1990

Deed #:
Book:
Map:

City of Chandler
2.416

303-30-002B

7-7-1988

303
31

4.16

303-30-007B

7-22-1988

AIRPORT ROTATING BEACON

D.W. Patterson / Warranty

HV-103
1228.031

AIP-3-04-0008-06
5-18-1989

1.

2.

BRL 35’

BRL 35’

BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL)

OFA

OFA (U)

RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA

RSA

RSA (U)

Exeter Real Estate Investors /

RUNWAY SAFETY AREA

PURPOSES ONLY.

OFZ

OFZ (U)

Warranty

OBJECT FREE ZONE

PARCEL DATA REFLECTS INFORMATION GATHERED IN 2005.

TSA

TSA (U)

TAXIWAY SAFETY AREA

TOFA

TOFA (U)

PROPERTY LINES ESTABLISHED BASED ON SURVEY AND
AIRPORT OWNER INFORMATION. TO BE USED FOR PLANNING

AIP-3-04-0008-04
8-25-1987
3.

ACCORDING TO THE MARICOPA COUNTY ASSESSOR’S OFFICE,

D.W. Patterson / Warranty

FACILITY CONSTRUCTION

SUBDIVISION OF PARCELS.

AIP-3-04-0008-105
6-23-1988

x

x

532.478

x

x

x

x

FENCING

"THE CONTENTS OF THIS PLAN DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY
OF THE FAA OR ADOT AERONAUTICS. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT BY THE FAA OR ADOT

007B

VASI-4

Note: The total acreage shown in this table is the cumulative sum of the above described parcels, whose

UNITED STATES OR THE STATE OF ARIZONA TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED

acreages were obtained from legal descriptions and other legal documents obtained through

HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY

34

35

3 2

NAVIGATIONAL AID INSTALLATION (GVGI)

SECTION CORNER
SEGMENTED CIRCLE/WIND INDICATOR

ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS."

the title search, referred to in the "Notice" block.

PAPI-4

RUNWAY THRESHOLD LIGHTS and REIL

AERONAUTICS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE

Total Acreage

TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA

PARCEL DATA CAN CHANGE PERIODICALLY DUE TO THE

880360384

Parcel:

HELIPAD

H

END ANALYTICS. (DATE: 01-28-1997)

002B

303
30

BUILDINGS
H

OF PHOENIX, INC. USING GROUND SURVEY, FLIGHT SURVEY, AND

880330730
303
30

BUILDING ABANDONMENT (To Be Removed)

THE TOPOGRAPHICAL BASE (2-FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL) FOR
THE CHANDLER AIRPORT ALP WAS REATED BY COOPER AERIGI

015E

Book:
Map:

Deed #:
Book:
Map:

AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE
AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP)

900394580

Parcel:

City of Chandler

AIP-3-04-0008-06
5-18-1989

P
L

NOTES:

Parcel:
Deed #:

D.W. Patterson / Warranty

P
L

1080

TOPOGRAPHY (Source: Digital Survey Data)
WIND INDICATOR (Lighted)

REVISIONS:
REV. NO.

DATE

500

0

APPROVALS:

1000

500

PLANS PREPARED FOR

PLANS PREPARED BY

1500

DESCRIPTION OF REVISION

SCALE: 1" = 500’

DESIGNED BY

SP

DATE

11/06

DRAWN BY

LKH

DATE

04/10

TITLE

DATE

TITLE

DATE

CHANDLER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
CHANDLER, ARIZONA

PROJECT NO. (CLIENT)

CHECKED BY

JM

DATE

04/10

TITLE

DATE

AZDOT - E5S64

"EXHIBIT A"
AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP

PROJECT NO. (WSA)

A31476

9