HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 1 J.W. AIRPORT RPT 03-19-90muENDA-5- .(?o
DATE: MARCH 19, 1990
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
OLD BUSINESS NO. 1
3-19-90
Inter - Com
FROM: AIRPORT STATUS REPORT - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT (JWA),
SUBJECT: COALITION FOR A RESPONSIBLE AIRPORT SOLUTION (CRAS),
AIRPORT SITE COALITION (ASC) AND HELICOPTER OVERFLIGHTS
TASK FORCE (HOTF)
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
DISCUSSION
JWA - The County Airport Land Use Commission is expected to discuss
the topic of a cumulative impact study of high rise development on
navigational aids on March 15, 1990. Staff will attend this
meeting and report back to Council in our April 2, 1990 status
report.
The report on noise monitoring systems is a separate agenda item.
ASC - There is no new information to report at this time.
CRAS - Kathy Weil attended the Board meeting on March 5th. Her
report is attached to this report. The annual meeting is scheduled
for April 4, 1990.
HOTF - There is no new information to report at this time.
Steve Rubin Christine Shingle
Associate Planner Director of Community Development
SR:CAS:kbc
Attachments: Memo from Kathy Weil with exhibits
MEMO TO: TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Kathy Weil
RE: March 5,1990 - Meeting CRAS Board of Directors
Terri Mehrguth from Paine and Associates briefed the Board on the status of CRAS' upcoming Annual Meeting to be
held on Wednesday evening, April 4, 1990, at 6 p.m. in the Leisure World Administration Building. You will all be
receiving an invitation and I'd like to encourage you to attend. The speaker will be Col. Jack Wagner from El Toro
Marine Base. Besides being v_,_yr well versed on the subject of joint use of El Toro he is also articulate and personable -
the kind of guy you're glad is on our side rather than on the other side.
Sammy Rake, our legislative aide, reported on the status of the Airport Site Coalition's final report that we've been
patiently awaiting. The report is apparently complete, but Sammy felt that the review committee, headed by Al Bell,
doesn't seem to know what to do with it. It's possible that it will be sent to both SCAG and the Orange County
Supervisors concurrently, hopefully within the next two weeks. The longer this drags on the more speculation develops
about what's causing the delay... perhaps the fact that El Toro was dropped from the recommended sites is unaccept-
able... There's a feeling of uneasiness among the Board (CRAS) members. All this delay of the release of the ASC's
report could be allowing more time for the opposition to rally its' forces (whomever or whatever that may be). Also, the
CRAS Board feels that SCAG may be interested in El Toro in spite of the ASC report.
Never let it be said that CRAS "let any grass grow under its feet" though. They're sending the enclosed letter, evaluating
the ICAA report (done by Ken Delino, Newport Beach) to Henry Wedaa, Chairman of the SCAG Aviation Work
Program Committee. It may not do any good since there seems to be some doubt about whether Mr. Wedaa still chairs
that committee. However, the letter, points out some of the flawed data of the ICAA report. CRAS' primary goal is to
discredit the data used in both the ASC report and the ICAA report so that once and for all the commercial use of El
Toro will be a permanently dead issue.
The second tactic that CRAS will be undertaking very shortly, is requesting a face to face meeting with SCAG and its
staff to try to lobby them to our side and to ascertain the origin of the heavy political opposition that has been generated
by this. Speculation, again, has it that there could be pressure from good `ole Newport Beach, from the Airlines, or even
from the Orange County business community, wanting a central location for a large commercial airport. Which brings
me to the last bit of speculation voiced at the Board meeting - that they feel that the real goal (of the opposition) for El
Toro is full commercial use.
Bottom line in this saga is that "It ain't over `til its over". We (Tustin) still have a potential problem. If you think over-
flights are a problem now ... Please try to attend the Annual Meeting on Wednesday, April 4th. I promise you'll find it
interesting!!
