Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 5685-1971RESOLUTION NO. 5685 - CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA · .. A RESOLUTIO:'T REQUESTii':G iMPROVEMENTS IN . . FAC'ILITLES AND F1R©CEDUiIF_,S AT THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TO MEET AI'i URGENT NEED FOR SAFETY Ai'fD BiOiSE'ABAT£1vIENT, AND SOLICITING · .THE SUPPORT OF THE AL~LP~E INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT AGE~;C!ESf BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Frar. cisco '- that WHEREAS, in the interest of safety and noise'abatement, 'the Council has continued its active consideration and study of the need for means to minimize overflights of the City,of South San Francisco by turbofan and. turbojet airplanes departing from the San Francisco International Airport; · · and WHEREAS, the Council on March 15, I971, unanimously adopted Resolution No. 5518, entitled ",~. Resolution Requesting Adoption cf Operating Procedures and · Regulatory Acts Related to Noise Abatement at San Francisco International Airport," · copy of x%'hich resolution is attached hereto and incorporated herein; and %¥HEREAS, said Resolution ?.To. 5518 was based on a Report entitled "Aircraft Noise Abatement at the San Francisco International Airport" (i~ereinafter termed "the Report"), which %vas'pub!ished on .%/[arch I0, 1~71, bi iv[aurice A. Garbell, Inc., · Aeronautical Consultants (hereinafter termed "the Aeronautical Consultants"), as the result of an in-depthtechnickl research study, sponsored by the City of South San Francisco, on the feasibility and safety of expanded takeoff operations on Run~vays I R and 'i ~ .. 1 L at the San Francisco International Airport; and · WHEREAS, the San Francisco Sound Abatement Center approved and adopted . the substance of the recommendations contained in th~ aforementioned Report in a · recommendation dated May 7, I971, based on an endorsement of its Technical Sub-c'o~nrnittee d~ted April 15, 1971, and forwarded its recommendations to the . San Fraficisco Airport Flight Technical Committee; and :- . WHEREAS, the Flight Tecknical,,Committee furthei' endorsed the recom- mendation of the Sound Abatement Center on May 2'1, 1971, and requested eva!ua- lion and consideration 'thereof by the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter ter~ned "FAA"); and . · WHEREAS, the Aeronautical Consultants have reviewed the evidence given by Witnesses of fact and expert witnesses at preliminary hearings held by the N~tional Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) at the San Francisco International Airport (SFLA) on August 17-20, 1971, relative to the circumstances of an incident which occurred during the takeoff on SFIA Runway 1R of Pan American WorldAirxvays Flight 845, a Boeing-747 aircraft, on July 30, 1971 {hereinafter ' · ..... termed "PAA 845/30"); and i . , WHEREAS, the Council takes note that some of the principal problems . mentioned by witnesses at the said preliminary NTSB hearing were foreseen by · ! the AeronaUtical Consultants and were analyzed by them in their Report da~ed March 10, 1971, on pages 5, 16, 18, 19, 24, 25, and 27 thereof, in advance of the actual incident which occurred on JuLy 30, 1971; and WHEREAS, tl~e takeoff of PAA 845/30 reportedly occurred in wind conditions distinctly'differefit from those ~vind conditions for which the Report and the airline endorsements of the Said Rep.orr recommended takeoff on Runways 1; . and WHEREAS, a ~eview' of the evidence given at the said preliminary NTSB -. Hearing~ together with other evidence, suggests, in the opinion of the Aeronautical Consultants, that the abnormally variable surface v~ind conditions which reportedly prevailed during the takeoff of PAA 845/30 occurred during an exceptional erc~sion of the cool Westerly surface breeze layer by an unusually warm upper wind flow with an abnormal southerly velocity component; and WHEREAS, the Aeronauti.cal Consultants have expressed an opinion that the · · factual information and forecast~ supplied to the flight planner, the pilot, and'the , air traffic controller, relative to fluctuations in wind direction and speed such as occurred on. July 30, 1971, may have been less than representative or timely, poss'ibty because of limitations inherent in the instrumentation or the forecasting methods currently employed; and WHEREAS, the Aeronautical'Consultants have expressed their opinion that in Wind and temr)e:'ature conditions similar to those that appear to ha:.'e prevailed on July 30, 1971, the runway selection at the SFIA of Runway 1R or Runway 28 L o~: Runway 28R by the pilot and the dispatcher of a long-range air-carrier-type · ,m ~ TI Ill il [' ' turbojet or turbofan aircraft such as a Boeing 747, DC-8-62, DC-8-63, Boeing · . 707-320B/C, and like. aircraft, at or near its maximum structural design gross weight is substantially governed by technical considerations defined in part as follows: Runway 1 R. , 1 (a) Favorable. Runway 1 R has a practically unlimited "clearway" available. 