Needs Assessment. For a Southern Nevada Regional Heliport. Prepared for: Clark County Department of Aviation. Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc.

Transcription

1 Needs Assessment For a Prepared for: Clark County Department of Aviation Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. November 2003

2 Table of Contents I. Introduction 1.1. Study Objectives...I Needs Assessment Methodology...I-1 II. CCDOA Goals 2.1. Introduction...II Role of...ii Statement of Goals...II-2 III. Identification of Planning Criteria 3.1. Introduction... III Identified Planning Criteria... III Planning Standards... III Planning Period... III Design Helicopters... III Taxiing Procedures and Planning Criteria... III Parking Procedures... III Passenger Boarding Procedures... III Fueling Procedures... III Maintenance Procedures... III Navigational Procedures... III Summary of Planning Criteria... III-11 IV. Generalized Facility Requirements 4.1. Introduction... IV Identified Facility Requirements... IV Airfield... IV Passenger Terminal Complex... IV Maintenance Facilities... IV Ground Access and Parking... IV Support Facilities... IV Landscaping and Setbacks... IV Summary of Facility Requirements... IV Total Area Requirements... IV-10 Appendix A State of Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 495 (NRS 495)... A-1 Appendix B Helicopter Operator Survey Form...B-1 Needs Assessment for a i

3 I. Introduction 1.1 Study Objectives The Clark County Department of Aviation (CCDOA) has been tasked by the Clark County Board of Commissioners to designate a preferred facility for the takeoff and landing of commercial helicopters, to comply with the requirements of State of Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 495 (NRS 495). NRS 495, presented in Appendix A, was signed by Governor Guinn on June 20, 2003, and requires Clark County to designate a preferred non-urban heliport site no later than January 1, To fulfill the requirements of NRS 495, the CCDOA has initiated the first of two studies. The first study is the Needs Assessment for a. That study, as documented in this report, assesses the physical and operational characteristics of commercial helicopter operators in the Southern Nevada region, and identifies the facility requirements of a non-urban heliport accommodating multiple commercial helicopter operators. This needs assessment study is not intended to provide a detailed heliport design, but to provide the CCDOA with ballpark estimates for early decision making purposes. Subsequent to this study, a Site Suitability Assessment for a will be conducted to assist the CCDOA in designating a preferred site for the heliport. The site suitability assessment will evaluate and screen a series of potential sites against the facilities requirements developed in this needs assessment. 1.2 Needs Assessment Methodology The needs assessment balances the individual facilities and operations requirements of independent commercial helicopter operators with the requirements for CCDOA compliance with NRS 495. The approach to balancing the sometimes differing needs of the operators and the CCDOA involved the following steps: Development of CCDOA Goals: The initial step involved working with the CCDOA to identify goals for the project in compliance with NRS 495, including the definition of the role of the non-urban heliport facility, service market, and number of operators to be accommodated. Identification of Planning Criteria: The physical and operational planning criteria for the Heliport were identified through surveys and interviews of individual helicopter operators and input from CCDOA representatives and documentation contained in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5390-2A, Heliport Design. The surveys and interviews were conducted to define the existing and future helicopter fleet and operational characteristics of each helicopter entity. Establishment of Generalized Facility Requirements: This step involved incorporating planning criteria in accordance with the CCDOA goals and NRS 495 with the development of generalized facility requirements for an initial occupancy phase of a Southern Nevada Needs Assessment for a I-1

4 Regional Heliport. This required the balancing of individual operator expectations with CCDOA goals for a consolidated commercial heliport facility through discussions with both operators and CCDOA staff. The needs assessment study documents these steps in the following sections, and includes summary tables of CCDOA goals (Section II), identified planning criteria (Section III), and generalized facility requirements (Section IV). Needs Assessment for a I-2

5 II. CCDOA Goals 2.1 Introduction The purpose of this section is to present the major goals of the CCDOA for the development of a as a part of the overall Clark County aviation system. This documentation of CCDOA s goals is intended to provide an understanding of the needs assessment and to guide subsequent planning efforts. These goals have guided the identification of appropriate planning criteria described in Section III, and the preparation of generalized facilities requirements described in Section IV. 2.2 Role of The primary role of the is to allow Clark County to comply with NRS 495 while maintaining an existing tourist service to the resort destination of Las Vegas. Noise associated with helicopters has unique characteristics compared with noise associated with fixed wing aircraft such as turboprop or jet aircraft. Fixed wing commercial aircraft generally cruise at elevations above 30,000 feet above sea level, and arrive and depart in a static, predictable manner generally aligned with airport runway(s). In contrast, commercial related helicopter traffic in the Las Vegas Valley generally cruise below 1,500 feet above ground level much closer to noise sensitive land uses and have more flexibility in the directions of touchdown and lift-off than fixed wing aircraft. Currently, there is no federal governing legislation that can limit helicopters from operating over residential land uses. Additionally, local and state authorities do not and cannot regulate or control where helicopters fly. It must also be noted that federal restrictions (i.e., grant assurances, the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, and 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 161) make the possibility of imposing restrictions on helicopter operations at public-use airports virtually impossible. In an effort to support commercial helicopter operations in a manner more compatible with existing and planned land uses in 2003, the State of Nevada amended NRS 495, requiring Clark County to designate a preferred non-urban heliport site no later than January 1, The would provide a non-urban location for the voluntary basing of helicopter operators providing commercial services to complement the resort destination of Las Vegas. The selection of a non-urban location, which will be the focus of the subsequent site assessment study described in Section I, is essential in order to comply with NRS 495 and for the long-term compatibility of commercial helicopter operations in Clark County with noise sensitive areas. The development of a is intended to support the tourism industry by meeting demand for an existing tourist service air tours of the Grand Canyon and the Las Vegas Strip. In addition, consistent with a long-standing CCDOA policy of encouraging general aviation activity to transition from McCarran International Airport to general aviation reliever airports (North Las Vegas and Henderson Executive Airports), a would provide an alternative destination for commercial helicopter operations, and reserve limited airfield capacity at McCarran International Airport for its intended role within the Clark County aviation system. Needs Assessment for a II-1