RECEIVED
MAR 0 7 1990
COMMUNITY CEVLEOPMFHT
Coalition for a
: r RIL..r �S-1BLE AIRPORT ...JLUTION
2
March 5, 1990
MAR 0 7 1990
Mr. Henry Wedaa
COMMUNITY OEVLEOPME&IT
Chairman, Aviation Work Program Committee
Southern California Association of Governments
818 West Seventh Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Dear Mr. Wedaa:
The Coalition for a Responsible Airport Solution (CRAS) wishes to
respond to the Inter -County Airport Authority (ICAA) report of
November 1989, which addresses the possibility of future joint or
all -civilian use of the military airfield of Marine Corps Air
Station (MCAS), E1 Toro.
It is our understanding that SCAG directed (1) the ICAA to
collect the technical data completed to date relating to this
question, and (2) to assess the technical work of the Airport
Site Coalition (ASC) as it related to El Toro.
In evaluating the ICAA report, CRAS has concluded that data
presented, in some cases, is inaccurate and outdated, as well as
omits significant facts. For the sake of brevity, we will refer
to just a few. Our points will be grouped into two parts with
Part A relating to joint use and Part B to civilian use.
A. JOINT MILITARY CIVILIAN OPERATIONS AT EL TORO
1. EFFECT ON LEVEL OF MILITARY OPERATIONS
The ICAA report accurately outlines the military mission of
MCAS El Toro (pgs. 1-4). However, the report implies that
the military mission is declining (pg. 5). It states "total
jet operations have decreased by 40 percent." This is not
true. Several years ago when the squadrons were changing
from the F-4 to the F-18 aircraft, operations did decrease
by 25 percent. Last year, there were 69036 combat jet
operations and a total of 134,503 aircraft operations at
El Toro (app.l) compared to 70,000 combat jet operations in
previous years, contrary to the ICAA claims. The Third
Marine Air Wing (MAW) at E1 Toro anticipates that this full
operational level will be maintained in the future.
*A Group Opposed to Joint or Commercial Use of MCAS -EI Toro
23704-5 EI Toro Road, Suit 411, EI Toro, California 92630
The ICAA report also states "highly sophisticated aircraft
are experiencing considerable periods.of down time.
Manufacturing and acquisition delays on the F-18 aircraft
are slowing the initiation of the new training facility at
El Toro." Again, this is not true. The Navy report that'
the F-18 is a highly reliable and maintainable aircraft, and
more reliable than the aircraft it replaced (app.2). Note
also the ICAA statement "A fighter aircraft squadron with 12
to 20 aircraft rarely is more than 75 percent
operational...," which is also not true (pg.14).. The
operational rate for the Third MAW during the period July -
December 1989 was 82.9 percent.
2. IMPACT OF JOINT OPERATIONS ON THE MILITARY MISSION
It is important to keep in mind that the Marine mission at
El Toro is to be combat and mobilization ready, as well as
to train combat pilots. It must be able to function closely
in support of sea, ground, and amphibious operations. In
fulfilling such a mission, time is crucial. Marine aircraft
cannot meet it's responsibility if its planes are delayed,
waiting for commercial planes to take off or land. The
statement in the ICAA report that emergency mobilization
"still would not preclude all runway use" is not credible
(pg. 14). It is an assertion without substantiating
evidence.
3. EFFECT OF JOINT OPERATIONS ON COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS
The ICAA report downplays the impact of live ammunition on
the base (pg. 22). The ICAA considers only the danger to
civilian aircraft passing by the loading or storage areas
for ordinance. Overlooked is the safety requirement that a
2,500 foot separation must be maintained at all times around
each military aircraft containing live ammunition. This
would.have a serious adverse effect on any civilian aircraft
attempting to operate on a scheduled basis. The ASC
technical data, which was available to the ICAA author,
states, "Marine Corps fighter training missions depart
during standard launch periods during the morning and early
afternoon. To avoid major delays to these fighter
departures, El Toro should be sterilized of civilian
operations during launch periods. The morning military
launch period coincides with the civilian morning peak
period. If the airspace is sterilized of civilian
operations, air carriers would not be able to serve a large
segment of the morning peak -hour air passenger demand.
"If an airline cannot serve peak period demand, it is
unlikely that an airline would serve an airport due to poor
economics. Peak periods generally include the hours 7 a.m.
to 9 a.m.; 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m."2 These
findings were ignored by the ICAA author.
2
4. PUBLIC LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINT USE
Joint use operational conflicts are discussed in the ICAA
report (pgs 13-14). The report does not refer to Public Law
97-248 Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. This law
requires the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Transportation to set up a plan and establish criteria for
the satisfactory joint use of military airfields. Plans and
criteria were submitted to Congress in March, 1984, and
subsequently accepted by Congress (app. 3). Joint use of E1
Toro would violate several of the criteria established by
this plan. The plan states, "The Department of Defense will
consider joint use when it does not compromise military
response, security, readiness, or safety." It further
stipulates "generally, an airfield will be considered for
joint use if it does not have a nuclear alert force, pilot
training (student or qualification), nuclear storage, or a
major classified mission." Because of this law, the
Department of Defense has not agreed, and likely cannot
agree, to joint use of MCAS -El Toro.
The ICAA report (pg. 14) asserts that "high performance,
tactical military aircraft share airspace at dozens of
airports throughout the world." This is a very misleading
statement. Of all the military airfields, there are only 23
with some degree of joint use. There are only 12 which
permit full, unlimited use by civilian aircraft (app. 4).
Of these 12, 11 fields do not have a major combat mission.
Therefore, they can accommodate delays in their military
operations. This is not true of MCAS El Toro.
The one exception is Charleston, S.C., Air Force Base, which
uses an airport originally owned by the city of Charleston.
This base is used by the Military Airlift Command, which has
a basic mission of transportation of passengers and cargo on
a scheduled basis. Its operations, therefore, are very
similar to those of civilian commercial airlines, and it
uses the same general type of aircraft. This is not true of
MCAS E1 Toro, which has an entirely different type of
military operation.
B. ALL CIVILIAN USE OF EL TORO
1. LIMITATIONS OF THE AIRFIELD FOR COMMERCIAL CARRIER
OPERATIONS
The E1 Toro runway and wind direction data are outlined in
the ICAA report (pg 10). Some disadvantages of the airfield
are summarized by the report as follows: "To minimize such
overflights and use the existing military flight tracks,
commercial airlines would need to operate in an unfavorable
windcondition approximately 60 percent of the time, depart
on an uphill runway, and climb over hills."
3
2.
The ICAA report then tries to dismiss this important finding
by claiming "however, analysis of these conditions indicate
that wind conditions would allow the commercial departures
on Runway 07 (like the military) 98.7 percent of the time,
and that with some penalties on gross take -off weights,
civilian aircraft can operate efficiently and safely uphill
and over the hills.11(app.5)
The ICAA conclusions were derived from selecting wind
direction data based upon a full 24-hour day. Further in
the report, another set of data reveals that there is an
unsatisfactory wind condition duting the.period from noon to
5 p.m. on three to 13 percent of the days (app.6). On the
basis of this, CRAS requested and received data on wind
direction and wind speed during normal aircraft operating
hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Analysis reveals adverse 10 -knot
tailwinds and cross -winds during normal flight hours would
make take -offs impossible on Runway 07 for 25 percent of the
time during April and 12 percent of the time on an annual
basis. Landings on Runway 34 would also be unsafe for more
than 13 percent of the time during April and 7.8 percent
annually (app.7 and 8). This operating hour wind data
reveals that commercial aircraft would need to use other
runways much of the time, seriously interfering with the
John Wayne airspace and adversely affecting heavily
populated residential areas.
GROUND TRAFFIC PROBLEMS
Currently, ground traffic is a
Orange County and the problem
with the establishment of any
C. CONCLUSION
serious problem in south
would dramatically increase
civilian use at MCAS -El Toro.