1 (b) Unfavorable. · . - 1 (b)(i) On Runway iR only 8,400 feet of runway iengt~ is available for airp!.anes of the Boeing-747, Boeing-727, McDonnell-DOuglas DC-10, Lockheed L-1011, BAC VC-10, andpossiblyotheraimraft, because such airci'aft are not permitted currently to apply takeoff th~:ust until they are at least 1,100 feet north - . of the southern end of the paved surface of Runway IR, in o~der to ~rovide sp.ace . for the initial dissipation of the propulsive jets produced by the high-thrust engines ~ . and/or highly.placed'engine-tailpipes of these aircraft before their blast can reach · Baysh0re Freeway, just south .of the runway, thereby to avert any possible jet-blast effect on the course stability of automotive vehicles ori the Freeway; l(b)(ii) 0nly 9,500 feet of runway length is available for airplanes not restricted in the manner described in item 1 (b)(i); l(b)(iii) Any substantial crosswind or "effective tailwind" component could · · e~:tend the length of the takeoff ground-run or may require a relatively great wing-flap deflection. 2. Runways ~-8L or 28R. 2(a) Favorabi(,. 2(a)(i) Runway length is approximately 10,600 feet on 'Runway 28 L and 9,500 feet on Runway 28 R (future 'length of Runway 28 R should be approximately 11,700 feet); Z (a)(ii.) Headwind component (in wind conditions similar to those prevailing · during the PA-& 845/30 takeoff) either shortens the takeoff ground run or permits · the use of a relatively small wing-flap deflection; _z . .. . 2(b)(i)' The presence of man-made Obstructions to air navigation a short · . distance (within a nautical mile) beyond the end'of Runway 28 lq and Runway 28 L; · · 2(b)(ii) The rising natural terrain, along and near the extended centerlines · of R..unway 28 L and Runway 28 R, that for. ms a trough-'shaped saddle- the San Bruno . Gap-and confines climbing aircraft to a nearly straight "no-alternative" climb path; · '2(b)(iii) The "negative" wind-velocity gradient, that is, a decreasing headxvind . component %vith increasing altitude; . 'Z(b)(iv) Frequently prevailing sharp temperature inversions, with tempera- tures of 20OC and more above standard-atmosphere temperatures at altitudes as low as 1,000 feet; · . · 'Z(b)(v) 'In summary, terrain, wind, and temperature parameters which render, the "second-segment climb" performance and the transition fr.om the climb · with takeoff fi. eps (for example, at VZ plus 10 knots) to the climb at the "clean" minimum-drag configuration and airspeed possibly extremely critical for airplanes with stringent exhaust- gas -temperature limitations; and . _ '~fHEREAS, in summation of the aforestated considerations, the Aeronautical Consultants have informed the Counc{l that, in a broad and frequently recurring range of wind and temperature conditions, takeoff from Runway 28L 'or Runway 28R . · would appear !ess desirable from tile point of view of safety and noise abatcm'cnt than a "clearway" takeoff over water from Runway I R, except that. the currently . restricted length of Runway 1R renders the lift off distance of a heavily loaded · .. long-range aircraft· so critical, that the decision of the pilot and the flight-planner, · as governed by the ground-run consideration herefnbefore defined, must of necessity gravitate to,yard the u £or 'takeoff; and se of the otherwise less desirable Runway Z8L or Runway 28R ,. WHEREAS, pilots and flight-planners appear to have questioned the reliability of factual, reports and' ~hort- range {15 to 60-minute} predictions of the wind direction · and speed in weather conditions such as those prevailing on July 30, 1971; and ,.. · , . . .- W[tEREAS, the Aeron~.utical Consultants cOnclude tl~at an effective lengthen- .. lng of Runway 1 R, which has beeri long advocated by the-m, is vitally essential for the safety and the well-bei~.g of the City of South San Fra'ncisco, over which heavily · loaded aircraft departing from Runways :>-8 L and g8R frequently pass at Iow altitude and at low airspeeds and, hence, with intrusions of tong noise-level peak. · 'durations', and in circumstances ~in which a possible high-temperature difficulty with one or more engines c'oul~l inflict disastrous consequences; and ' · · . WHEREAS, the Aeronautical Consultants further state that an effective lengthening of Runway 1R is equally desirable, and for the aforestated reasons, from the point 'of view of air-carrier pilots and air-carrier operators, and. o ultimately from the point of view of the SFIA; and · WHEREAS, the Council notes,· in passing,- that the use of Runway 28L and Run%var 25R in the aforcdescribed weather co::dlt;..o,'~s r~,{:;cs p,'oblcm's of s;;f,~ty and noise which are of vital concern to the City of South San Francisco and which, 'according to the Understanding of the Council, the San Francisco Airports ' :"-~'::j~';'~;f(.'i'!i.C.6~issi'on has solemnly undertaken to honor as its duty of care toward citizens . .