6 2.3 Statement of Goals A summary of the major goals of the CCDOA for a is presented in Table II-1. For this project, the policy goals of the CCDOA for the Clark County aviation system have been updated to address NRS 495 and a future. Table II-1 County Goals for a 1 Compliance Accommodate heliport facilities in compliance with State of Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 495 in an environmentally sensitive manner 2 Coherence Establish a physically, operationally, and financially coherent plan for long-term development of a 3 Flexibility Accommodate potential future changes in operations (e.g., changes to security directives) by providing flexible passenger processing facilities 4 Resort Destination Status Accommodate users of the helicopter air tour industry in a convenient and service oriented manner 5 Level of Service Accommodate a level of service (e.g., reasonable walking distances, processing times, and amenities, etc.) that is consistent with or better than existing heliport facilities in the Las Vegas Valley 6 Orientation Accommodate infrastructure and facilities which provide good passenger orientation, wayfinding, and convenience 7 Operational Efficiency Accommodate facilities that are responsive to County, operator, agency, and concessionaire operational needs 8 Economic Feasibility Meet all goals, objectives, and performance standards which are economically feasible 9 Aviation System Role Accommodate commercial helicopter operations in a dedicated facility in order to reserve limited airfield capacity at McCarran International Airport for its intended role within the Clark County aviation system Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., from discussions with the Clark County Department of Aviation Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Needs Assessment for a II-2

7 III. Identification of Planning Criteria 3.1 Introduction The purpose of this section is to identify the physical and operational planning criteria for the. The planning criteria guided the development of generalized facility requirements for the Heliport presented in Section IV. Planning criteria were identified using data collected from selected existing commercial helicopter operators and FAA AC 150/5390-2A, Heliport Design. Six commercial helicopter operators were requested to participate in a survey and interviews to assist in the identification of planning criteria for a new heliport. A copy of the survey form is presented in Appendix B. These six operators comprise the commercial helicopter operators in the Las Vegas Valley falling under the language of NRS 495. Four of these commercial operators offer Grand Canyon and Las Vegas Strip tours and are based at McCarran International Airport; one offers Grand Canyon and Las Vegas Strip tours and is based on Las Vegas Boulevard (the Strip); and one offers helicopter training and local tours and is based at North Las Vegas Airport. The operators, for the purpose of this report, shall be referred to as operators A, B, C, D, E, and F. Not all of the commercial operators responded to the survey and request for interviews. Those that did respond provided varying degrees of completeness of information. The information received provided valuable insight to the operational activity and facility needs of commercial helicopter operators in Southern Nevada and is therefore considered to be adequate for planning purposes. 3.2 Identified Planning Criteria This section identifies the appropriate classification of planning standards, planning period, fleet mix assumptions, and design helicopters; along with taxiing, parking, passenger boarding, fueling, and maintenance procedures Planning Standards Heliports are classified according to use. According to AC 150/5390-2A, the classification of a transport heliport describes a public use heliport intended to accommodate air carrier operators providing scheduled service with large helicopters. Transport heliports are designed for commercial operations (passenger or cargo service) with over 2,500 annual passengers. Based on the results of the commercial operator survey and interview data, the 2002 level of passenger enplanements accommodated by these commercial operators is in excess of 110,000 annual enplaned passengers. The majority of existing commercial tour operations are scheduled. Grand Canyon tour operations have daily predetermined times for departures, or scheduled departures. In addition to scheduled departures, the commercial operators accommodate unscheduled charter flights upon request. Based on the existing volume of passengers, as well as the level of scheduled activity, it is recommended that the Heliport be planned as a transport heliport in accordance with Chapter 4 of AC 150/5390-2A. It should be noted that the planning standards for a transport heliport would be utilized for operational safety and efficiency purposes, while the CCDOA has the flexibility to operate the Heliport as a private or public use facility for the sole use of tour helicopter operations. Needs Assessment for a III-1

8 3.2.2 Planning Period Generally, an aviation facility is sized for a particular useful service life, and incorporates anticipated increases in passenger activity beyond existing levels. A baseline level was established that represents the current operational helicopter fleet of those operators affected by NRS 495, plus the aircraft that those operators plan to acquire within two years. The initial construction phase planning period accommodates this baseline and was developed based on discussions with commercial helicopter operators and CCDOA. Operational Data A typical busy day of daily helicopter tour operations as reported by tour operators is presented in Table III-1. The historical hourly distribution of tour operations reported by tour operators is presented in Table III-2. These data provide an indication of peak period operations that the future Heliport would need to accommodate, and can be used to define estimates of passenger volumes by time of day. Table III-1 Busy Day Operational Data Daily Helicopter Tour Operations Tour Operator Type of Operation A B C D E Subotal Departure Grand Canyon Departure Strip Departure Total Arrival Grand Canyon Arrival Strip Arrival Total Total Operations Source: Helicopter Noise Study, Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc., December 13, Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Needs Assessment for a III-2

9 Table III-2 Busy Day Operational Data Hourly Helicopter Tour Operations Hour Grand Canyon Tour Departures 2000 Grand Canyon Tour Arrivals 2000 Strip Tour Departures 2000 Strip Tour Arrivals a.m a.m a.m a.m a.m a.m p.m p.m p.m p.m p.m p.m p.m p.m p.m p.m p.m p.m Total Source: Helicopter Noise Study, Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc., December 13, Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Initial Construction Planning Period The tour operator fleet mix for the initial construction planning period is presented in Table III-3 and includes the current number of helicopters in commercial tour operation plus planned helicopter purchases within the next two years. The fleet mix assumptions were developed using information collected from completed operator surveys, operator interviews, and discussions with CCDOA staff. Table III-3 Tour Operators Fleet Mix Initial Construction Planning Period a Overall Length Rotor Diameter Helicopter Model (feet) (feet) Number of Helicopters by Tour Operator A B C D E Eurocopter AS350 (BA, B2, or B3 Series) % Eurocopter EC130 B % Bell 206 (B, B2, or B3 Series) % Subtotal % a. Initial construction planning period accommodates existing fleet as of 2003 plus acquisitions. Source: Surveys and Interviews of local Helicopter Operators, August Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Although no operational data were available directly from the Operator F, historical fleet data were provided by the CCDOA. Based on historical fuel usage data and discussions with CCDOA staff, it Total Percentage of Fleet Needs Assessment for a III-3

10 was assumed that Operator F would purchase no additional helicopters. Table III-4 presents the initial construction planning period fleet mix for Operator F. Table III-4 Operator F Fleet Mix - Initial Construction Planning Period a Overall Rotor Length Diameter Helicopter Model (feet) (feet) Helicopters for Number of Operator F Percentage of Baseline Fleet Bell 206 Long Ranger % Bell 206 Jet Ranger % McDonnel Douglas % Schweizer 269C % Robinson R % Robinson R % Subtotal % a. Initial construction planning period accommodates existing fleet as of 2003 plus acquisitions. Source: Clark County Department of Aviation, August Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. To provide flexibility in accommodating commercial activity at the Heliport, three scenarios were considered for the initial construction planning period, accommodating different combinations of commercial operators and their associated fleets: Scenario A All commercial operators (Grand Canyon, Strip tour, and training operators) Scenario B All tour operators (Grand Canyon and Strip) Scenario C Grand Canyon tour operators only To determine the differing requirements represented by these scenarios, it was necessary to isolate the anticipated training, Grand Canyon tour and Strip tour fleets. By isolating historical busy day Strip tour departures from Grand Canyon tour departures and assuming an average of six passengers per departure on a busy day, it was possible to isolate the Strip tour component of tour operator passenger demand, and therefore calculate the number of helicopters to accommodate that demand. The six passengers per departure assumption was based upon discussions with tour operators, and are typical for a busy day. Based on discussions with tour operators and CCDOA staff, Table III-5 represents the anticipated tour operations to be accommodated in the initial construction planning period, and quantifies the number of Strip tour departures and resulting enplanements compared with the Grand Canyon tour departures and enplanements. Needs Assessment for a III-4

11 Table III-5 Typical Design Day Departures and Enplanements for Tour Operations a Type of Tour Departures % Departures Enplanements Grand Canyon % 558 Strip % 246 Total % 804 a. Anticipated enplanements assume an average of 6 passengers per helicopter departure for the design day Source: Helicopter Noise Assessment, Clark County Department of Aviation, January 14, 2002 and surveys and interviews of local helicopter operators, August Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. The daily operational schedule of Strip tours is normally between sunset and midnight. The average annual time for sunset in the Las Vegas Valley is 6:30 pm, giving an annual average of 5.5 hours per day of operational time for Strip tours. Historically, this daily operational time correlates with the schedule data presented in Table III-2. According to data collected from the tour operators, the average Strip tour flight time is 15 minutes and the average ground time between tours is 10 minutes, for a total turn time of 25 minutes, or 2.4 turns per hour. The average annual daily operational time therefore would allow about thirteen turns within the 5.5-hour operational window. At an assumed thirteen turns per helicopter, with an average of six passengers on a busy day, a single helicopter could accommodate up to 78 daily enplanements. In order to accommodate the anticipated passenger demand for Strip tour operations (246 enplanements) shown on Table III-5, at least four helicopters would be required to be in service on a typical busy day. However, based on operator surveys and interviews, the passenger demand for Strip tour operations would not be evenly distributed among all operators. Based on operator interviews and discussions with CCDOA staff a total of five helicopters were isolated from the overall tour operator fleet to meet Strip tour demand. By isolating the Strip tour demand from all tour operator demand, it was possible to develop initial construction planning period fleet assumptions for Scenarios A, B, and C. The fleet mix for Scenario A includes all commercial operations affected by NRS 495, including all commercial tour and training operations, and is presented on Table III-6. The fleet mix presented in Table III-7 includes commercial tour operations, as defined by Scenario B. The resulting fleet mix for Scenario C, Grand Canyon tour operators only, is shown in Table III-8. Needs Assessment for a III-5

12 Table III-6 Initial Construction Planning Period Fleet Mix Summary Scenario A (All commercial operators) Helicopter Model Operator A B C D AS EC Bell 206 Long Ranger Bell 206 Jet Ranger MD Schweizer 269C Robinson R Robinson R Subtotal Total Helicopters E F Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., based on data collected from surveys and interviews of local helicopter operators, August Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Table III-7 Initial Construction Planning Period Fleet Mix Summary Scenario B (All tour operators) Helicopter Model Operator A B C D AS EC Subtotal Total Helicopters E F Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., based on data collected from surveys and interviews of local helicopter operators, August Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Table III-8 Initial Construction Planning Period Fleet Mix Summary Scenario C (Grand Canyon tour operators only) Helicopter Model Operator A B C D AS EC Subtotal Total Helicopters E F Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., based on data collected from surveys and interviews of local helicopter operators, August Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Needs Assessment for a III-6

13 3.2.3 Design Helicopters The identification of the design helicopter, or the largest anticipated helicopter model to be accommodated, provides the basis for planning and sizing of the airfield. For the Southern Nevada Regional Heliport, the following types of helicopters were identified as the primary models that would operate at the facility at the initial construction planning level: Eurocopter AS350; Eurocopter EC130; Bell 206 Jet Ranger; Bell 206 Long Ranger; and the Robinson R22; In addition, one tour operator has recently considered operating the Sikorsky S55QT due to its higher passenger capacity and quiet technology. The critical dimensions of the S55QT are greater than those of each helicopter model listed above. Based on operator interviews and discussions with CCDOA staff, it was determined that the Heliport should be able to accommodate the S55QT, although no operator has immediate plans to purchase the helicopter. While some of the tour operators are transitioning from the AS350 to the quieter EC130, for planning purposes the larger AS350 has been selected to represent the design helicopter for apron areas. With the exception of the S55QT and the Bell 206 Long Ranger, all other primary helicopter model dimensions are within the critical dimensions of the AS350. To provide long-term flexibility for the Heliport, the major taxi routes, the touchdown and liftoff (TLOF) areas, as well as the final approach and takeoff (FATO) areas would be planned to accommodate the S55QT. At the initial construction planning level, one Bell Long Ranger and no S55QTs are anticipated. Therefore, the aprons of the Heliport would not be planned to accommodate maneuvering aisles for these helicopters, however they could be accommodated at the end of individual apron areas adjacent to the primary taxi routes Taxiing Procedures and Planning Criteria Transport heliports accommodating scheduled commercial activity should provide for the controlled movement of helicopters along obstruction free corridors, or taxi routes, from maintenance and parking areas to final approach and landing area. The width of the taxi routes are based on the rotor diameter of the design helicopter, and differ if the mode of taxiing is hover for skid equipped helicopters, or ground for wheel equipped helicopters. The taxi route is not required to be paved in its entirety, but should be treated in some manner (turf or heavy rock) to prevent dirt and debris from being lifted by rotor wash. The typical mode of taxiing at the Heliport will be hover taxiing. Based on AC 150/5390-2A, the taxi route should provide a minimum of 20 feet of clearance on each side of the maximum rotor diameter of the design helicopter. The taxi routes provide access between the FATO areas and the helicopter parking apron. When taxiing within the apron area, the helicopter uses a maneuvering aisle to reach the parking position centerline. The required width and clearance requirements for the maneuvering aisle are based on taxi route clearances for the largest helicopter to use that aisle. Needs Assessment for a III-7

14 Exhibit III-1 provides a view of an existing heliport. This heliport is operated by a single operator and has paved passenger walkways, maneuvering aisles, and helicopter parking positions. The taxi route connecting the parking positions to the FATO areas is unpaved. Exhibit III-1 Papillon Heliport at Grand Canyon Airport Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. The airfield planning criteria for the, based upon the design helicopters documented in Section 3.2.4, are presented on Table III-10. Table III-10 Airfield Planning Criteria for the (in Feet) a, b Helicopter Dimensions Tour Eurocopter AS350 Potential Tour Sikorsky S55QT Rotor Diameter (RD) Overall Length (OL) Hub to Aft End Apron Parking Position Parking Circle (Main rotor radius) Tail Arc Radius Clearance between tail arcs 12.5 (1/3 RD) 18 (1/3 RD) Center to Center Taxi Route (RD plus 40 feet) Touchdown and Liftoff Area (TLOF) 50x50 53x53 Final Approach and Takeoff Area (FATO) 240x x106 FATO Safety Area 300x x166 a. The EC130, Bell Jet Ranger, and Robinson R22 fit within the critical dimensions of the AS350. b. The Bell Long Ranger fits within the critical dimensions of the S55QT. Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5390-2A, Heliport Design, and manufacturers data. Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Needs Assessment for a III-8

15 3.2.5 Parking Procedures A transport heliport requires a paved apron for parking helicopters. Each helicopter has a defined parking position with a clear path to the taxi route. This clear path is defined by the centerlines of the parking position and the maneuvering aisle. The size and layout of the parking position are based on the size of the helicopter and the manner in which the helicopter maneuvers in and out of the parking position. The size of the parking position is based on the main rotor diameter and the tail arc (dimension from the hub to the aft end) of the design helicopter. The defining circle is equal to one main rotor diameter. The clearance between skid-equipped helicopters in any arrangement within the parking position should be at least one third the rotor diameter, but not less than ten feet. If the helicopter is turned 30 degrees or more within the position, then the tail arc becomes the critical edge to which clearances are measured. The primary methods of leaving a parking position are taxi-thru, turn-around, or backing-out. Due to lack of visibility behind the helicopter, and the number of anticipated based helicopters, the backing-out and taxi-thru methods were not considered as a planned procedure at the Heliport. In addition, to separate the passenger pathway from the helicopter movement area for safety purposes, the taxi-thru method is not a recommended procedure for the Heliport. Based on discussions with tour operators and CCDOA staff, the parking positions at the Heliport would be planned to accommodate turn-around procedures for entering and exiting the position. In this method, the helicopter enters and exits the parking position by moving forward on the same leadin centerline, requiring the helicopter to turn around 180 degrees before exiting. The tail rotor arc, therefore, becomes the critical edge for movement clearances Passenger Boarding Procedures According to data collected during operator surveys and interviews, most passengers are picked up at their hotel by the tour operator and driven to the curbside of each operator s facility. This facility typically includes a reception desk, waiting area for the potential 30-minute passenger dwell time, gift shop, restrooms, apron access points such as a terminal or a gate, and office areas. From data collected during operator surveys and interviews, all six operators escort their passengers between the apron access point and the helicopter. This may occur via a shuttle vehicle or via a pedestrian path, depending on the distance to the helicopter parking positions. All operators prefer to walk the passengers to the helicopter parking positions to minimize operating costs and schedule. For safety reasons, this passenger pathway should be well defined, by striping or a change in material, and should not cross active taxi routes, maneuvering aisles or parking position centerlines. At this time, it is unknown how future security requirements may amend passenger boarding procedures Fueling Procedures Based on the results of discussions with tour operators and CCDOA staff, the feasible methods of fueling the helicopters were identified as either by fuel truck, which brings fuel to the helicopter when requested, or by a hydrant system allowing hot-fueling, which allows the fueling of helicopters without turning off power to the main rotor. In this scenario, a fuel dispensing mechanism at the apron would be fed underground from a remote fuel tank. Needs Assessment for a III-9

16 Exhibit III-2 Hot-fueling Method in Use at Heliport Apron Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Truck fueling is the current fueling method for helicopters at McCarran International Airport and is a service provided by a Fixed Base Operator (FBO). Unlike truck fueling, hot-fueling allows the helicopter rotors to remain in operation during fueling, which shortens the turn time to the next flight and reduces wear associated with engine starts. It also removes the potential delay of waiting for the fuel truck to service the aircraft. Hot-fueling is conducted at the Grand Canyon Airport in Tusayan, and for Grand Canyon tour operations on tribal land. This method, however, would require more intensive underground infrastructure than truck fueling, which, in turn, would affect initial construction costs, environmental considerations, and long-term maintenance. The Heliport can utilize truck-fueling or hot-fueling or a combination of methods for servicing helicopters. If economically feasible, it is recommended that the Heliport utilize hot-fueling based on the time sensitive nature of helicopter tour operations. Either method would need to comply with local fire regulations. The CCDOA or a designated third party, in compliance with AC 150/5230-4, Aircraft Fuel Storage, Handling, and Dispensing on Airports, would provide fuel service at the new Heliport Maintenance Procedures All commercial helicopter operators currently maintain their helicopters with their own mechanics in a dedicated (leased or owned) hangar. Maintenance hangars are used by the tour operators to conduct light maintenance of their fleet on a daily basis. Operator F utilizes its designated hangar for maintenance as well as storage of helicopters. Heavy maintenance of all commercial helicopters would occur at remote, manufacturer-approved service stations. Light maintenance procedures for tour operators typically occur daily after tour operations cease, and are often performed during nighttime hours. Maintenance facilities would be required to accommodate delivery vehicles, light industrial equipment, and provide staging and storage of aircraft parts. Needs Assessment for a III-10

17 The maintenance of helicopters requires relocation from parking positions on the apron to the maintenance hangar by placing skids beneath the undercarriage of each helicopter and towing them into the maintenance hangar. Some models of helicopter fold their main rotors along the line of fuselage, requiring less clearance for maintenance. Based on discussions with operators, each operator maintenance hangar would be preferred to be directly adjacent to each operator apron. Each maintenance hangar would require a minimum interior height clearance of 18 feet Navigational Procedures The Heliport should be designed and constructed to transport heliport standards for safety and efficiency. Helicopter flight paths entering controlled airspace, if appropriate, would be handled by existing Airport Traffic Control Tower facilities. Heliport lighting for night operations at the Heliport would conform to AC 150/ , Taxiway Centerline Lighting System, 150/ , Runway and Taxiway Edge Lighting System, and 150/ , Specification for Runway and Taxiway Light Fixtures. A wind sock conforming to AC 150/ , Specification for Wind Cone Assemblies, would be required at the Heliport to show the direction and magnitude of the wind. Depending upon the specific airfield configuration and site conditions, multiple wind socks may be required. Wind socks will be placed to provide a true indication of surface wind and be clear of safety areas, TLOF and FATO areas, and heliport transitional surfaces. A heliport identification beacon conforming to AC 150/ , Specification for Airport and Heliport Beacon, will be required to aid in locating the Heliport. The beacon, flashing white, green, and yellow at a rate of 30 to 45 flashes per minute, will be located on or close to the Heliport. 3.3 Summary of Planning Criteria The following summarizes identified planning criteria for a : The Heliport will conform to transport heliport standards as described in Chapter 4 of AC 150/5390-2A. However, the CCDOA may choose to operate the facility as a private use heliport for the sole use of helicopter operations associated with NRS 495. The initial construction planning period fleet mix, representing the current commercial helicopter fleet and near-term planned acquisitions, totals up to 72 helicopters, as shown on Tables III-3 and III-4. The fleet mix varies according to three potential scenarios of accommodating commercial helicopter operations. The Heliport, in Scenario A, would accommodate all commercial operators (tour and training), totaling 72 helicopters as shown on Table III-6. In Scenario B, the heliport would accommodate all tour operators (Grand Canyon and Strip), totaling 55 helicopters as shown on Table III-7. In Scenario C, the heliport would accommodate Grand Canyon tour operators only, totaling 50 helicopters as shown on Table III-8. Needs Assessment for a III-11

18 The design helicopters for the heliport will be the Eurocopter AS350 for the apron areas, and the Sikorsky S55QT for the taxi routes and TLOF and FATO areas. The typical taxiing procedure will be hover taxiing at the heliport, with a turn-around procedure for helicopter parking. At the Heliport, passengers will be escorted on the ramp on dedicated, well-defined passenger walkways. The passenger walkways will not cross active taxi routes, maneuvering aisles, or parking position centerlines. Hot-fueling could be used at the heliport, in compliance with AC 150/5230-4, Aircraft Fuel Storage, Handling, and Dispensing on Airports. Each commercial helicopter operator will handle light maintenance at dedicated facilities capable of accommodating delivery vehicles, light industrial equipment, and provide staging and storage of aircraft parts. Heliport lighting for night operations at the Heliport will conform to ACs 150/ , Taxiway Centerline Lighting System, 150/ , Runway and Taxiway Edge Lighting System, and 150/ , Specification for Runway and Taxiway Light Fixtures. A wind sock and heliport identification beacon conforming to AC 150/ , S p e c ification for Wind Cone Assemblies, and 150/ , Specification for Airport and Heliport Beacon respectively, will be required at the Heliport to show the direction and magnitude of the wind and aid in locating the Heliport. Needs Assessment for a III-12

19 IV. Generalized Facility Requirements 4.1 Introduction The purpose of this section is to identify, on a conceptual level, the requirements of commercial helicopter operators at the initial construction planning period for the Southern Nevada Regional Heliport. Generalized facility requirements have been developed in accordance with the private operation of a large heliport planned to meet transport heliport standards, as defined in Chapter 4 of AC 150/5390-2A. 4.2 Identified Facility Requirements This section quantifies facilities for both airside and landside components of the Heliport based on identified goals for the project identified in Section II and identified planning criteria documented in Section III. It identifies generalized facility requirements for airfield, terminal facilities, maintenance facilities, ground access, parking, support facilities, as well as landscaping and setback buffers Airfield The airfield of the Heliport would be comprised of two components: the apron area and the active movement area. The apron area extends from the face of the terminal facility to the edge of the taxi routes, and includes: Passenger walkways Helicopter parking positions Helicopter maneuvering aisles It is expected that each commercial helicopter operator will operate a dedicated apron area, allowing the individual control of helicopter parking positions and maneuvering aisles. This would alleviate potential operational conflicts among multiple operators and provide a greater level of safety within the apron areas. The active movement area extends from the edge of the apron to the outside edge of the TLOF and FATO areas, and includes: Taxi routes and safety areas TLOF/FATOs, protection zones and associated land area The taxi route system of the Heliport would accommodate the movement of helicopters between the apron areas and the TLOF and FATO areas. Due to the number of anticipated operations and banking nature of Grand Canyon tours, a dual taxi route system is recommended. In addition, a transport heliport should have more than one approach-takeoff path. Two sets of TLOF and FATO areas would provide the capability of simultaneous arrivals and departures for a heliport accommodating the anticipated level of commercial activity. Needs Assessment for a IV-1

20 A protection zone is defined as the property underlying the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 heliport approach surface from the edge of the FATO to where the surface is 35 feet above the heliport elevation, as shown on Exhibit IV-1. The areas within the protection zones were included in the development of airfield area requirements. Exhibit IV-1 also shows the relationship between FATO areas and other components of a transport heliport, including the parking apron and terminal facility. Three scenarios were considered for the initial construction planning period for the Southern Nevada Regional Heliport, accommodating different combinations of commercial operations and fleet mixes: Scenario A All commercial operators (Grand Canyon, Strip tour and training operators) Scenario B All tour operators (Grand Canyon and Strip) Scenario C Grand Canyon tour operators only Requirements for acreage associated with helicopter parking positions were developed from initial construction planning period fleet mix assumptions documented in Section Area requirements were developed for each primary helicopter model identified in Section 3.2.3, and for each helicopter type included: (1) the area associated with each parking position, (2) an associated portion of the passenger walkway, and (3) half of the helicopter maneuvering aisle. In addition, a 50-foot setback from the face of the terminal was defined to allow for passenger cross-circulation and airside vehicle parking for the operators. The estimated airfield requirements for each operating scenario are presented below in Table IV-1. Table IV-1 Airfield Requirements for Initial Construction Planning Period Scenario A B C Apron Area (acres) (acres) (acres) Operator A Operator B Operator C Operator D Operator E Operator F Subtotal Active Movement Area Total Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Needs Assessment for a IV-2

21 Protection Zone Touchdown and Liftoff Area (TLOF) Final Approach and Takeoff Area (FATO) Safety Area Parking Apron Terminal Facility Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Exhibit IV-1 Not to Scale P:/Las Vegas/Regional Heliport/Report Graphics/Exhibit IV-1.dwg Needs Assessment for a Diagrammatic Heliport Components

22 4.2.2 Passenger Terminal Complex The passenger terminal facilities accommodate public and private activities for each commercial helicopter operator. Whether the facilities are centralized in one building, or decentralized in separate buildings, each operator will have dedicated space which typically includes the following functional areas: Reception desk Passenger lobby/waiting area Gift shop Restrooms Apron access point (door or gate) Administrative space The space requirements for each primary component of the passenger terminal complex have been quantified based on the three operating scenarios described above for both centralized and decentralized facilities. While each operator would require the same basic program elements for either a centralized or decentralized passenger terminal complex, there is some efficiency associated with a centralized facility. Efficiencies such as a consolidated food and beverage concession for all operators and a reduction in total restroom requirements associated with centralized facility would typically be offset by additional circulation space. Therefore, for the purposes of this report, decentralized operator requirements have been developed. The generalized requirements of the passenger terminal complex for each operating scenario are presented in Table IV-2. The requirements were developed from input received during operator interviews and estimated design day passenger volumes shown in Table III-5. Table IV-2 Passenger Terminal Requirements for Initial Construction Planning Period Scenario A B C Passenger Terminal Areas (square feet) (square feet) (square feet) Operator A 8,000 8,000 6,000 Operator B 8,000 8,000 6,000 Operator C 8,000 8,000 6,000 Operator D 8,000 8,000 6,000 Operator E 5,000 5,000 0 Operator F 7, Total square feet 44,000 37,000 24,000 Total acres Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., based on surveys and interviews of local helicopter operators, August Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Scenario C represents a 25 percent reduction in generalized terminal requirements over Scenarios A and B for Operators A, B, C, and D, accounting for a reduction in administrative and operational needs associated with a split in tour operations (current Strip tour operations would remain at their original base of operations). Needs Assessment for a IV-4

23 4.2.3 Maintenance Facilities The generalized maintenance facility requirements have been developed assuming each operator would maintain and operate a dedicated maintenance hangar that would be located adjacent to their apron. Scheduled light maintenance work for each operator s fleet would be completed on a daily basis within each operator s maintenance hangar. Each maintenance hangar would typically include the following facilities: Large open space to maintain multiple helicopters Large open space for the storage of helicopters (Operator F only) Work areas for parts maintenance Storage for parts and tools Office space for records and inspections Flight kitchen for mid-tour meal service The generalized maintenance facility requirements for the initial construction planning period are presented in Table IV-3 and are developed from input received during operator interviews and from survey questionnaires. The generalized maintenance facility requirements are reduced in Scenario C based on the assumption that the maintenance of Strip tour helicopters would not occur at the Heliport. Table IV-3 Maintenance Facility Requirements for Initial Construction Planning Period Scenario A B C Maintenance Areas (square feet) (square feet) (square feet) Operator A 10,000 10,000 8,000 Operator B 10,000 10,000 8,000 Operator C 10,000 10,000 8,000 Operator D 10,000 10,000 8,000 Operator E 5,000 5,000 0 Operator F 10, Total square feet 55,000 45,000 32,000 Total acres Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., based on surveys and interviews of local helicopter operators, August Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc Ground Access and Parking The ground access requirements are comprised of the terminal curbside, roadways, and vehicle parking for employees and visitors, vans and limousines (limos). The primary mode of transportation for tour passengers to and from the Heliport would be via van or limo service operated by the tour operators. The primary mode of transportation for training clientele would be personal vehicle. The area requirements for the access roadway system were based on a one-way, single-level loop system similar to that utilized at North Las Vegas Airport and expected to be developed at Henderson Executive Airport. The diagram in Exhibit IV-2 depicts a single loop roadway. Needs Assessment for a IV-5

24 Exhibit IV-2 Diagram of Single Loop Roadway Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. The dropoff roadway component would consist of a 15-foot wide drop-off lane and two 12.5-foot wide passing lanes, all in the same direction of travel. The exit and return to terminal roadway component would consist of two 12.5-foot wide lanes, in the same direction of travel. Multiple entry and exit points from interior roadway segments to and from parking areas are recommended in order to provide efficient access for the vans and limos. The initial construction planning period generalized facility requirements for ground access are presented in Table IV-4. Table IV-4 Ground Access Requirements for Initial Construction Planning Period Curbfront and Roadways Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Total square feet 186, , ,880 Total acres Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Generalized vehicle parking requirements were developed based on the assumed helicopter fleet mix assumptions for each operating scenario. A reduction was made to employee parking requirements in Scenario C, accounting for a reduction in administrative and operational needs associated with current Strip tour operations remaining at their original base of operations. The generalized requirements for vehicle parking are presented below in Table IV-5. Needs Assessment for a IV-6

25 Table IV-5 Vehicle Parking Requirements for Initial Construction Planning Period Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Employees Vans & Employees Vans & Employees Vans & Vehicle Parking & Visitors Limos & Visitors Limos & Visitors Limos Operator A Operator B Operator C Operator D Operator E Operator F Total vehicles Total acres Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., based on surveys and interviews of local helicopter operators, August Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc Support Facilities Support facilities associated with the Heliport would potentially include the following: Fuel tanks and fuel system Navigational aides Detention basin Emergency vehicle access and parking Fuel tanks and fuel system Fueling services at the Heliport would comply with AC 150/5230-4, Aircraft Fuel Storage, Handling, and Dispensing on Airports. The preferred method for fueling helicopters would be hotfueling, utilizing a hydrant system. This method would require aboveground fuel tanks to be installed on-site with underground supply piping to each helicopter parking position. The fuel tanks would be replenished by truck as needed, and require vehicular access for fuel delivery. The fuel tanks would be sited in such a way that they would be away from aircraft or surface vehicles, at least 100 feet from visible sources of ignition, and fenced and signed to reduce the chance of unauthorized entry. Two types of fuel would be utilized by the operators at the Heliport: jet fuel (Jet A) and aviation gasoline (AVGAS 100 LL). The annual fuel usage by operator for the initial construction planning period is presented in Table IV-6. Needs Assessment for a IV-7

26 Table IV-6 Fuel Usage Requirements for Initial Construction Planning Period Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Jet Fuel AVGAS Jet Fuel AVGAS Jet Fuel AVGAS Fuel Usage (gal/mo) (gal/mo) (gal/mo) (gal/mo) (gal/mo) (gal/mo) Operator A 64, , ,213 0 Operator B 70, , ,181 0 Operator C 67, , ,840 0 Operator D 49, , ,750 0 Operator E 30, , Operator F 750 2, Total 282,208 2, , ,984 0 Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., based on surveys and interviews of local helicopter operators, August Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Fuel storage requirements are estimated using the monthly fuel usage in gallons, an assumed frequency of fuel delivery to the tanks, and an estimated reserve, to determine the total fuel storage capacity, which is then used to determine tank sizes and quantities. If the tanks are replenished daily but provide capacity for a three day supply, the storage requirements for jet fuel would include two 20,000-gallon capacity tanks, as shown in Table IV-7. In addition to jet fuel storage, Scenario A would require approximately 7,000 square feet to accommodate a single 12,000-gallon capacity aviation gasoline storage tank for training operations. Table IV-7 Jet Fuel Storage Requirements for Initial Construction Planning Period Jet Fuel Storage Scenario A 3 day supply Scenario B 2 week supply Scenario C 2 week supply Operator A 6,434 6,434 6,321 Operator B 7,042 7,042 6,918 Operator C 6,720 6,720 6,384 Operator D 4,950 4,950 4,675 Operator E 3,000 3,000 0 Operator F Total 28,221 28,146 24,298 Quantity of tanks Capacity of tanks in gallons 20,000 20,000 20,000 Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., based on surveys and interviews of local helicopter operators, August Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Navigational Aids As discussed in Section 3.2.9, the Heliport would require a wind sock to show the direction and magnitude of the wind, heliport lighting of FATO and taxi routes, and a heliport identification beacon to aid in locating the Heliport in accordance with appropriate FAA Advisory Circulars. Each Needs Assessment for a IV-8