The ICAA report should not be accepted by SCAG, endorsed or
forwarded. As stated above, much of its data is inaccurate,
incomplete, or biased in its selection of alleged factual
data. A great deal is old information taken from previous
studies that failed to find a solution to the airport site
issue. The report also ignores the results of the $800,000
ASC study of the past 20 months, which used more than 15,000
hours of volunteer time of citizens from throughout Orange
County, which among other findings, concluded that MCAS El
Toro is not a viable solution to Orange County's air traffic
needs.
CRAS agrees with Congressman Christopher Cox who stated, "we
are engaging in self-delusion by keeping this fictitious
option (MCAS - El Toro) on the table." We believe it would
be much better for Southern Californians to work together to
find and develop an airport site that will satisfy our
4
growing needs for future decades. The proposed airport site
should not be surrounded by heavily developed residential
areas, be in an area with traffic already gridlocked much of
the time, and within presently congested airspace.
If -Southern California is to continue to be healthy
economically and socially into the next century, we need a
first-rate airport capable of handling up to 15 million air
passengers per year. CRAS is dedicated to help in the
search in any way it can.
Respectfully submitted,
Sally Anne Sheridan
Chairman
CRAS
Mary Anderson
CRAS Boardmember
Ben Meharg
CRAS Boardmember
Marcia Rudolph
CRAS Boardmember
Eric Sims
CRAS Boardmember
5
Don Lippert
CRAS Boardmember
Norm Murray
CRAS Boardmember
Doyle Selden
CRAS Boardmember
Kathy Weil
CRAS Boardmember
1. Source: Round II Evaluations, March 22, 1989. Prepared by
the Planning Center, Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton, DRS Associates, P. 9,
paragraph IIA.
2. Op. Cit. p. 24, paragraph 1, under "Impact On Aviation
Operations."
152
153
154 1IECB.AFT OPEBATIOIS LOG
155 *LOCAL 'LOCAL TIME'
1`
1 0700-1900 TOTAL
1 • .1 1900-2200 COl®IIED
158 111 2200-0700 DATE: JAI - DEC 1989
159_
---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
; ---------------�---------------
180 8+ry): 34 7 Z5
i6 21 3 Over;;
161 Type -------------------------------- ----------- ----------------' --------- ---------- ---------- TOTAL ,
182 v ; Dept ; Arr : OB's: TAG : FCLP: Dept; Arr ; Dept; Arr : TAG ; Dept; Arr : Dept; Arr ; Dept: Arr :Flite::
163------==-------------------------===-----=-------------==-==--=-------==-------=--------=----------- - - -
.184 F-18 ; 1744 13956 6583 19412 8708 12618 322 315 105 EEBE 28 55 IM im B%%E EBBE 48553;
165---------;----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ,
186 F-4 ; 175 1587 853 1868 92 1359 32 168 9 E10=8 13 EZEI IM = E M ;; 5217;
167 ---------;-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
168 1-4 ; 104 976 319 1256 883 17 50 25 BB%% 12 12 IM IM EM Mx ;; 3335;
169---------;----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- „ ___
170 1-6 228 1609 476 4338 2402 1251 37 231 18 EBBE 9 9 EM EBIB BBBB M1 ;; 7730;
171---------;---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
172 Other Jet: 145 1208 262 1522 858 26 13 27 = 76 14 = = IM IM 2:: 3891:
173---------;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- ::„----
174 Heavy Jet; 39 146 Effi IM IEEE 43 12 1 IM69 IM= EM EM ; ; 310
175
176 JetSubiot; 2435 19482 8493 28394 11202 17012 434 789 185 EM 200 103 IM IIBB IM MI 2:: 69036,
177 irillillilxxxxllxxxlxxxxxxlxxxxyrl:
178 Iti I i t. : MX IM Effi EE%B B%EI EM = =11 IM Effi XM =11 EM M1 %ffi IM 2083: ; 2083:
179 --------- ;-------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :;------•:
180 CIV” : = Effi EBIE EBBB BEE% M EEEE = = EBYE IM MI = EBBE EEEB EIEB 3606:: 3606:
181 - -- ' -----------------------------------------------------------------------
182 _.,0 : 145 1256 120 1986 EEIB 898 14 402 23 23 8 EM IIEI %III EEEE 4553:
;83---------;-----------------------------•------------------------------------------------------------------------;;-------;
.84 Helo : 3058 3246 6 9956 EEIB 1777 406 241 590 20 272 259 88 28 26 32 ffi%:: 19999;
85---------;----------------------------------------------------------------------------------•-------------------;;-------;
86 OtberConv: 1183 3531 18 22074 BBEB 2041 771 843 1021 152 69 136 1782 578 383 662 )M:: 35226;
87
::8 ConSubTot: 4386 8033 144 34016 B%ffi 4514 1191 1486 1634 172 384 403 1870 606 409 694 5689:: 65467;
E2
�q
:1 TOTAL : 6821 27515 8637 62410 11202 21526 1625 2275 1819 172 564 506 1670 C06 409 694 5691;: 134503:
�3 Remarks: The OB operations are included in -the Arrival totals.====================-==-=-==============-==---=--=-=-=-=-==�
The FCL? operations are included in the TAG totals.
?4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Prepared By: :ATCFIO:
16
17
18
----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
,v YCASET 3722/7 (Bev 10-86)
MAR 0 7 1990
COMMUNITY CEVLEOMIENT
c
C
.� co
. m.
not= Cd
Los
0
W,k
t4
C Q
N
41�.Y
•r
�rQr'
C Q
N
Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Washington, D.C.. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
In accordance with Section 504(d)(3) of The Airport and
Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (PL 97-248), attached is the
DOD/DOT Plan for Joint Use of Military Airfields. The plan
includes a systematic approach for qualified sponsors to request
joint use and discusses the factors considered by the military
departments when evaluating such proposals.
If we can provide further information, -please contact us.
Eliz eth Dole
Secr ary of Transportation
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Cas ar W. Weinberge
Secretary of Defense
`♦ : 3;`w+.. vaF ."lr,"SRy�'YtGYii x''..ibM'L �.'4 - .. .,;. R„9' .` v__ ..
y... ., .•S - r+n .�- '^'+•'.. "•, ;"{^0'!„°� �3er.s. `�.m. 1.: -,s _� _ `p'". .,' }:a .-� n.+-t^t. .+r..:., '__.ue....m..
w
r U R R T JOINT
EN USE AGREE
1 •
L'here are •'24 int use agreements in effect at domestic military
airfields and additional proposals are currently being
evaluated. lTwelve of the agreements permit virtually
unrestricted use by civil aircraft. The remainder set limits
related to aircraft size, operating characteristics, types of
operations, or number of flights. Those airfields with joint use
agreements are listed below:
NAVY ARMY AIR FORCE
*NAS Agana, GQ *Allen AAF, AK Barter Island DS, AK
*NAS Bermuda, BD *Blackstone AAF, VA *Cha-rleston AFB, SC
.Ford Island, HI
-..'AS Yuma,, AZ
*Dillingham, HI
Forney AAF, MO
*Grayling AAF, MI
*Libby AAF, AZ
*Sherman AAF, KA
Wainwright AAF, AK
Dover AFB, DE
Eglin AFB, FL
Myrtle Beach AFB, SC
Palmdale Plant 42, CA
Point Lay. DS, Ili:
Rickenbacker ANGB, OH
*Richards-Gebaur AFB, MO
*Sheppard AFB, TX
Travis AFB, CA
Westover AFB, MA
*Airfields with unrestricted use by civil aircraft
B
PURSUANT TO SECTION 504 (d) (3)'
OF
THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT 0F.1 982
. 1
5702 SURFACE WINDS JAN 78 -
1�
tet= o►_
0
to
I •
I
I"
I
�
<
V
1
I
I
I
r
a
o
00
>5a
0~'0
o cl
Zoo
_.
....
•�
•H
=
Y
•'
d•
�
O
1�1
ct1 •t
O
.�
O
u
-t
'J
I
QI
I
Z
I.
O-
N (.-+
0
O
m I O� I R1 .O
I I e�
(
!fro
I e� I .t
i C
,.
•
4111 _
o•
IN .
s, I m I
.
en
-1 _ .
in i cn •.�
'a
.-+
•
I
V
1
I c
C
tins
Q
cq:
eq
r
a
o
00
0
0~'0
o cl
Zoo
_.
....
_,_40
in
a d
d•
t0
1�1
ct1 •t
O
-t
I.
O-
N (.-+
LO
O
m I O� I R1 .O
I I e�
(
!fro
I e� I .t
i C
,.
•
4111 _
o•
IN .
s, I m I
.
en
-1 _ .
in i cn •.�
'a
.-+
•
I
_I .. •
•-• .-+i ( o
I c
c.
�
Al
�
I
I
1
I
h
0
1
Ix ,
I
O
f
A
I
I
n
n
�I
h
ISOI
1010
.
r
I
I
I
m�4a
I cq
o•
•o
4
.-4
I
N
r--10
m
O•
10,010
m
d
.
•
Q►
!C1
on
1
_
Jev
tai
an
V`
O►
-O
►-
Gu
wI
Woku
W
dxin
z
Z
z
W
Wan
N
'^
y
3
3
Y/
r
M
r
s 2
13 ' ..
Z�
(D
s
LO
L
L
J-
-U
C
r
C
cu
p C
U
U
L
-o C O
C
U)
0
U1
m
�
a
to,
o
>a
C7
dr
U.�.��L
. _
0
CL)
CD
(aO
(1)
��
C,En>,
co0
Q: I
co
n
N
N
to
F-
s
. d
�
Z�
Cc
,,
w
r
d
Ln
r
ca
CD
(D
s
LO
L
L
J-
-U
C
r
(n
cu
p C
U
L-
-3MO
L
-o C O
C
U)
0
U
O
co N
N
:,_
C
'
to,
o
C
C7
-D
U.�.��L
. _
4-3
CL)
CD
(aO
(1)
.oco
C,En>,
Q: I
co
n
N
N
to
N
Ln
(n
11)
d'
N
CD
co
O
N
_ =
N
if 1 I
�J
r-
r-
Coc-
CV) ° I I
tV
0
z
LO
N I
N
C7 i
O
T-
coit-
z
CU
r
Q7
to
c-
N
r
O
z
t,.
Q
w
a
o
o
OI
V
3
CD
N
N
cn
co
d
CD
'
LO
I
i
f
co
N
F-
N
CD
CD
Zcu
OCE
_
C)a
Z)
w
�w
i--
U
>
O
U
w
-j w
z ao>' Z
d w2 Cl- d��
�-
d
d
o
z
o
ca
CD
(D
s
LO
L
L
J-
-U
C
a
(n
cu
p C
U
L-
-3MO
L
-o C O
C
U)
0
U
O
co N
N
:,_
C
'
to,
U Z) c-
p 4-'
C
_ ��
-
-D
U.�.��L
. _
4-3
CL)
CD
(aO
(1)
.oco
C,En>,
.��x
C O
c
Ic
U
�!�! L
UJ 0.
t
}= t
0
Q�
F
2 -o
L
0
z
11
w
I
C,
m
CD
c:
0 r
c
.tom
W
�
0
C LO
1 C
J
U Cu
CEJ
T7
c
0 c
S
L
O
L
CO
0 OC
O
U (n
'Z5
D
co Cu
�
. �
���
.
o-0-L7•Un
C
O
co
.—
U
4-3
_
-r-
C._
O
[p
4m m
O
.>,
CD
O
j s
O
C?
�
0
0 ,
t,:
;
•
U
o
CO
(D
(D
Ln (nCD
�.
I O
N
O
Iq
O
I
`�
� _�
co
"Q: ��
Lr)
CU
ED
M
�
� � I
CU
?
71 r I
T- _
N'
CD
(O
N I N �-
O N Q
O r a
�- a
r' 0
Ico
IC.
,
co
Q�
Ln
I
I co
I
N
�
ni
Z N
!
C)
I
z
M
QQ
J
Q
�
i
�
a�
a
a
Q
n
0
0
C,
m
CD
c:
0 r
c
.tom
W
�
0
C LO
1 C
J
U Cu
CEJ
T7
c
0 c
S
L
O
L
CO
0 OC
O
U (n
'Z5
D
co Cu
�
. �
���
.
o-0-L7•Un
C
O
co
.—
U
4-3
_
-r-
C._
O
[p
4m m
O
.>,
CSD
O
j s
�
0
0 ,
t,:
;
•
U
o
_�
�.
0
=
U1)
=
C,
m
c
�LO
�
C LO
1 C
J
U Cu
CEJ
M- cu
0 c
S
L
O
L
CO
0 OC
O
U (n
'Z5
D
co Cu
�
. �
���
.
o-0-L7•Un
C
O
co
.—
U
4-3
_
-r-
C._
O
[p
4m m
O
.>,
CSD
O
�.`
X C
O C
F-- O
O L�
E C
C,
From:
To:
Subs
Ref :
Encl:
PC,
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
Airfield Operations Department
U. S. Marine Corps Air Station
E1 Toro (Santa Ana), California 92709-50
RCVD �0 5 DEC 1389
CPLO
Asst
CPL
puiy
CPL
1DFG
4 Dec 89
Weather Service Officer
Community Plans and Liaison Officer
MCAS EL TORO AIRFIELD WIND ANALYSIS
(a) Meeting between Col Wagner, CP&LO and 1stLT
Fal tinowski , MCAS E1 Toro WXO .
(1) Wind direction and speed graph MCAS E1 Toro
(2) Frequency surface wind direction vs speed annual
(3) Frequency surface winds direction vs speed southwest
thru northwest WAS E1 Toro by month
(4) Frequency surface winds direction vs speed southeast
thru southwest MCAS E1 Toro by month
1. As requested during reference (a), the following information
is provided.
1. Enclosure (1) shows tail winds in excess of 10 knots occur
only 1.5% of the time (when utilizing runway 07 for takeoffs).
This figure is obtained from the annual frequency of occurrence
compilation, enclosure (2), which utilizes all observations.
3. Enclosures (3) and (4), were derived from the Summary of
Meteorological Observations Surface, for MCAS EL Toro for the
period -of 1945 thru 1988, and were used to calculate the figures
for- frequency of occurrence for both 24 hours a day and during
the 0700-2200L period of operations.
4. When utilizing runway 07 for takeoffs, between the hours of
0700L to 2200L, a more accurate figure would be 12.7% annual
occurrence rate, with the highest occurrence being 25% during
April, see enclosure (3).
5. The same holds true when addressing useage of runway 34 for
landings. Enclosure (1) states tail winds in excess of 10 knots
occur only .9% of the time. A more representative figure would be
7.8% annually, during the period of 0700-2200L, with a peak of
13% occurring during April, see enclosure (4).
Enclosure (1) states that in those instances when winds in
-ess of 10 knots occur an alternate runway will be utilized. In
the example runway 34 would be the primary takeoff runway. The
problem seen here is that if winds in excess of 10 knots are
occuring along runway 07, they will be cross winds on runway 34.
The same effect applies if utilizing runway 34 for landings.
_,syr' a �✓ z �. tt''
--
-•-'------: i
------
- :4040 _ _, - .„ -�•- •4040 t. = _ - 4040 • • --
• 40.40. �ri ^ 4040 - - _
.•�. -�� 4040 ♦•�� ...J.• :.y..♦.. _ I-
� 4040. _ - 4040 •. _ • .� . _ 4040 _ . .