- · '- of Mouth San Francisco; and · . · · , -w~REAS, the Aeronautical Consultants further note that such safety and . noise considerations relative to takeoffs on Runway 28 L and Runway Z8R, when exacerbated .by the apparently inadequate effective length of Runway !R, could diminish the ability, of the SFIA to serve as a terminal for high-gross-weight- long-range airplane departu'res and could contribute to a diversion of such · departures to other facilities in or outside of the San Francisco Bay Area where "clearway" departure runways suitable for use by'the aforementioned types of - . long-range air'raft are currently available, ~nd such possible diversion of · . valuable air traffic cOuld be economically injurious not only to the SFLA., but to .many other. enterprises and residents of the Northern and Central Peninsula; and' .WHEREAS, the Aeronautical Consultants have heretofore suggested in a · .number of proposals published'since 1957, that an aerodynamically, efficient · jet-deflector system, preferably of the airfoil-cascade type (which could and should be retractable), at the southern end of Runway 1R could free Bayshore · 'Freeway from jet blast and concurrently achieve a measure of noise abatement . for the City of Millbrae and minimize local low-level air pollution by directing the exhaust gases vertically upward; and , · . · .. WHEREAS, the Aeronautical· Consultants have proposed, in a memorandum recently submitted by them to the National Transportation Safety Board, that as an interim measure the most directly blast-affected portion of Bayshore Freeway · could be protected from the jet' blast of aircraft that begin their takeoff roll on · 0 Runway 1R tO be self-ventilating and esthetically attractive; -. by a Iow-level "blast-shed" structure, which could be designed so as and ', .. .. 'WHERE~S~ the current monetary value of the southernmost 1~100 feet of Runway 1 R, in the opinion of the said Aeronautical Consultants, is estimated at approximately $3 million, which.runway Segment could be utilized tO accommodkte · all types of contemplated aircraft at the substantially lower cost of a deflector or a blast shed as described above; and - WHEREAS, the said Ae'ronautical Consultants estimate that the damage suffered by the aircraft of PAA Flight 845/30 is at least substantially equal to the cost of a 1,000-foot northward runway extension; NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of South San Francisco, California, does hereby respectfully request and propose: ... · ii: That the Federal Aviation Administration provide improved wind-velocity reporting equipment that can "remember" fluctuation~ of the wind direction and · · speed in a critical wind-velocity range and can alert the air traffic controller .. (and, through him, the pilot of an aircraft) to any critical directional rotation and gust p. eak of the surface ~vind that may have occurred during a specified past · · time interval. -' · 2. That the National Weather Service take the necessary steps to provide accurate short-range (15- to 60-minute) fOrecasts of the surface wind velo.city based on meso-scale meteorological data currently available, especially during the critical period of surface-breeze erosion by an upper high-temperature wind. ~ 3. That, with the suggested implementation of the above-described : · improvements, which appear to be necessary, more especially in the unusual ' meteorological circumstances that appear to have prevailed in Northern and Central California during the last week of July and the first week of August 1971, the Federal Aviation Administration approve and implement the preferential- · r~anway utilization procedure pre.viously set forth by the San Francisco Sound · Abatement Center on l~ay 7, I971, and the San Francisco Airport Flight Technical . · ~Committee on May 2.1, 1971, with the additional safet.~'restrictions spelled out in the~Report dated March 10, i971, of the Aeronautical Consultants, and that the San Francisco Airports Com. mission and the airlines operating at the San Francisco t International Airport take vigorous and prompt steps to urge suc~.approvai and imPlementation as soon as adequate 'wind-velocity-reporting facilities are available. 4. That the intensity and extent of the jet-blast problem, if any, on Bayshore Freeway south ofRu~wa.y !R be ascertained by objective instrument measure'- . . -ments in the presenc~ of various wind condition~ and that blast criteria consis- · -. . tent with the 'course stability of automotive vehicles be. established, · . 