INDEPENDENT REVIEW NARRABRI AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADE Facilities... · INDEPENDENT REVIEW NARRABRI AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADE ... Dash 8-100 (or similar ... 3.5.1 BoM AWS3.5.1

INDEPENDENT REVIEW

NARRABRI AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADE

Prepared for Narrabri Shire Council

MAY 2013MAY 2013MAY 2013MAY 2013

YNBR01-01 NARRABRI AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW V1.0 RELEASE 130527

i i

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Document Title: Narrabri Airport Infrastructure Upgrade – Independent Review

Reference: YNBR01-01

Release Date: 27 May 2013

Prepared by: Keith Tonkin

Reviewed by: H. Stafford

Released by: K. Tonkin

Revision History: Release

Revision History

Version Description Transmitted Reviewed by Date

0.10.10.10.1 First Draft 24 May 2013 H. Carroll

1.01.01.01.0 Final for release 27 May 2013

COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE

This document and the information contained herein should be treated as commercial-in-confidence. No part

of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means (graphic, electronic or mechanical,

including photocopying, recording, taping or information retrieval system) or otherwise disclosed to any other

party whatsoever, without the prior written consent of Aviation Projects Pty Ltd.

This report has been prepared for the benefit solely of the Client, and is not to be relied upon by any other

person or entity without the prior written consent of Aviation Projects Pty Ltd.

© Aviation Projects Pty Ltd, 2013. All rights reser ved


ii ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Document Control ____________________________________________________________________________ i

Copyright and Disclaimer Notice ________________________________________________________________ i

Table of Contents ____________________________________________________________________________ ii

List of Figures ______________________________________________________________________________ iii

List of Tables _______________________________________________________________________________ iii

1. INTRODUCTION _________________________________________________________________________ 1

1.1. Situation _____________________________________________________________________________ 1

1.2. Purpose of task _______________________________________________________________________ 1

1.3. Scope of work ________________________________________________________________________ 1

1.4. Exclusions ___________________________________________________________________________ 2

1.5. Methodology _________________________________________________________________________ 2

1.6. Stakeholders _________________________________________________________________________ 2

1.7. References ___________________________________________________________________________ 2

1.8. Glossary _____________________________________________________________________________ 4

2. AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 2011 ____________________________________________________________ 5

2.1. Stage 1 development __________________________________________________________________ 5

3. APRON EXTENSION DESIGN – GHD ________________________________________________________14

4. APRON EXTENSION DESIGN – SECTION 355 COMMITTEE _____________________________________20

5. TAXIWAY/RUNWAY DESIGN - HYDER ______________________________________________________22

6. OTHER RELATED DEVELOPMENTS ________________________________________________________26

6.1. Avgas fuel facility ____________________________________________________________________26

6.2. Jet A1 fuel facility ____________________________________________________________________26

6.3. Rural Fire Service operations centre and firebombing operations ____________________________27

6.4. General aviation and charter parking locations ___________________________________________27

7. RECOMMENDATIONS ___________________________________________________________________28

ANNEXURE 1 – CONCEPT LAYOUT SKETCHES ____________________________________________________ 1


iii iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Proposed Stage 1 Development _________________________________________________________ 6

Figure 2 GHD Concept apron layout_____________________________________________________________15

Figure 3 Apron extension pavement plan ________________________________________________________16

Figure 4 Apron line marking ___________________________________________________________________17

Figure 5 Section 355 Committee apron extension general arrangement _______________________________20

Figure 6 General layout ______________________________________________________________________26

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Master Plan issues ____________________________________________________________________ 7

Table 2 Apron extension issues ________________________________________________________________18

Table 3 Section 355 Committee apron extension design issues ______________________________________21

Table 4 Hyder runway/taxiway design issues _____________________________________________________23


1 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Situation

Narrabri Shire Council (NSC) developed and adopted the Narrabri Airport Master Plan in 2011 and has

commenced implementing the first stage of infrastructure upgrades at the airport. NSC is on the cusp of growth

generated by the resource industry and ancillary services and the airport is an important element of transport

infrastructure in the associated coordination of people movement.

The airport supports regular passenger transport (RPT) air services operated by Aeropelican to Sydney (and in

the past - Brisbane and Newcastle), charter and other commercial and private aircraft operations.

Work undertaken in the process of implementing the Master Plan includes detailed design and specification of

an extension to the aircraft parking apron and associated civil infrastructure, and concept geometric and

pavement design for the runway extension and strengthening overlay.

The main runway 18/36 is published as code 3 instrument non-precision, with a straight-in approach provided

to runway 36.

Aeropelican operates a regulated air service between Narrabri and Sydney using Jetstream 32 (19-seat) and

Jetstream 41 (29 seat) aircraft.

1.2. Purpose of task

The purpose of this task is to review existing plans and designs to ensure NSC is proceeding in a manner which

meets the anticipated requirements for Narrabri Airport, will meet compliance requirements for the types of

aircraft mix likely to be operating at the airport, and is a sound investment.

1.3. Scope of work

The scope of work for this engagement involved:

• Visit Narrabri and meet with relevant stakeholders to gain an overall understanding of current and

anticipated needs for the airport upgrade;

• Review the Narrabri Airport Master Plan 2011;

• Review current preliminary and detailed designs for proposed upgrades to the apron and runway

18/36 (the apron extension tender has been advertised and tenders closed on 16 April; tenders have

been placed on hold pending this review);

• Review proposed changes to the above apron design provided by members of Council’s Section 355

Committee;

• Review other related developments / options e.g. current location of Avgas and JetA1 fuel, Rural Fire

Station, General Aviation and Charter parking locations etc; and


2 2

• Provide Council with a written report that provides an opinion regarding the suitability of current plans

and designs, identifies issues or risks to Council and makes recommendations regarding proposed

solutions.

1.4. Exclusions

The following exclusions apply to the work undertaken in the performance of this engagement:

• No consideration has been given to geotechnical or pavement design aspects of the proposed works;

and

• No consideration has been given to the effect of obstacles on proposed concepts unless specifically

noted (obstacle survey results were not provided for review).

1.5. Methodology

In undertaking this task, the following activities were conducted:

• an initial site visit and meeting with relevant stakeholders was conducted on 10 and 11 May 2013;

• a desktop review of existing material and documentation was conducted;

• analysis of aircraft performance data was requested from Aeropelican and Qantaslink;

• preliminary concept designs were sketched; and

• this report was prepared.

1.6. Stakeholders

During the course of this engagement, discussions were held with the following stakeholders:

• The Mayor, Councillor Flower and the General Manager and other officers of Narrabri Shire Council;

• aircraft operators including local general aviation operators, charter (Corporate Air) and regular public

transport operators (Aeropelican and Qantaslink); and

• Civil Aviation Safety Authority (allocated Aerodrome Inspector).

Other stakeholders considered in the course of the engagement included:

• Office of Transport Security;

• the local community; and

• the general public.

1.7. References

References used or consulted in the preparation of this report include:


3 3

• Airservices Australia, Aeronautical Information Package; including En Route Supplement Australia

(ERSA, DAP) effective 7 March 2013;

• Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 737 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning, October 2005;

• Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 1998 Manual of Standards Part 139 –

Aerodromes version 1.10: dated April 2012;

• GHD – apron extension design drawings as supplied by Narrabri Shire Council;

• Hyder – Narrabri Airport Upgrade – Design Options for Taxiway F, letter A001-AA005529-AAL-01

dated 2 April 2013;

• Hyder – Narrabri Airport Airfield Upgrade – Design Basis Report A0001-AA005529-AAR-01 dated 1 March 2013

• Hyder – runway design drawings as supplied by Narrabri Shire Council;

• International Civil Aviation Organization, Doc 8168 Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft

Operations, Fifth Edition, July 2009;

• International Civil Aviation Organization, International Standards and Recommended Practices

(SARPS) Annex 14 Aerodromes, Volume 1 Aerodrome Design and Operations;

• Narrabri Shire Council – apron extension design; and

• Rehbein Airport Consulting, Narrabri Airport Master Plan 2011.


4 4

1.8. Glossary

AHD Australian Height Datum

ASDA accelerate-stop distance available

CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority

CASR Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 1998

ERSA En Route Supplement Australia

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

LDA landing distance available

MOS Manual of Standards

MTOW maximum take-off weight

NSC Narrabri Shire Council

OLS obstacle limitation surfaces

RESA runway end safety area

RPT regular public transport

TODA take-off distance available

TORA take-off run available


5 5

2. AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 2011

Narrabri Shire Council commissioned Rehbein Airport Consulting to prepare a Master Plan for Narrabri Airport.

The document reviewed referenced as Narrabri Shire Airport Master Plan Ref: B09046AR001Rev1.doc dated

21 June 2011.

Aeronautical development was proposed in three stages:

• Stage 1 – Short term (2011-2021);

• Stage 2 – Medium term (2021-2041); and

• Stage 3 – Long term (after 2041).

2.1. Stage 1 development

Proposed Development Anticipated Trigger

Extend Runway 18/36 by 350m to the southExtend Runway 18/36 by 350m to the southExtend Runway 18/36 by 350m to the southExtend Runway 18/36 by 350m to the south Immediate

Interim measures to increase existing capacity of terminal buildingInterim measures to increase existing capacity of terminal buildingInterim measures to increase existing capacity of terminal buildingInterim measures to increase existing capacity of terminal building Immediate

New passenger terminal building (area approx. 750mNew passenger terminal building (area approx. 750mNew passenger terminal building (area approx. 750mNew passenger terminal building (area approx. 750m2 2 2 2 )))) Immediate

Pavement strengthening for Runway 18/36, existing Pavement strengthening for Runway 18/36, existing Pavement strengthening for Runway 18/36, existing Pavement strengthening for Runway 18/36, existing taxiway and taxiway and taxiway and taxiway and

terminal apron to Q400 capabilityterminal apron to Q400 capabilityterminal apron to Q400 capabilityterminal apron to Q400 capability

Dash 8-100 (or similar) operation

Terminal apron expansion of 4,700mTerminal apron expansion of 4,700mTerminal apron expansion of 4,700mTerminal apron expansion of 4,700m2222 Dash 8-100 (or similar) operation

Grass taxiway network including parallel taxiways for both runways with Grass taxiway network including parallel taxiways for both runways with Grass taxiway network including parallel taxiways for both runways with Grass taxiway network including parallel taxiways for both runways with

sections of allsections of allsections of allsections of all weather surfaceweather surfaceweather surfaceweather surface

Immediate

The works proposed in Stage 1 are shown in Figure 1.

The works under consideration in this engagement are elements of those contemplated by Stage 1 of the

Master Plan.

Significant issues in the Master Plan are documented in Table 1.


6 6

Figure 1 Proposed Stage 1 Development


7 7

Table 1 Master Plan issues

Item/Reference Discussion/Issue Proposed Resolution

3.1.1 R3.1.1 R3.1.1 R3.1.1 Runway stripunway stripunway stripunway strip Runway strip for runway 18/36 is noted in the Master Plan as 150 m, but is marked

and reported in ERSA as 90 m graded and 90 m overall. It should be 90 m graded and

150 m overall (unless not practicable and used by aircraft up to and including code

3C). MOS 139 6.2.18.2 refers.

Runway 09/27 is noted in the Master Plan as code 3C non-instrument, but is

published in ERSA as code 2 with a 90 m runway strip width.

Runway 18/36 runway strip width should be 90 m

graded and 150 m overall. If maintained at 90 m graded

and overall, a safety case should be prepared and

submitted to CASA for an exemption from the

requirement.

3.2.4 L3.2.4 L3.2.4 L3.2.4 Lightingightingightingighting Runway edge lighting is 90 m spacing but should be 60 m spacing, plus it has non-

standard spacing between edge lights near the touchdown markers. No requirement to

upgrade to current standards until the airport is upgraded. MOS 139 9.1.1.1 refers.

If the apron is extended or the runway upgraded to

accommodate more or larger aircraft, the aerodrome

lighting system should be upgraded. If the runway works

are planned to occur subsequent to the apron extension

and it would be reasonable to upgrade the runway

lighting system during that activity, then a safety case

should be prepared and submitted to CASA.

3.5.1 BoM AWS3.5.1 BoM AWS3.5.1 BoM AWS3.5.1 BoM AWS The automatic weather station may be affected by future development within 300 m

subject to BoM evaluation.

Any proposed development within 300 m of the AWS

(such as the proposed RFS facility) should be referred to

BoM for evaluation.


8 8


3.6.1 Electricity3.6.1 Electricity3.6.1 Electricity3.6.1 Electricity Electricity supply requirements were not evaluated Electricity supply requirements should be evaluated and

incorporated in the overall upgrade plan.

3.6.4 Comm3.6.4 Comm3.6.4 Comm3.6.4 Communicationsunicationsunicationsunications Communications infrastructure was not evaluated. Communications infrastructure requirements should be

evaluated and incorporated in the overall upgrade plan.

4.1.2 Aircraft movements4.1.2 Aircraft movements4.1.2 Aircraft movements4.1.2 Aircraft movements The aircraft movement reference baseline is based on general aviation movements for

the period April to December 2010; this is not a good basis for accurate forecasting.

RPT aircraft movements were estimated.

The RPT service to Brisbane has since ceased.

The aircraft movements baseline should be updated.

4.2.1 Passenger traffic4.2.1 Passenger traffic4.2.1 Passenger traffic4.2.1 Passenger traffic The passenger forecast provides low, medium and high growth scenarios. The high

growth scenario does not reflect the likely impact of a significant increase in FIFO

operations in the short term, which can generate compound annual growth rates of

greater than 50%.

The passenger demand forecast should be updated.

4.2.2 Aircraft movements4.2.2 Aircraft movements4.2.2 Aircraft movements4.2.2 Aircraft movements Aircraft movements are closely related to passenger movements. The aircraft movements forecast should be updated.

5.1.2 Table 3 5.1.2 Table 3 5.1.2 Table 3 5.1.2 Table 3 Key RPT Key RPT Key RPT Key RPT

Planning parametersPlanning parametersPlanning parametersPlanning parameters

Dash 8-400 aircraft were not expected to be introduced until after 2021/22. The first

Dash 8-400 operation actually occurred Friday 17 May 2013.

For information only.


9 9


5.2.1 Runway length5.2.1 Runway length5.2.1 Runway length5.2.1 Runway length Discussion re Aeropelican requirements for runway length, introduction of larger

aircraft and payload restrictions in high temperatures is not supported with evidence.

Requirement for runway extension of 350 m is not supported with evidence or valid

analysis. Recommendation re detailed assessment by Aeropelican has presumably not

been done.

Current runway 18 TORA = 1524, TODA = 1584.

350 m extension would provide TORA = 1874, TODA = 1934

Current runway 36 TORA = 1524, TODA = 1622.

350 m extension would provide TORA = 1874, TODA = 1972

Runway length requirements noted in Table 5 generally exceed minimum length

requirements and are not supported with evidence.

It is not reasonable to extend a runway for a Dash 8-400 that isn’t planned to operate

for another 10 years (according to the forecast) then decide to extend the runway by

74 m more than the required runway length = 1800 m (based on TORA) or 134 m

(based on TODA).

B737-800 aircraft operate off runway lengths between 1800-1900 m (e.g. Ballina,

Sunshine Coast) on sectors significantly longer than 250 nm.

Qantaslink advised that a Dash 8-400 could operate with a full passenger during

winter conditions off the current length. It also advised that provision of a 60 m

stopway at the departure end of runway 36 or a 60 m extension at threshold 36 would

enable take-off with a full passenger load off at temperatures up to 30 degrees.

Validate requirement for runway extension through

analysis of Jetstream 32/41 and Dash 8-400

performance under expected environmental conditions.


10 10


5.2.1 Runway length 5.2.1 Runway length 5.2.1 Runway length 5.2.1 Runway length ––––

B737B737B737B737----800800800800

Agree with option to preserve land on southern extension footprint. But disagree with

need for 250 m extension to support unrestricted B737-800 ops to Brisbane and

Sydney.

B737-800 aircraft operate off runway lengths between 1800-1900 m (e.g. Ballina,

Sunshine Coast) on sectors significantly longer than 250 nm.

Extension to the north would not be viable without substantial earthworks (cut and fill)

to meet the maximum longitudinal gradient requirements. Currently 1.5% for first

300 m of runway 18, but max 0.8% for first and last quarters of runway for code 4

aircraft. MOS 139 6.2.6 refers.

Validate future runway length requirements through

further analysis, and preserve appropriate extension

footprint.

5.2.1 Runway width5.2.1 Runway width5.2.1 Runway width5.2.1 Runway width Widening runway to 45 m for B737 (and other code 4 aircraft) ops would be

conditional upon meeting other geometric design requirements.

Consider validity of B737 (code 4) as future design

aircraft—Decision required as to ultimate design code

number (code 3 or 4).

5.2.1 Runway strip width5.2.1 Runway strip width5.2.1 Runway strip width5.2.1 Runway strip width Refer to discussion at 3.1.1.

Re 300 m runway strip width for B737, it is not an appropriate to nominate the

granting of an exemption from a design standard (150 m in lieu of 300 m wide runway

strip width) as the basis for future compliance requirements.

A 300 m wide runway strip extends beyond the airport site and encompasses a private

dwelling on the eastern side at the southern end of the site.

If B737 (code 4 aircraft) is endorsed as the future

design aircraft, a 300 m wide runway strip width and

associated obstacle limitation surfaces should be

protected from encroachment by development in the

intervening years—Decision required as to ultimate

design code number (code 3 or 4).


11 11


5.2.1 Runway 5.2.1 Runway 5.2.1 Runway 5.2.1 Runway lightinglightinglightinglighting Runway lighting does not conform to current standards and should be replaced in

conjunction with appropriate works. Refer to 3.2.4.

Agree with provision of PAPI at each end.

Incorporate PAPI in lighting upgrade.

5.3.2 Immediate terminal 5.3.2 Immediate terminal 5.3.2 Immediate terminal 5.3.2 Immediate terminal

requiremerequiremerequiremerequirementsntsntsnts

Agree that the current RPT terminal is inadequate and should have interim

redevelopment.

If RPT and FIFO operations conflict and render the RPT passenger terminal beyond

capacity, consider extending and making the Aero Club building available for

charter/FIFO passengers.

Provide interim increase in capacity through current

passenger terminal for RPT passengers. Consider

redevelopment of Aero Club for charter/FIFO passengers

as applicable to RPT schedule.

5.3.3 Future terminal 5.3.3 Future terminal 5.3.3 Future terminal 5.3.3 Future terminal

requirementsrequirementsrequirementsrequirements

Agree with proposal to plan for construction of new passenger terminal.

Agree with estimated floor area of 1200 – 1400 m2 for short to medium term.

Agree with proposition that security screening may be required in the future, and

should be scoped in design of new passenger terminal.

Don’t necessarily agree with proposed location of new passenger terminal due to

limited space available for building depth and apron depth from runway and potential

OLS infringements.

Plan for construction of new passenger terminal.

Consider alternate location due to building envelope and

apron depth requirements.

Refer to Annexure 1Annexure 1Annexure 1Annexure 1 for a concept layout of the apron

extension and associated infrastructure and facilities.


12 12


5.4.2 Apron expansion5.4.2 Apron expansion5.4.2 Apron expansion5.4.2 Apron expansion Agree with requirement for larger apron, but not with proposed location and line

marking plan. The design aircraft should be Dash 8-400. Refer to separate discussion.

The parking apron extension as shown in layout drawings will not permit B737 aircraft

to park clear of the OLS (transitional surface) associated with a 300 m wide runway

strip due to tail height.

Redesign apron extension in consideration of other

airport users and larger design aircraft (Dash 8-400).

Consider requirement to provide for future B737 parking

re tail height and OLS.

5.5.2 Addi5.5.2 Addi5.5.2 Addi5.5.2 Additional Taxiwaystional Taxiwaystional Taxiwaystional Taxiways The additional taxiways nominated will not necessarily optimise operational capability

within a limited budget.

Reconsider taxiway system in conjunction with apron

extension and plan and new terminal location.

5.6.2 RFS Centre5.6.2 RFS Centre5.6.2 RFS Centre5.6.2 RFS Centre A site for the RFS centre is nominated between the Aero Club and existing hangar.

There is likely a better location for this facility, subject to apron extension design.

Consider alternate location for RFS facility.

5.6.3 Fuel facilities5.6.3 Fuel facilities5.6.3 Fuel facilities5.6.3 Fuel facilities The proposed new location for the Jet A1 fuel storage facility may not be optimal with

respect to alternate development scheme.

The avgas refuelling facility is in the wrong place and Council advised that it is to be

removed.

Consider alternate location for Jet A1 fuel storage facility

and need for underground piping system (consider

tanker instead).

Consider alternate location for avgas fuel storage and

dispenser system.

Refer to Annexure 1Annexure 1Annexure 1Annexure 1 for a concept layout of the apron

extension and associated infrastructure and facilities.


13 13


5.5.5.5.7 Staged development 7 Staged development 7 Staged development 7 Staged development

planplanplanplan

The staging plan does not align design aircraft, passenger movement forecasts,

planning periods etc.

Reconsider periods nominated as short, medium and

long term and proposed development during each stage.

8.3 Proposed 8.3 Proposed 8.3 Proposed 8.3 Proposed

developmendevelopmendevelopmendevelopment t t t precinctsprecinctsprecinctsprecincts

The validity of proposed uses within the precincts is not able to be verified. However,

the location of particular precincts and associated aeronautical and landside

infrastructure may result in preferred alternate layout.

Reconsider precinct locations and compositions

following apron extension and new passenger terminal

concept design.

8.4 Access and Car 8.4 Access and Car 8.4 Access and Car 8.4 Access and Car

parking, road networkparking, road networkparking, road networkparking, road network

Terminal access, car parking arrangements and the internal road network may need to

be redesigned according to a preferred alternative layout.

Reconsider terminal access and car parking

arrangements following apron extension and new

passenger terminal concept design.

General General General General ---- Staging and Staging and Staging and Staging and

timelinestimelinestimelinestimelines

The ten year period from 2011/12-2021/22 (Stage 1) is nominated as the short term.

It would be preferable to think of the short term as the next five years, since this is the

period for which demand can be determined with relative certainty. The medium term

would be the next five years, and the long term would be beyond the ten year mark.

There is inconsistency in the application of time frames and the naming of stages.

Short term – next five years

Medium term – five – ten years

Long term – beyond 10 years


14 14

3. APRON EXTENSION DESIGN – GHD

Detailed design and specifications for expansion of the main RPT aircraft parking apron have been prepared by

GHD and issued for tender. Tenders for construction closed in April 2013 and are waiting consideration

pending the outcomes of this review. The intention is to accommodate two Dash 8-400 and one Dash 8-300

aircraft.

The aircraft that are currently operating at Narrabri airport are the Metro III, Jetstream 32 and Chieftains, with

Jetstream 41 expected to operate in the near future. The apron is to be line marked for the current operating

aircraft.

The site contains various existing services including power and communications cables; these services will

require relocation, protection and modification as appropriate.

The Work under the Civil Contract includes the construction of new flexible pavements, drainage structures,

excavation for and backfilling of pit and duct work associated with the airfield lighting works including apron

floodlighting pole footings.

The principal components of the Scope of Works include:

• Earthworks for pavement construction, open drains, drainage structures, pole footings, electrical

services trenches and all other incidental construction work not specifically mentioned;

• Modification to the existing drainage system, including construction of reinforced concreted box

culvert (RCBC) and headwall inlet/outlet structures;

• Construction of new flexible pavements for apron and taxiway fillets;

• Supply and installation of rock beaching, topsoil and grassing to open unlined drains (OUD);

• Supply and installation of pits, ducts, draw ropes and pole footings ready for the Airfield Ground

Lighting (AGL) and apron floodlighting installation contractor;

• Supply and application of jet fuel resistant surface treatment;

• Supply and installation of pavement markings;

• Landscape and grassing; and

• The Scope of Works also includes all electrical work associated with the supply and installation of

taxiway edge lighting, apron floodlighting and illuminated wind direction indicator.

A concept layout of the proposed apron extension showing two Dash 8-400 and one Dash 8-300 aircraft is

provided at Figure 2.


15 15

Figure 2 GHD Concept apron layout


16 16

Detailed design of the apron pavements is shown in Figure 3. It can be seen that fuel resistant membranes are

planned to be included in the works.

Note also the requirement to re-direct surface drainage at the southern end of the extension area.

Also note that the taxiway is to be widened.

Figure 3 Apron extension pavement plan


17 17

Detailed design of the apron line marking is shown in Figure 4.

Note the two PA-31 parking positions at Bays 4 and 5.

The line marking plan does not optimise the space available.

Figure 4 Apron line marking

Issues associated with the apron extension design are provided in Table 2.


18 18

Table 2 Apron extension issues


CCCConcept apron loncept apron loncept apron loncept apron layoutayoutayoutayout The Dash 8-400 on bay 1 potentially restricts access to the remainder of the general aviation precinct

(subject to aircraft wingspan) due to limited space between the tail of the aircraft and the apron edge.

Check design aircraft characteristics with

respect to taxilane width behind

Dash 8-400 Bay 1.

Consider alternate layout for apron

extension to the north of the current

apron.

Apron extension Apron extension Apron extension Apron extension

pavement planpavement planpavement planpavement plan

Fuel resistant membranes are planned to be constructed prior to the ultimate overlay works, which

would make them redundant. The membranes are located under piston engined aircraft <5700 kg

MTOW which would not normally be allocated a line marked parking position and do not have access

to avgas in those positions in any case.

The taxiway is shown as being widened to 18 m. There is no requirement to widen the taxiway to

18 m as long it is intended to serve aircraft with a wheelbase of less than 18 m. MOS 139 6.2.1.1A

refers.

B737-800 wheelbase is 15.6 m, A320-200 wheelbase is 12.64 m, Dash 8-400 wheelbase is

13.99 m.

Reconsider the need for fuel resistant

membranes in the apron extension

project.

Reconsider the need to widen the main

taxiway to 18 m.

Pavement marking planPavement marking planPavement marking planPavement marking plan Line marked parking positions are provided for PA-31 aircraft. These aircraft are <5700 kg MTOW

and would not normally be allocated a marked parking position.

Reconsider need to provide line marking

for individual PA-31 aircraft.


19 19


Flood lighting detail, Flood lighting detail, Flood lighting detail, Flood lighting detail,

lighting and circuiting lighting and circuiting lighting and circuiting lighting and circuiting

detaildetaildetaildetail

The max height of flood light pole is shown as 19.8 m in drawing 23-14538-E020. With an RL at the

base of the southern light pole of approx 221.8 m plus 19.8 m pole results in height of 241.6 m AHD

at top of pole.

Using 150 m runway strip (75 m either side of centreline) and approximately 204 m from centreline

to light pole leaves 129 m between pole and edge of runway strip. Transitional surface inclines at 1:7,

so max height possible at light pole position is 14.84 m above centreline RL (219 m) equals

233.84 m AHD.

So the apron flood light poles would penetrate the transitional surface by approximately 7.76 m. The

poles can be a maximum of approximately 12 m high at this offset distance from the runway with a

150 m runway strip width.

Also, CASA guidance is that flood lighting should be 20 lux for large aircraft such as Dash 8-400.

The apron flood lighting needs to be

redesigned so that the light poles do not

infringe the OLS (transitional surface) and

provide 20 lux illumination on Dash 8-400

parking positions.

Hyder Design Basis Hyder Design Basis Hyder Design Basis Hyder Design Basis

Report 2.2 Taxiway desiReport 2.2 Taxiway desiReport 2.2 Taxiway desiReport 2.2 Taxiway designgngngn

Note re taxiway longitudinal gradient in excess of maximum limit (>1.5%) not resolved in concept

design stage.

Main taxiway longitudinal slope limit

should be resolved in design.

Hyder Design Basis Hyder Design Basis Hyder Design Basis Hyder Design Basis

Report 2.3 RPT Apron Report 2.3 RPT Apron Report 2.3 RPT Apron Report 2.3 RPT Apron

DesignDesignDesignDesign

Note re slope on apron parking areas >2% to be resolved in detailed design stage. Main RPT apron slope should be designed

to meet required standards.

General General General General –––– pavement pavement pavement pavement

conditionconditionconditioncondition

The taxiway and apron pavement is in relatively poor condition and will require at least a shape

correction treatment in the near future, regardless of the requirement for strengthening.

Consider minimum pavement

rehabilitation works.


20 20

4. APRON EXTENSION DESIGN – SECTION 355 COMMITTEE

The Narrabri Airport Section 355 Committee prepared an alternate design of the apron extension subsequent

to tendering for construction. This alternate design extends the apron to the north of the existing apron and

provides another stub taxiway (assumed to be 18 m wide) to the main runway 18/36, as well as an alternate

location for a proposed passenger terminal with separate sections for FIFO/Charter and RPT passengers.

A copy of the general arrangement plan is provided in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Section 355 Committee apron extension general arrangement

Issues associated with the Section 355 Committee apron extension design are provided in Table 3.


21 21

Table 3 Section 355 Committee apron extension design issues


Proposed terminalProposed terminalProposed terminalProposed terminal There are unlikely to be significant benefits from segregating FIFO/Charter and RPT passengers as

indicated.

The terminal frontage should probably be set back further back from the apron edge to allow room for

greater apron depth with respect to tail height constraints imposed by the OLS (transitional surface).

Relocate the terminal further away from

the apron frontage and disregard

separation of FIFO/Charter and RPT

passengers.

General arrangementGeneral arrangementGeneral arrangementGeneral arrangement The general arrangement is better than the master plan and GHD design, but will not permit smaller

aircraft to pass behind larger aircraft parked at the front of the apron due to wing tip clearance

limitations.

The apron extent is probably too large and could be reduced in width and increased in depth.

There may be issues associated with design gradient requirements.

The avgas refuelling facility would need to be removed.

The new apron could be constructed to Dash 8-400 bearing strength requirements, leaving the current

apron as lower strength pavement for lighter aircraft servicing the existing RPT terminal.

The design has the additional benefit of not requiring relocation of the primary illuminated wind

direction indicator and signal circle.

Care will need to be taken in locating the new stub taxiway clear of the PAPI at the left hand side of

touchdown on runway 18.

Use this design as the basis for further

optimisation of parking apron and

runway capacity, as well as interim

upgrades of the existing passenger and

Aero Club facilities.

Check conformance with geometric

design requirement re gradients.

Consider the location of PAPI re new

stub taxiway.

Refer to Annexure 1Annexure 1Annexure 1Annexure 1 for a concept layout

of the apron extension.


22 22

5. TAXIWAY/RUNWAY DESIGN - HYDER

Hyder was engaged to prepare preliminary designs for the runway extension and pavement strengthening for

all pavements including the runway, taxiway and aprons. This work is planned to occur subsequent to the apron

extension project.

Specifically, the scope of work is described in the Design Basis Report as:

• A 350m extension to the south end of Runway 18/36, including the provision of a new runway end

safety area (RESA)

• Strengthening of the existing runway 18/36, taxiway C, and RPT apron pavements;

• Replacement of the existing runway 18/36 lighting system and installation of Precision Approach

Path Indicators (PAPI).

Issues associated with the runway extension and strengthening design are provided in Table 4.


23 23

Table 4 Hyder runway/taxiway design issues


Design Basis ReportDesign Basis ReportDesign Basis ReportDesign Basis Report The Master Plan high growth rate scenario has been adopted for the pavement design.

The adopted pavement design (traffic scenario 2) derives an average of 7.1 Dash 8-400 and 18.8 J41

movements per week. Subject to customer expectations about demand for Dash 8-400 and possibly

other larger aircraft such as Dash 8-100/200/300 or Saab 340 etc, the adopted traffic scenario might

not adequately reflect future impacts to pavement life.

Revalidate pavement design after

revision of the passenger and aircraft

movement forecasts.

Alignment plan Sheet 3Alignment plan Sheet 3Alignment plan Sheet 3Alignment plan Sheet 3 The case for widening the taxiway is yet to be made. Reconsider need to widen taxiway.

Alignment Plan Sheet 1,7Alignment Plan Sheet 1,7Alignment Plan Sheet 1,7Alignment Plan Sheet 1,7 A 60 m clearway and 90 m RESA is shown at the new extended threshold 36, but not at threshold 18.

The clearway at threshold 18 is currently 98 m, and the RESA is 60 m. Ideally the RESAs would be the

same length following the upgrade.

Alignment Plan Sheet 1 (and other design drawings) is cut off at the threshold of runway 18. Due to the

importance of longitudinal and transverse gradients in the design task, the full clearway and RESA

should be shown in the drawings.

90 m RESAs are only required when used by code 3 or 4 air transport jet aeroplanes. MOS 139 6.2.26

refers.

Plan to provide at least 60 m RESAs at

both runway ends.

Show the full clearway and RESA at

threshold 18 in applicable drawings.

Alignment Plan Sheet 8Alignment Plan Sheet 8Alignment Plan Sheet 8Alignment Plan Sheet 8 The apron extension footprint may not be optimal for airport operations and should be reconsidered. Reconsider location of apron extension


24 24


Runway Long Section 1Runway Long Section 1Runway Long Section 1Runway Long Section 1 The long section drawing shows the runway threshold at chainage 148.902.

Longitudinal slope for first part of runway is 1.499% (max 1.5% for code 3).

Long section at existing ground level extends beyond threshold into clearway (cut off at ch 130) at

1.5%. Max clearway longitudinal slope is 1.25%. New surface grades down from threshold to existing

surface in clearway at 2.5% (max 1.25%). MOS 139 6.2.33 refers.

Existing aerodrome facilities do not need to be immediately modified in accordance with the new

standards until the facility is replaced or upgraded to accommodate a more demanding aircraft. MOS

139 2.1.2 refers.

Existing non-conformance with respect

to clearway slope must be rectified if

the upgrade project accommodates a

more demanding aircraft.

Alternatively a safety case could be

made for an exemption based on

current design and aerodrome category.

Runway Long Section 1,2Runway Long Section 1,2Runway Long Section 1,2Runway Long Section 1,2 Longitudinal slope requirement for code 4C jet aircraft is max 1% overall, max 1.25% along any part of

the runway and max 0.8% along first and last quarters of the runway. Uniform slope required for at

least 300 m at each end (600 m for large jet aircraft).

The current runway longitudinal gradient would not accommodate code 4 aircraft. Significant cut and fill

works would be required in order to meet the design standards at significant cost.

Consider future need to accommodate

code 4 aircraft with respect to cost of

conforming to geometric design

standards.

Runway Long Section 6Runway Long Section 6Runway Long Section 6Runway Long Section 6 Max clearway longitudinal slope is 1.25%. New surface grades down from threshold to existing surface

in clearway at 2.5%. MOS 139 6.2.33 refers.

Design clearway longitudinal slope in

accordance with design standards.

Taxiway Long SectionTaxiway Long SectionTaxiway Long SectionTaxiway Long Section Max taxiway longitudinal slope for code C aircraft is 1.5%. Max shown on drawing is 1.73%. MOS 139

6.3.4 refers.

Design taxiway longitudinal slope in

accordance with design standards.


25 25


Runway Cross Section 35Runway Cross Section 35Runway Cross Section 35Runway Cross Section 35 Transverse gradient of runway strip is shown as 2.5% up on uphill side of runway. The transverse slope

of the graded runway strip adjacent to the runway shoulder, for the first 3 m outwards, must be

negative and may be as great as 5%. MOS 139 6.2.22 refers.

Redesign runway strip transverse slope

in accordance with design standards.


26

6. OTHER RELATED DEVELOPMENTS

Other developments associated with the upgrade were reviewed and are discussed in the following section.

Figure 6 General layout

6.1. Avgas fuel facility

The avgas facility is located in such a position that an aircraft parked in front of it prevents use of the taxiway

and therefore access to the rest of the general aviation precinct.

Council representatives agree that the avgas facility should be moved to another location.

The facility should be located so that it permits easy access by avgas users and clear of operational parts of the

taxiway and apron system. Consider provision of trailer-mounted or fixed above-ground storage and dispenser

system.

6.2. Jet A1 fuel facility

The Jet A1 facility consists of a fuel storage tank, underground pipes and a hose reel and dispenser at the front

of the current RPT apron.

Council representatives advised that the potential environmental impacts were unacceptable and the cost of

maintaining and monitoring the relatively long underground pipes is prohibitively expensive, and expressed a

Jet A1

Avgas RFS

Precinct GA

Precinct

TerminalPrecinct


27

desire to more the storage tanks closer to the apron or provide an alternative means of fuel delivery (such as a

mobile tanker).

A mobile tanker would provide greatest flexibility with respect to providing fuel to various locations on the

airport site.

The fuel storage facility may not need to be moved in the short term, subject to the location of the new terminal

and internal roads/car parks.

6.3. Rural Fire Service operations centre and firebombing operations

Two large water storage tanks have been installed to the north of the hangar precinct, and Council

representatives advised that RFS intends to construct an operations facility nearby. The facility would be

approximately 30 m x 18 m.

An indicative location for this facility is shown in the concept sketch at Annexure Annexure Annexure Annexure 1111.

6.4. General aviation and charter parking locations

Council representatives expressed a desire to provide additional hangar sites for up to B350 sized aircraft.

An indicative location for these additional hangar sites is shown in the concept sketch at Annexure Annexure Annexure Annexure 1111.


28

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommended resolutions for the issues that have been identified as a result of this review are documented in

the applicable sections of this report.

Before the design work is revised, the following significant issues should be resolved:

1. Passenger and aircraft movement demand forecasts should be revised/revalidated;

2. The issue of whether or not to consider and protect the future requirements of code 4 aircraft such as

A320/B737should be incorporated in current spatial planning;

3. Infrastructure proposed to be provided in the short term should be matched to design aircraft

requirements and design standards;

4. The apron extension and terminal location should be considered in conjunction with associated

infrastructure such as the internal road network, car parking, services, utilities and fuel storage; and

5. A fully scoped design brief should be prepared.


1-1

ANNEXURE 1 – CONCEPT LAYOUT SKETCHES

1. Concept Apron Extension Layout

2. Concept General Aviation Precinct Layout

ooLf)

oo00

...-io(V)

~

3~~

+-JV

l

.Ct

\>111

Q)

l-Q)

Q)

••..•+-J

,i

~~

3~.

~~

...cwi

;;'4(~

'1+

-'1.--

~lieco

j~

.,

Q)

~f;

~~

0.;~

~~

iit

--0'04J~~

1'l

J0

~-..~

..0

•tit

v'Z

Documents

INDEPENDENT REVIEW NARRABRI AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADE Facilities... · INDEPENDENT REVIEW NARRABRI AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADE ... Dash 8-100 (or similar ... 3.5.1 BoM AWS3.5.1