• 4040 . • _ •„ ^ r ,_ '
♦ r;Sr
4040• • br1.' • ♦Y V•
__ •'• • _ .,_1.. -.� ��.-r.• , 4040_ 1 n,n•rA•.!EA�.
1 i i
1 1 t 1 CL•""T•r
01
99.40 ♦•r • •Y •4
0 4,c fi.Q
r_ V Y• L V• V • , + x 40.40
r- •, 4040 c
�L 4040 i J
G ')
- V 1 {• V / • • , 41L - - - -
_ t • I
f r,
9140 _ 4040 , 1 i i � �i �, •, ,_
�i r i �r : . . : . 1 : . v : + 1 r. . •.
• 40 40. r� r� t� 0 it 4 1 4
W ,4
'�;W :..`a ?.? �.c ,� •� �� 0 n 16.5
NIT�h • • • U n �� 4 4.0 4
. � . � 4040 � 0 ,, � 4040..
� � o
7.8
'VAR 0
C L;wiit /! t_t 0 0 0
0 0 0 10 0 0 12.5 p
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4••0••99••• wove we 09"•10•
Winds southwest thru northwest #'
%4090 • •9W9 •" • • 0 • • • go**
Encl (2)
ArP % 1'5 3,�, X
Encl (3)
.0� •ilgh..w• ..
RUNWAY 07
TAKEOFFS
PERCENTAGE OF
OCCURANCE
WIND DIRECTIN VS
SPEED VS TIME
WINDS
DIRECTION SW-NW/WIND
SPEEED
>10 KTS
ALL
OBSERVATIONS
11-16KTS 17-21KTS
>21KTS TOTAL
'11-16KTS
070OL-2200L
17-21KTS
>21KTS
TOTAL
JAN
.8
.1
.* .9+
5.5
1.2
• 1
6.8
FEB
1.2
.1
1.3+
10.6
•9
.2
11.7
MAR
2.1
.3
2.4+
16.9
3.7
.3
20.9
APR
2.9
.1
.* 3.0+
23.6
1.7
.6
25.9
MAY
2.2
.1
.* 2.3+
17.4
1.0
.1
18.5
JUN
1.5
.*
1.5+
12.0
'3
•
12.3
JUL
1.2
1.2
.9.1
9.1
AUG
1.4
1.4
11.9
11.9
SEP
1.3
.*
1.3+
10.9
•2
11.1
OCT
1.3
.*
.* 1.3+
10.2
•1
•1
10.4
NOV
.8
•*
,8+
6.1
.9
.1
7.1
DEC
.9
.*
.9+
6.1
6
6.7
*=<.5%
Encl (3)
.0� •ilgh..w• ..
• C
RUNWAY 34 LANDINGS
PERCENTAGE OF OCCURANCE
WIND DIRECTION VS SPEED VS TIME
WIND DIRECTION SE-SW/WIND SPEED )10KTS
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
ALL
OBSERVATIONS
11-16KTS
17-21KTS
>21KTS
TOTAL
1.1
.2
.2
1.3+
1.4
.2
.*
1.6+
1.6
.1
.*
1.7+
1.5
.1
.*
1.6+
1.2
.5
.*
1.2+
.7
.7
.3
.3
.4
,*
.4+
.5
.*
.5+
.5
.*
.1
5+
1.0
.6
.*
1.0+
.7
.1
.*
8+
.ft ,gyp--,
� pp
. 0700"-2200
11-16KTS
17-21KTS
>21KTS
TOTAL
7.8
1.6
.2
9.6
10.3
1.5
11.8
11.7
1.0
.1
12.8
12.1
.9
.4
13.4
9.3
.5
.1
9.9
5.9
5.9
2.3
2.3
5.3
.3
5.6
4.9
.2
5.1
4.1
.1
.1
4.3
6.4
.6
.2
7.2
5.3
.6
.3
6.2
Encl (4)