5. That an aerodynamically effective jet-deflector structure or a blast shed .. (or bOth) be designed, tested, perfected, and installed south of Runway llR as expedit'ioUsly as possible to protect vehicular traffic on.Bayshore Freeway in a · manner consistent with the above-defined blast criteria~ to minimize noise · impingement on the City of Miilbrae, and to n]inimize local air pollution, and .thereby render possible the use of the entire existing physical length (9,500 f~et) of Runway I R and, ultimately, relieve the City of South San Francisco and adjacent communities in the San Bruno Gap from unnecessary overflights. . · That a northward e,X-tension of at l~ast 1,000 feet be a~ded to Runway 1 R as a priority item, second only to t~e completion of the eastward extension of' Runway 28 R and the surface stabilization of Runways 28 currently under way. ?.' That the San Francisco Airports Commission authorize the necessary expenditure of funds for the design and construction of the aforedescribed deflector, blast shed, s.nd runway extension. . · - . - 8. That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco enable the San Francisco Airports Commission to obtain the needed funds. ' 9. ThAt the Bay Area agencies concerned with or ihvolved in. the establish- ment of criteria for additional donstruction in areas currently covered by water, view the' need for runway extension herein proposed favorably and signify approval thereof in the interest of the safety, health, and welfare of the people of South San Francisco, as well as the safety a~d efficiency of operations at the San Francisco International Airport. 10. That the Federal Aviation Administration an~ the U. S. Department of Transportation assist the San Francisco Airports Commission with technical advice and guidance, and that they ~upport the Commission with Federal Airport Aid funds to the full extent permitted by law. .. · 11. That the National Transportation Safety Board assist the San Francisco Airports Commission with appropriate technical advice and guidance. 12.~. That the air carriers operating at the San ]Francisco International .. Airport, as well as the airline pi[0ts organizations ~vhose m~mbers operate air- ,, · carrier aircraft thereat, exert every effort at their highest executive level to * (IR or IL) 10. ~upport the A~anagement of the San Francisco international Airport and the -San Francisco Airports Comn~issio~ in their efforts to obtain the necessary funding, in the planning, design, and construction of the needed runway .improve- . merits, and in securing the necessary aids and approvals from U.S.GoVernment agencies and Bay Areas agencies; in parlficular., that' the said airlines provide the .. · . Management of' the San Francisco International Airport with such aircraft per- formance data as are required to opt.imize the design of the improvements recommended herein and in the Report of the Aeronautical Consultants, dated March 10, 1971, 'and the modus operandi in certain critical wind and temperature conditions. · . 13. That the said air carriers and airline .pilots org.anizati0ns apprize the · senior staff personnel of the San Francisco Airport Con~rol Tower, from time to time as required, of the nature and scope of the aircraft performance criteria that determine the seiection of a departure runway at the San Francisco lalternationa[ .Airport under given conditions of surface wind, vertical wind-velocity gradients~ · -. · and vertical temperature distribution at extremely high takeoff gross weights. · · Copies of this Resolution are being forwarded simultaneously to: 1. The Sound Abatement Center, San Francisco (3 copies). The Director of Airports, San Francisco Airports Commission (1 copy}. 3. The San Francisco Airports Commission (7 copies). '4. The General Manager, San Francisco International Airport (3 copies) · 5. The MaYor, City of San Francisco (1 co~y). 6. The President, Board of Supervisors, City and C.0untyof San Francisco (10 copies). . The U. S. Secretary of Transportation, Washington, D. C. (1 copy). e I0. 11. 15. The [~. S. Secretary of Commerce, Washington, D. C. (1 copy). The Local Flight Managers' 'of all airlines operating at the San Francisco International Airport (Z copies each~ totaling 46 copies). The Federal Aviation Administration, as follOws: The Regional Air Traffic Liaison Representative, '-San Francisco (3 copies). The Director, Western Region, Los Angeles (3 copies). The Administrator,. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D. C. ($ copies). The National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, .ID. C. (5 copies). The National Oceanic and Atmospheri'c Administration, Washington, ' .- D.' C. (2 copies). .The California Department of Aeronautics, Sacramento, Calif. (Z copies).. · . The Associated Bay Area Governments, C'laremont Hotel, Berke.[ey, Calif. (2. copies). .. The Bay Conservation and Developn~ent Commission, .- San Francisco, Calif. (2 copies). 16. '17. Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, San Francisco, Calif. (1 copy). Other airpor~authorities, research organizations, and' others who have favored the project with information and comments {1 copy each)' · . · I hereby certify that .the introduced and adopted by the San Francisco at a regular of .October , 19 foregoing Resolution was regularly City Council of the City 'of South meeting held on the 4th day 71 , by the following vote' AYES, COUNCILMEN Patrick ·E. Ahern, Frank J. Bertucell~, William A. Borba and Warren Steinkamp NOES, " None ABSENT, " ~. Flank Mammini Y 12 .: