The transport sector in Jamaica may be considered to include road, rail, air and maritime transportation (See Figure 1 - Appendix 6). The Ministry of Housing, Transport, Water and Works (MHTWW) has prepared a draft National Transport Policy to provide a framework for the future development of the sector. As it pertains to air transportation, Jamaica's air transport system comprises an international system and a domestic system. The three (3) main entities in the air transport sector are the Aviation Service Providers such as airports, air traffic services, aircraft maintenance organizations, airlines and AEROTEL; Users of air transport, such as passengers and shippers, and the Regulator, the Jamaica Civil Aviation Authority (JCAA). The service providers and regulator facilitate air transportation in Jamaica in a manner that conforms with international best practices stipulated by the United Nations body responsible for civil aviation, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
The 1974 enactment of the Airports Authority Act transferred to the Airports Authority of Jamaica (AAJ), responsibilities for the ownership, management and commercial functions of the two (2) international airports - Norman Manley International Airport (NMIA) and the Sangster International Airport (SIA). In 1997, AAJ's responsibility was expanded to incorporate the four (4) active domestic aerodromes - Boscobel, Ken Jones, Negril and the Tinson Pen. One of the primary responsibilities of the AAJ is to oversee the expansion and modernization of facilities at the island's international and domestic aerodromes.
Special emphasis will be placed on Tinson Pen aerodrome for the purpose of this research. Essentially the critical issue to be addressed is the impact that existing and proposed land uses have had on the operations of the Tinson Pen aerodrome. The rational for selecting the Tinson Pen aerodrome is contingent upon the fact that the Tinson Aerodrome represents a critical support system in Jamaica's domestic air transportation system. Located on Marcus Garvey Drive Kingston, Tinson Pen Aerodrome is used for general aviation, commuter and charter flights courier services and flight training and aircraft maintenance services. It currently provides these services from operators including International Airlink, Wings Jamaica Limited, Caribbean Aviation Centre, Island Aviation Service, Air Speed Limited, Strescon and Tara Courier. It is the largest of the country's four domestic aerodrome; It is adjacent to the Kingston Wharves, one of the largest trans-shipment port in the English-speaking Caribbean and a major highway which has improved regional connectivity. It is a vital commercial link between Kingston and Montego Bay. Whether it is by commercial or general aviation, access to aviation plays a key role in the conduct of daily business throughout the
cpuntry. Close proximity to airports increases opportunities for corporations and industries doing business in Kingston and St Andrew by permitting safe, efficient, and cost-effective travel for business passengers and freight. In light of Jamaica's geographic location, the island is vulnerable to Hurricanes. The first facilities to become incapacitated are the two international airports due to their close proximity to the sea. However Norman Manley International has a greater vulnerability because it is located on a peninsula which continues to be severely inundated subsequent to the passage of hurricanes. However the Tinson Pen aerodrome has survived all of the major disasters and as a result has emerged as a critical back up facility to the Norman Manley International Airport. This manifested itself after hurricane Ivan when relief supplies had to be flown out of Tinson Pen because the Palisadoes was impassable. Despite greater emphasis from the government being placed on international air transportation the importance of revitalizing domestic air transportation has also been on the Governments agenda. According to the National Transport Policy Final Draft the strategic objectives outline the need to promote an efficient and productive aviation industry which will compete domestically and internationally and facilitate the development and commercialisation of the domestic aerodromes. Essentially, if Jamaica is to reinvigorate domestic air travel special attention must be directed to the understanding the impact that land use has on our aerodromes operation, how to assess these impacts and identify various mitigation strategies to protect our aerodromes.
Tinson Pen has to contend with a myriad of developments occurring adjacent to the Kingston Waterfront including the Port expansion, Highway 2000, Marcus Garvey Road Improvements, Factories Corporation of Jamaica, communities such as Greenwich Farm, Union Gardens and Majestic Gardens. In understanding the impacts that these and other land uses have on the Tinson Pen aerodrome, creates the opportunity for future development initiatives in the domestic air transportation to follow a rational planning process to ensure aerodrome are an efficient, functional and integrated part of the air transportation system.
The underlying issue as it relates to the Tinson Pen aerodrome is in relation to the possible occurrence of incompatible land use within the airport environs that may have a negative impact on the airport's operations with regards to airport noise, public safety, and airspace protection
To examine the need for land use planning for existing land use and potential developments within the study area related to the Tinson Pen aerodrome. The proposition will identify and examine current and future incompatible land uses within the airport environs, which may conflict with the proposed airport's operations in relation to noise, public safety and airspace protection.
- To determine the Tinson Pen airport locality boundaries
- To examine the importance of domestic aerodromes as an integrated part of the air transportation system
- To identify the existing land use within the airport locality
- To examine current land usage within the study area and any proposed developments by private, government or NGOs and what impact they may have on the proposed airports operations.
- To identify land use control methods that will ensure the protection of the airports operations and the reciprocal protection of land use within the airports locality.
- To assess the applicability of land use control measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around the Tinson Pen Aerodrome.
- To examine the roles and responsibilities of the state, local governments, private sector organizations and the local community in land use compatibility planning and implementation.
- To identify and examine the effectiveness of current local and international regulations, legislation and polices related to airport operations and land use compatibility planning.
- What is the importance of the Tinson Pen aerodrome to Jamaica's Air Transportation system?
- What is the current land usage within the study area and any proposed developments by private, government or NGOs and how will they impact on the airports operations?
- How compatible are the adjacent development/land use compatible with aviation related activities?
- To what extent can land use within the airport locality be reserved for compatible uses?
- What are the roles and responsibilities of the state, local governments, private sector organizations and the local community and to what extent are they exercised in land use compatibility planning and implementation for airports in Jamaica?
- Is there any legislation and regulations related to airport operations and land use compatibility planning and how important is it to have this legal framework established?
- How effective can zoning ordinances/regulations facilitate airport operations
Jamaica's air transportation infrastructure consists of the two international airports; Norman Manley and Sangster International along with four domestic aerodromes which are Tinson Pen, Boscobel, Ken Jones and Negril. From a macro-economic perspective both international airports are critical to Jamaica economic viability. Access to aviation is essential to the business traveler, an aid to the farmer, and an unparalleled convenience to the tourist. As it relates to domestic aerodromes, The degree to which our domestic aerodromes have been integrated into the transport system is questionable and may be linked to the unfortunate reality that the development of the transportation system has been taking place in the absence of a comprehensive, well articulated National Transport Policy that should guide its overall development; and ensure that specific transportation initiatives such as the Tinson pen aerodrome are integrated into an overall vision for economic and social development.
The critical issue faced by airports both domestic and international airports across the world is the origination of land use conflicts within airport locality because of inadequate zoning and land use planning FAA Airports Division (1999). According to Federal Aviation Administration (1998) in the article “Airport Compatible Land Use” it outlined the fact that in the United States (USA) this failure to protect the airport environs has led to the loss of many airports from their national inventory of landing facilities. In the past five years, an average of over 60 public-use landing facilities has been lost every year. The article highlighted the fact that the calls to close the airports identified zoning laws or the lack thereof as a major contributor. This problem by extension has manifested itself at the Tinson Pen aerodrome. In particular, the problems include the port expansion, road developments, encroachment of communities to name a few. This literature review seeks give context to the issues faced at the Tinson Pen aerodrome by sourcing literature which examine the importance of domestic aerodromes in the air transport system, show all the critical processes and components of Land use planning for airports, examine the impact that land use conflicts have on aerodrome operation, examine the roles and responsibilities of the state, local governments, private sector organizations and the local community in land use compatibility planning and implementation and how effective local and international regulations, legislation and polices are to airport operations and land use compatibility planning.
Determination of Airport Locality Boundaries
According to the Virginia Department of Aviation (2006), to implement effective land use planning and control measures around airports, it is necessary to identify specific planning boundaries. These boundaries will define the airport environs for land-use planning purposes. It highlighted the fact that it is important for airport owners, elected officials, land-use planners and developers to understand the components of an effective compatible airport land-use plan. A comprehensive plan will incorporate federal and state airport design criteria, safety of flight requirements and land use provisions unique to the community. The Department of Aviation made reference to the need to accurately represent airport boundaries, recommending that Safety Zones, Standard Traffic Patterns, Overflight Areas, Noise Contours and FAR Part 77 height restriction criteria be considered by land-use planners when developing zoning ordinances, airport overlay districts and comprehensive land-use plans for their community. A comprehensive plan for airport-compatible land-uses should include an area large enough to consider all these factors.
Airport Master Plan
The Airport Master Plan is a document that details the long-term development of an airport. The plan includes the information, analyses, and resulting decisions and policies guiding the future development of an airport, typically over a 20-year planning period. To meet future demands, the need for facilities on the public side and airfield side of an airport must be detailed in advance, based on an established approach for determining need and possible impacts to the community, with a plan for implementation and funding FAA (1998). Updates to the original master plan are required to document significant changes in policies or development needs. Through the preparation of a master plan, justification can be established, alternatives reviewed, public comment received, and a policy set for the future so that subsequent land use decisions can be compared against an established plan.
Essential elements of the airport master plan are outlined in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5070-6, Airport Master Plans, (1985). Although each airport and community that an airport serves are unique, there are standard elements of any airport master planning process. These elements include the following:
Inventory of Existing Facilities and Airspace
This initial step in the airport master planning process identifies and establishes a database of existing airport facilities, and reviews information about the airport service area, the surrounding communities, and the existing airspace and navigational aids. An historical review of aeronautical activity, development of facilities, and community issues is also included. This inventory of facilities and services establishes a base against which to compare future development.
Forecasts of Anticipated Growth in Activity
Information is collated on the numbers of operations (take-offs and landings), passengers, based aircraft, and cargo tonnage moved; socioeconomic data; national trends affecting airport growth; and other information are collected for consideration in preparing aviation demand forecasts. The forecast years are typically in five-year increments with a planning horizon of 20 years. The forecasts needed include enplanements, local and itinerant operations, based aircraft, cargo and mail tonnage, and peak-hour characteristics for passengers and operations. Based on the type of airport being studied, forecasts of international and domestic passengers and projections of air carrier and commuter operations may also be required.
The capacity of various airport facilities discussed in the facility inventory is compared to the future demand for these facilities as supported by the aviation demand forecasts. Airside capacity is determined and compared with aircraft demand forecasts to determine the need for and timing of new runways, runway extensions, taxiways, or additional navigational aids that will increase capacity. Airspace capacity is also examined based on projected aircraft fleet mix, the proposed runway configuration, the locations of other airports in the area, and the types of operations (instrument approaches and visual approaches).
Terminal area capacity needs are determined for terminal areas and gates, curbside, and public and employee automobile parking. Surface access capacity for surface roads into and out of the airport, including terminal areas, cargo areas, and general aviation facilities, must be reviewed to determine what future capacity is available in the roadway system. Demand for other facilities on the airport, such as fuel farms, cargo areas, maintenance areas, and general aviation facilities is also determined. Lastly, revenue-producing non-aviation uses, such as industrial parks, and hotels, may also be reviewed. The need for any of these facilities is balanced against the availability of land to meet future airport needs and consideration of what is the highest and best use of available land. In addition, the timing of the improvements must be considered based on need and available funding.
Because options frequently exist as to how to serve the future needs of an airport's service area, an analysis of alternatives that can meet the projected growth while achieving community goals is conducted as a critical part of the master planning process. The alternatives analysis results in a recommendation for the most reasonable development approach that maintains an acceptable mix of airport-related land uses, considers airspace and environmental concerns, and remains responsive to community concerns.
Existing and potential environmental impacts, and any possible mitigation of adverse environmental impacts, must be considered during the master planning process. This portion of the master plan, while not to the detail required in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement as outlined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), should provide an overview of environmental issues and potential mitigation to be considered with the implementation of the selected airport development plan.
A schedule for development and review of available funding is required-with the selection of a preferred alternative for airport development. The financial feasibility of the implementation of the master plan development must be considered, including both capital and ongoing operating costs. Five-, 10-, and 20-year development plans are provided with a more Page V-5 V. Airport and Local Land Use Planning Processes detailed look at the shorter-term (five-year) projects to be included in the airport capital improvement program.
Airport Layout Plan
According to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2002) a compatibility plan should contain a drawing showing the locations of existing and proposed airport runways, runway protection zones, property boundaries, and any other features which have implications for land use compatibility as aforementioned. However it also identifies the fact that these drawing may be a formal airport layout plan prepared by the airport proprietor as part of an airport master plan or other planning process and alternatively, it can be a more simplified drawing emphasizing the airport's fundamental features. This information is a critical component to be retrofitted to this research. It is predicated upon the fact that current airport layout plan is not available for the Tinson Pen aerodrome. This happens as a result of the airport proprietor not keeping it current and is particularly common for small, privately owned facilities where no layout plan may have ever been prepared.
Adopted Master Plan Exists
The California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics generally does not become involved when a long-range master plan has been adopted by the agency owning the airport and the plan is reasonably current. If the master plan is old, the layout plan contained in it may need to be updated to reflecting recent construction. Such updates should then be submitted to the Division of Aeronautics for approval. Another situation which sometimes arises is that an airport master planning process is being conducted concurrently with the preparation or updating of a compatibility plan. If the master plan is expected to propose airport development which could have airport compatibility implications, it may be advantageous for the compatibility plan to include policies which take into account the anticipated changes. However, the compatibility plan still needs to be based upon the master plan which is in effect.
Airport Layout Plan Available
When a master plan does not exist or was never adopted by the airport owner, but an airport layout plan is available, the Division of Aeronautics is responsible for reviewing the plan and any associated activity projections for currency and suitability for airport land use planning purposes. The Division of Aeronautics may suggest modifications to the plan if deemed necessary.
No Airport Plan Exists
When no plan exists, the commission typically will need to prepare a simplified or diagrammatic airport layout drawing on which to base its land use compatibility plan. Such drawings need not be detailed. The only components essential to show are ones which may have off-airport compatibility implications—specifically: runways, runway protection zones, airport property lines and traffic patterns. Also, because lack of an airport layout plan mostly occurs only with regard to low-activity, often privately owned, airports for which few changes are anticipated, the plan merely needs to reflect the existing conditions.
Typical Airport Traffic pattern
Specific areas to be considered at and around airports are defined by two major Federal Aviation Administration criteria: Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 - Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 Airport Design Standards. These two primary documents provide the form the basis for delineating the limits of the environs affected by aircraft near airports.
FAR Part 77 establishes standards for determining which structures pose potential obstructions to air navigation. It does this by establishing standards for defining obstructions to navigable airspace. These airspace areas are referred to as "Imaginary Surfaces." Objects affected include existing or proposed objects of natural growth, terrain, or permanent or temporary construction including equipment that is permanent or temporary in character. The imaginary surfaces outlined in FAR Part 77 include Primary Surface
FAR Part 77 clearly defines these surfaces as follows:
Primary Surface: The primary surface is longitudinally centered on a runway. When the runway has a specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that runway. When the runway has no specially prepared hard surface, or planned hard surface, the primary surface terminates at each end of the runway. The width of a primary surface ranges from 250 feet to 1,000 feet depending on the existing or planned approach and runway type (i.e., visual, non precision, or precision).
Transitional Surface: Transitional surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and are extended at a slope of seven (7) feet horizontally for each foot vertically (7:1) from the sides of the primary and approach surfaces. The transitional surfaces extend to where they intercept the horizontal surface at a height of 150 feet above the runway elevation. For precision approach surfaces, which project through and beyond the limits of the conical surface, the transitional surface also extends a distance of 5,000 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the approach surface and at right angles to the runway centerline. depict the dimensional requirements of the transitional surface.
Horizontal Surface: The horizontal surface is a horizontal plane located 150 feet above the established airport elevation, covering an area from the transitional surface to the conical surface. The perimeter is constructed by swinging arcs from the center of each end of the primary surface and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those areas. The radius of each arc is 5,000 feet for all runway ends designated as utility or visual, or 10,000 feet for all other runway ends.
Conical Surface: The conical surface is a surface extending upward and outward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of one foot for every 20 feet (20:1) for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.
Approach Surface: Longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline, the approach surface extends outward and upward from the end of the primary surface. An approach surface is applied to each end of each runway based upon the type of approach. The approach slope of a runway is a ratio of 20:1, 34:1, or 50:1, depending on the sophistication of the approach. The length of the approach surface varies, ranging from 5,000 feet to 50,000 feet. The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface and expands uniformly to a width ranging from 1,250 feet to 16,000 feet depending on the type of runway and approach.
Compatible Land Uses
According to the Wisconsin Department of Aviation (2002), the types of airport compatible land uses depend on the location and size of the airport, as well as the type and volume of aircraft using the facility. Most commercial industrial uses, especially those associated with the airport, are good neighbors. Land uses where the airport creates the demand, such as motels, restaurants, warehouses, shipping agencies, aircraft related industries, as well as industries that benefit from access to an airport, are compatible land uses. At airport locations where there is not now a demand for these uses near the airport, communities may find it desirable to promote the use of this land for commercial or industrial use through a program of aids and incentives. Buildings and structures must not obstruct the aerial approaches to the airport, interfere with aircraft radio communications, or affect a pilot's vision due to glare or bright lights. Motels, restaurants and office buildings should also be soundproofed to make them more comfortable and attractive to clientele and employees. Other uses compatible with airports are large parks, conservatory areas and other open spaces. These land uses are created for public purposes and are opportunities for local government bodies to provide a compatible land use. Forestry services, landscape services, game preserves and some extractive industries such as mining and excavation are also land uses considered compatible with airports. Agriculture is another land use that is compatible with airport operations. While some types of animal farming are sensitive to aircraft noise, most agricultural uses are not adversely affected by airport operations. Agricultural land also allows the owner of property near the airport to make an efficient use of the land while benefiting the community in terms of airport protection.
Incompatible Land Uses
Incompatible airport land uses include residential development, schools, community centers, libraries, hospitals, religious service buildings, and tall structures. Residential housing is the most prevalent urban land use, and also the use most incompatible with aircraft operations. As residential developments fill the vacant or former agricultural land between the urban settlement and the airport, the possibility of the residential developments restricting the airport's potential increases. Residential growth restricts the airport by acquiring the land needed for expansion and by removing the buffer between the airport and residential neighborhoods. This buffer is important because it diminishes the impact of aircraft noise and lessens the possibility of an airplane accident in the residential neighborhood. As residential uses expand into this area around the airport, homeowners inevitably express concerns regarding safety and noise. Wisconsin experienced a strong population growth during the 1990's, gaining almost 400,000 new residents. Metropolitan counties showed the most rapid growth. During a period of strong or rapid growth, residential uses have often developed too close to an airport. However, with careful planning there is no reason for the continued encroachment on the airport by this type of incompatible land use.
Residential neighborhoods, schools, churches and other similar land uses are the most susceptible to the side effects of aircraft operations. It is neither in the interest of the homeowner nor the community to locate these uses where they will be subject to the greatest impact of aircraft takeoffs and landings. It is clearly in the public interest that action should be taken to prevent this land use conflict. Because this research seeks to highlight the impacts that land use have on the operations of the Tinson Pen, the aim is to identify the reciprocal effect of the aerodrome. Therefore the focus for the issue regarding residential communities locating near airports is not the associated noise impact on the community but the reciprocation of complaints which may apply pressure for an airport's closure. Other examples of incompatible land uses around airports include wetland mitigation, retention ponds, and land fills. These may appear to be good land uses around an airport but are restricted or could possibly be associated with wildlife hazards. Caution should also be exercised with wildlife preserves located near airports due to the possible wildlife hazards associated with them. The sound made by aircraft is a primary consideration in the determination of compatible land uses. Technical improvements in aircraft engines, flight paths that detour around populated areas, and changes in landing and takeoff procedures have continued to reduce the impact of aircraft noise. Aircraft will always create a level of noise that will make some land uses in the proximity of the airport incompatible.
The California Airport Land use compatibility handbook (2002) explained that airport land use compatibility concerns fall under two broad headings identified in state law: noise and safety. However, for the purposes of formulating airport land use compatibility policies and criteria, further divided these concerns into four categories. These categories are noise, safety, overflight and airspace protection.
The ICAO Environmental controls and land use (2001) highlighted the fact that there are basic categories of concern when discussing compatible land uses. The following outlines the top priority items that need to be addressed as part of a land use compatibility program. Some factors to consider include the density of developments and the height of structures. Other conditions to consider when planning for safe airport environs include distracting lights, reflective glare, smoke, dust, induced fog, electronic interference, and bird attractants. These conditions can distract the pilot and interfere with their safe approach and departure from an airport. Land uses that can lead to, or contribute to, these conditions should be discouraged in the airport environs. In particular, proposed development should not be permitted beneath the approach surface of a runway if that development generates any of the potentially hazardous conditions described in the following paragraphs. This is by no means an inclusive list, however, it illustrates the diverse types of land uses that a planner needs to be cognizant of when developing an airport land use plan.
A primary means of limiting the risks of damage or injury to persons or property on the ground due to near-airport aircraft accidents is to limit the density of land use development in these areas. The question of where to set these limits is dependent upon both the probability of an accident and the degree of risk that the community finds acceptable. From the previous sections, it is clear that accident probabilities increase with closer proximity to runway ends both because of greater concentration of aircraft over that area and because aircraft are flying at low altitude. The areas where aircraft regularly fly less than 500 feet above the ground are regarded as the most critical. Low flight altitudes present the greatest risks because they offer pilots less opportunity to recover from unexpected occurrences. Because aircraft are turning to follow the traffic pattern, this area encompasses more than just the area beneath the FAR Part 77 approach surface. Turns mostly take place between 2,000 and 5,000 feet from the runway end, depending upon the aircraft type, the number in the traffic pattern, and the pilot's flying techniques. These points raise the question of the degree of risk to which adjacent uses will be subjected. Perhaps the best measure of development density in this context is the number of persons per acre. Because the risks differ inside a building versus outside, different standards are often applied for each condition. Some airports and local communities have set development density limitations ranging from 25 to 100 people for various parts of a runway approach corridor. Shopping centers are likely to average about 75 people per acre and restaurants are often over 100. In general, high density residential development and places of public assembly should not be permitted in the airport's approach corridors.
Another facet of the safety/density issue is how to reduce the risks for the occupants of an aircraft in the event that an emergency landing cannot be avoided. Given that aircraft are normally controllable during an emergency descent, pilots will head for the best available open space if they cannot reach the airport. An open area does not have to be very large to enable a successful landing for the occupants to survive the accident with limited injury. Because the pilot's discretion in selecting an emergency landing site is reduced as the aircraft's altitude decreases, open areas should preferably be spaced more closely in those locations that aircraft can over-fly.
Height of Structures
As indicated in the previous section, Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulation provides basic guidance regarding the airport-vicinity airspace that should be protected from tall structures. The most critical locations with regard to height are beneath the airport approach surfaces. Tall objects in the approach corridors may pose risks even though they do not penetrate the defined Part 77 surfaces. Such objects can adversely affect minimum instrument approach altitudes. As such, the siting of multi-story facilities and communication towers should be carefully considered in relation to airport activities.
Lights that shine upward are potentially hazardous since they can detract from a pilot's ability to identify an airport at night. A pilot may perceive such lights from adjacent land uses as part of the airport and/or runway lights.
Reflective surfaces can produce a blinding glare, distracting pilots. Water surfaces and building materials also need to be considered with regards to glare.
Smoke generated by nearby business, industry, or field burning operations can create severe visual difficulties when a pilot is either looking for an airport or preparing to take-off or land. An extensive amount of smoke can drastically curtail airport operations. Dust, fog, and steam, that all contribute to reduced visibility can limit the effectiveness of an airport.
Land uses that generate electronic transmissions should not be permitted near airports. Such uses can interfere with aviation navigational signals and radio communications.
Water impoundments, garbage dumps, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants and certain species of flora and fauna often attract birds. Increased numbers of birds around airports increase the possibility of collisions between birds and aircraft. Damage to an aircraft and its occupants from a bird strike can be devastating. FAA Order 5200.5, Guidance Concerning Sanitary Landfills On or Near Airports, states that sanitary landfills, because of their bird attractive qualities, are considered to be an incompatible land use if located within specified distances as cited by the FAA. Advisory Circular 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports discusses the various incompatible land uses, and bird attractants are included in this list. It is stated in FAA Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook, that the FAA advises against locating such facilities within 5,000 feet of all runways accommodating or planned to accommodate piston-type aircraft, and within 10,000 feet of all runways accommodating or planned to accommodate turbine (jet) powered aircraft. Oregon State solid waste management rules dictate specific operating criteria for municipal and non-municipal solid waste landfill sites that encourage compatible land uses around airports. For example, the State's rules on landfill site location requirements relative to airports, coincide with the requirements set forth in FAA Order 5050.4A. In addition, the State requires that landfill sites be periodically covered with earth material to minimize bird attraction.1 Other potentially hazardous conditions should be recognized when planning
compatible land use in the airport environs. In general, places of public assembly; distracting lights, glare, smoke, electronic interference; and bird attractors should not be within runway protection zones, approach zones, transitional zones, or beneath the airport traffic pattern. Additionally, sources emitting electronic interference and bird attractors are not acceptable forms of land use within the horizontal and conical zones.
Importance of domestic Airports
GA airports provide an indispensable link to regional, state, and national transportation systems. This transportation link contributes to local and regional economies that in turn promote and sustain the GA airports. In 1993, the annual economic activity from GA airports contributed an estimated $18.5 million to the national economy (“The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy Update '93,”. In addition to the economic benefits contributed by GA airports, other vital GA activities include emergency medical flights, police and fire support, search and rescue operations, traffic reporting, and agricultural and environmental management operations.
During the nation's airport construction boom of the 1950s and 1960s, most GA airports were constructed with runway lengths of 3,000 to 4,000 feet. The airports were located away from communities, and were generally surrounded by agricultural or industrial land uses. The primary users of the new GA airports, during this period, were recreational flyers FAA Land Use compatibility and airports (1998).
GA airports were in limited use especially by the corporate world. Within the past two decades, GA airport has changed from serving weekend flyers to serving as an economic generator for local, regional, and state economies.
GA airports provide a needed service to corporations as they move people and goods through the country and within regions. Realizing the increased time and costs associated with many metropolitan airports, corporate flight operations are using GA airports located in suburban and rural areas. To accommodate the increased frequency by corporate aircraft, the GA airport sponsor is often faced with a need to extend the runway length, or enlarge the ramp and tie-down areas. Moreover, increased frequency of aircraft flights often increases the associated noise impacts to airport neighbors. This expanded role for the GA airport has created land use conflicts within many of our nation's communities.
Land Use Patterns around General Aviation Airports
Incompatible land uses around GA airports jeopardize the safety and efficiency of flying activities, and the quality of life of the community's residents. Incompatible airport land uses include residential development, schools, community centers and libraries, hospitals, and buildings used for religious services and tall structures, smoke and electrical signal generators landfills and other bird/wildlife attractants.
New housing demands generated by increased population are one of the contributing factors to incompatible land uses around both commercial service and general aviation airports. Communities are often confronted with the need and desire to expand their tax base by increasing residential and business development.
Residential development, particularly high-density development, is not compatible with airport operations due to aircraft noise impacts and for safety reasons. In some cases, the airport sponsor has not purchased or protected sufficient lands around the airport to prohibit the encroachment of incompatible land uses. Conversely, incompatibility may occur because an airport project has expanded in proximity of an existing residential neighborhood. The 3,500-foot runway, constructed in 1960, is now too short to accommodate larger, corporate aircraft: aircraft that are essential to the operation of nearby businesses.
For the community airport to meet the current and future needs of the general aviation airport and thereby continue contributing to the local and regional economies, it is the airport sponsor's responsibility to acquire sufficient land for airport expansion.
The siting of tall towers and other height hazards around an airport also creates an incompatible land use, as discussed in Section III. Towers in the airport airspace can endanger the safety of flight activity, the flying public, and people and property on the ground. The current proliferation of tall telecommunications towers will likely be followed by the rush of telecommunications companies to site digital towers. Siting towers in industrial parks, which are normally compatible uses with airports, tends to complicate the land use compatibility issue.
Land Use Controls at General Aviation Airports
Some land use control tools work better at large airports, whereas other tools may be better suited for use at smaller or medium-sized airports. There are simpler tools that have been successfully implemented at both air carrier and GA airports. A land use compatibility tool that often does not work well at small GA airports, however, is an airport noise compatibility plan generated with noise exposure contours.
FAA Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental handbook, states in part that “no noise analysis is needed at airports whose forecast operations . . do not exceed 90,000 annual propeller operations or 700 annual jet operations.” Aircraft noise analyses generally have shown that airports with 700 annual jet operations or 90,000 annual propeller operations do not produce noise exposure contours at significant levels.
For an airport to generate 700 annual jet operations, a jet airplane would land and depart nearly every day during a one-year period. For an airport to generate 90,000 annual propeller operations, a propeller aircraft would land and depart nearly 125 times a day, every day for one year. Although many large GA airports generate this level of activity, most small and medium-sized GA airports do not. This condition also describes the Tinson Pen aerodrome. Therefore, many GA airport owners are faced with the challenge of ensuring land use compatibility without the benefit of using aircraft noise exposure contours to establish compatibility.
In the absence of aircraft noise exposure contours, airport owners can define Airport Impact Zones and identify appropriate land use zoning for each impact zone.
Airport Impact Zones, defines the dimensions and locations of each zone. Airport Impact Zones would be added or modified based on individual airport conditions and future development projections. Typical Airport Impact Zones include:
• Airport Impact Zone 1 - Runway Protection Zone
• Airport Impact Zone 2 - Inner Safety Zone
• Airport Impact Zone 3 - Inner Turning Zone (60-degree sector)
• Airport Impact Zone 4 - Outer Safety Zone
• Airport Impact Zone 5 - Sideline Safety Zone
• Airport Impact Zone 6 - Traffic Pattern Zone
The local land use planner, the airport representative, and in some cases, an aviation consulting firm or state aviation personnel, should work together to identify the Airport Impact Zones and establish the appropriate zoning. In locations where the Airport Impact Zones are within multiple jurisdictions, representatives from each jurisdiction would be involved in the planning and implementation process. Appropriate land use zoning would be established to ensure compatibility of land uses and development densities around the airport. Zoning also would control the construction of tall structures in the airport's airspace, electronic interference with the airport's navigation aids, and wildlife attractants around the airport.
Recommended land uses and densities of land development are different depending on the particular Airport Impact Zone. For example, the recommended land use in Zones 1, 2 and 5 would prohibit residential development and allow low-density (less than five people per acre) industrial development. Recommended land uses in Zones 3 and 4 would range from zero to low-density residential development and industrial development ranging from 25 to 40 people per acre. Recommended land uses in Airport Impact Zone 6 would allow low-density residential development and industrial development accommodating fewer than 100 people per acre.
importance of the Tinson Pen aerodrome to Jamaica's Air Transportation system
It is essentially to evaluate the importance of theTinson Pen Aerodrome to Jamaica's air Transport System from a planning perspective inorder establish the rationale for this research project. It is important to look at it from historical context to as establish the relevance of Tinson Pen as a microcosm of the overall significance of the Domestic air transport system. By extension, domestic aerodromes have been critical to the development of the aviation industry in Jamaica, dating back to the early 1900's.
According to Tortello (2006), Subsequent to the start of World War I, many young men left Jamaica to join the Royal Flying Corps, later to be renamed the Royal Air Force (RAF). Many of the army pilots upon their return were forced to give up flying as there was no national airline or Air Wing with which to work.
Commercial aviation did not begin in Jamaica until December 3, 1930, when a Pan American Consolidated Commodore twin engine flying boat landed in Kingston Harbour. In 1931 Caribbean Airways completed the registration of the first local carrier and began to offer service between Kingston and Santiago de Cuba coupled with a mail service. Later Jamaica saw the emergence of the Flying boat service from Miami during the war years and expanded to Montego Bay, offshore the Doctor's Cave Beach and Casa Blanca Hotel.
However the flying boat service was discontinued in 1944 when Pan Am started a land-plane service into the Palisadoes facility previously known as the Royal Navy Air Station, built by the British in 1940. This ushered in the dominance of domestic aerodromes throughout Jamaica. Other carriers such as British West Indian Airways joined the industry. Intra-island or domestic air transport service began in 1946 with the establishment of the company Jamaica Air Transport with regularly scheduled flights between Kingston and Montego Bay.
Palisadoes was chosen as the location for the capital city's airport (now Norman Manley International) due to its close proximity to Kingston, its ability to accommodate land and sea planes, its accessibility by road and boat, the room it offered for expansion, the easy facilitation of land reclamation and the natural protection afforded it by the dunes that bordered the sea front. Before the redevelopment of the Palisadoes facility it was the buttress for establishing a commercial link between Kingston and Montego Bay.
The close to 30 private domestic airfields listed in Jamaica at that time, performed critical functions. This included the transport of dignitaries, pilot training and emergency search and rescue, evacuation missions and medical airlifts.
It was subsequent to the establishment of the Jamaica defense force Air Wing in 1963 that the Tinson Pen aerodrome played an active role in complimenting the activities of the then Palisadoes aerodrome. Most JDF Air Wing pilots learned to fly in the JDF, however some were able to receive formal training prior to enrollment with a Aviation School known as Wings Jamaica. The company was formed in 1959 with an aim of spearheading the growth of commercial aviation in Jamaica. During this period pilots were also trained at Rutt Air, another flying school based at a domestic aerodrome in Montego Bay. The national airline (Air Jamaica) which started in 1966 under a tripartite agreement between the Jamaican government, the British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) and British West Indian Airways (BWIA) had pilots trained by Wings Jamaica. By 1974, Wings Jamaica moved its base of operations to the Tinson Pen aerodrome where it stands today. This move had reinforced the relevance of the Tinson Pen aerodrome to the aviation industry.
Tinson Pen became the Kingston Hub for domestic air travel. Since independence when BWIA instituted The Jamaica Air Service (JAS) flights were offered linking Kingston to Montego Bay, Ocho Rios and Port Antonio. These prime domestic routes based out of Tinson Pen and Norman Manley International have been in the constant flux of success and failure since the early 1960's. Trans Jamaica which was created and controlled by the Jamaican government took over these routes. Again in 1996 Air Jamaica assumed control of these routes and renamed this affiliate Air Jamaica Express Bryan, (2003). However it as well ceased operations in 2005.
The four domestic aerodromes Ken Jones, Boscobel, Negril and Tinson Pen are critical to Jamaica's air transportation system. Their proximity to major resorts and city centres makes them especially important in the intra-island movement of tourists, leisure and business passengers, as well as light cargo around the island. Ken Jones is located just ten kilometres west of Port Antonio and serves the tourist resorts in the Northeast section of Jamaica as well as the local travel market. Boscobel aerodrome is located approximately 10 km west of the resort town of the tourist resort of Ocho Rios, in northern Jamaica. Negril aerodrome is situated just 7 kilometres north of Negril Point and serves primarily the tourist resorts located in the western end of the country. The strategic locations of these aerodromes at major tourist destination in the domestic air transport system reinforces the need for the Kingston leg (Tinson Pen) to provide the final commercial link. Tinson Pen, located near the capital city of Kingston is the largest of the country's four domestic aerodrome, It located only 0.7 miles from the New Port West, the largest trans-shipment port in the English-speaking Caribbean, 1.7 miles from Half Way Tree, 2.6 miles from Cross Roads and 2 miles from New Kingston.
It has emerged over the years into a vital commercial link between Kingston and Montego Bay. It caters mainly to business travellers and offers a variety of small parcel services with daily flights to the resort cities of Montego Bay, Negril, Ocho Rios and Port Antonio Airports Authority of Jamaica (2007). It currently facilitates non-scheduled and private aircrafts, flight training schools and aircraft maintenance. It's operations have expanded to include the services of International Airlink; Wings Jamaica Limited, Caribbean Aviation Centre, Island Aviation Service, Air Speed Limited, Strescon and Tara Couriers.
According to the Economic and social survey (2007) The hilly nature of the island dictates average speeds on intercity routes of 65km/hr. Thus Boscobel, which is a two hour trip by road, is only Twenty minutes by air. Negril is three and one half hours by road and 45 minutes by air. This reduced travel time has made domestic air transport out of Tinson Pen a viable transport alternative. Reference made to an interview with the Tinson Pen Aerodrome Manager Mr Cedric Perue highlighted just how important its operations were to the business community. He made mention of the fact that a number executives from commercial banks, insurance companies, private entities and government agencies utilize their services daily for cross country flights. He also highlighted that the aerodrome acted a base of operation for Sandals, Superclubs, Tankwell, Cool Runnings and Megamart. It must also be noted that all general aviation maintenance is done at Tinson Pen. Domestic business travel and the efficiency of many businesses depend on Tinson Pen rather than Norman Manley because the time required for passenger pre-boarding security procedures at Norman Manley Airport would exceed the actual flying time to the resort destinations by a factor of three to four times FAA Land use compatibility and Airports have articulated similar benefits with Domestic airports in the United States. It outline that domestic airports provide a needed service to corporations. This Realization was attributed to the increased time and costs associated with many metropolitan airports. corporate flight operations have shifted to using Domestic airports located in suburban and rural areas.
The prolonged closure of the Norman Manley International Airport as a result of hurricane damage to the Palisadoes road in 2004 and 2007 has compelled the Tinson Pen Aerodrome to become a critical backup facility.
Tinson Pen airport Locality boundaries
According to the Virginia Department of Aviation (2006), to implement effective land use planning and control measures around airports, it is necessary to identify specific planning boundaries. These boundaries will define the airport environs for land-use planning purposes. Essentially, one of the most debilitating problems faced by domestic airports in Jamaica is diminutive emphasis placed on land use planning around aerodromes and its economic viability when compared with our international airports. Ideally, to delineate the precise planning boundaries of Tinson Pen aerodrome one should derive this information from an airport master plan, comprehensive plan or airport layout Plan.
Rational for Tinson Pen Boundary
Unfortunately Tinson Pen does not have any of the aforementioned plans prepared exclusively as expressed by the aerodrome manager. The aerodrome is also classified as an advisory airspace falling within the Norman Manley control zone. The implications of this related to the fact that Tinson Pen does not posess it own airspace but rather operates within Norman Manley Airspace. Consequently Tinson Pen Tower only offers airport advisory service to arriving and departing aircraft. Landing and departing aircraft advisory include wind direction, velocity altimeter settings, the favourable runway, visibility, airport conditions and any potential obstructions From the Ground Up (2000). The airport advisory does not exercise actual traffic control but will advise all aircraft in the area of known and observed traffic. In light of fact that Tinson Pen does not posses its own controlled airspace and lack an airport layout plan, establish an airport locality boundary is arduous. However, there are import components of a standard airport layout plan which must be established as part of the Tinson Pen airport locality boundary for planning purposes. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2002) purported that the airport layout plan should include drawings showing the locations of existing and proposed airport runways, runway protection zones, property boundaries, and any other features which have implications for land use compatibility. The airport layout plan would include Safety Zones, Standard Traffic Patterns, Overflight Areas and Noise Contours. Additionally, it represents the different imaginary surfaces surrounding the airport, known as obstacle limitation surfaces. As noted in ICAO Annex 14 (1999), the airspace around the aerodrome should be maintained free from obstacles, so as to permit the intended aircraft operations at the aerodromes to be conducted safely and to prevent the aerodromes from being rendered inoperable by virtue of the emergence growth of obstacles around the aerodromes. This can be achieved by establishing a series of obstacle limitation surfaces that define the limits to which objects may project into the airspace. Therefore for the planning boundaries around Tinson Pen to be precisely delineated it must have combination diagrams illustrating noise contours, standard Traffic pattern, safety zones overflight areas and obstacle limitation surfaces derived from an airport layout plan.
In the absence of an airport layout plan for the Tinson Pen aerodrome the question of how to establish the airport locality boundaries must be asked. From the literature review the The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2002) identified an alternative procedure for delimiting airport locality boundaries in the absence of an airport layout plan. When no plan exists, the procedure involves the preparation of a simplified or diagrammatic airport layout drawing on which to base its land use compatibility planning. Such drawings need not be detailed. The only components essential to show are ones which may have off-airport compatibility implications, specifically: runways, runway protection zones, airport property lines traffic pattern..
After consultation with the different Pilots and operators at the Tinson aerodrome regarding the location and the extent to which, adjacent land uses affects the aerodrome operation a final determination was made as to what airport locality boundaries should include. The Tinson Pen Boundaries to be depicted for this research is the Standard Traffic pattern, airport property lines, runway, and the obstacle limitation surfaces. The Obstacle limitation surfaces standards is in accordance with ICAO annex 14. The requirements for obstacle limitation surfaces are specified on the basis of the intended use of a runway, and type of approach, and are intended to be applied when such use is made of the runway. The airport operations manual defines Tinson Pen as a Non-Instrument 2C. Based on the ICAO annex 14 this means that the obstacle limitation surfaces for a non instrument runway: shall include the conical surface, inner horizontal surface, approach surface, and transitional surface. However The stakeholders at the aerodrome expressed outline that the land use impact are neglible beyond the Horizontal surface. Therefore the obstacle limitation surfaces to be represented is limited to the approach and horizontal surface.
The History of Land Use Change within the Tinson Pen Airport Locality
According to Colin (2006) the population of Kingston more than doubled between 1921 and 1943. This growth was accommodated both by the concentration of even a larger numbers within parts of the city which dated back to the nineteenth century and by suburban development on the Liguanea Plain. The largest concentration was in West Kingston, where densities exceeded 191 persons per acre in the single storey tenements that extended from Spanish Town Road to North Street and the Kingston Public Hospital .
In 1952 the industrial Development Corporation (IDC) was established in Kingston to stimulate, facilitate and undertake the development of industry. The government's objective was to provide employment for the increasing population and not specifically to produce more wealth. An industrial estate of 300 acres was established on reclaimed land at Three Miles in West Kingston. The IDC granted direct loans to provide working capital and supplied a variety of other services including marketing surveys and feasibility studies; in certain cases factory buildings were constructed for rental. However only a limited number of local capitalists were prepared to invest in manufacturing
In 1960 retailing premises were also distributed along the ribbon developments which followed the main lines of communication inclusive of Maxfield Road and Spanish Town Road which are within the study area. Conditions of extreme poverty in West Kingston gave rise to on illegal market situated on the Spanish town Road slightly beyond three miles. During this Tim Kingston was still the largest port in Jamaica, handling 40 per cent of the islands export of sugar. Land devoted to wholesaling was largely restricted to the area between the harbour and the finger piers. The facilities available for handling and storing and transporting goods were inadequate. Improvements were confined to the building of warehouses along Marcus Garvey Drive in West Kingston, for certain export crop such as coffe and cocoa. The IDC's industrial estate was deemed as an efficient location for industry, since West Kingston had easy access to the port via Marcus Garvey.
During 1966 there was a transition of wharf owners in the old port establishing berths at Newport West. The Town Planning Department decided that Kingston should expand southwestward around Hunts Bay which focused primarily on the areas adjacent to Dawkings Pond and Hellshire Hills. However the major problem encountered was addressing the issue of linking the new settlement to Kingston. The Portmore Land Development Corporation responded by in 1969 by linking Dawkins Pond to Newport West via the causeway which is found within the study area.
Post Independence introduced significant land use changes in West Kingston, especially at the port. The proximity of the port to the central business district added greatly to the congestion of the commercial area, and in the port itself handling of cargo was slow and hampered by the system of finger piers. The demand for alongside berths with the possibility of containerization was the catalyst the Foreshore development corporation (FDC). FDC was setup by local capitalists with the aim of constructing New Port West. The area to be developed was adjacent to Marcus Garvey Drive and the industrial estate and was covered by garbage dumps, marsh, and squatter camps with a low population density. Consequently modern port facilities were laid out at New Port East for oil refining and Newport West for container berths. This created a substantial warehousing and industrial zone on the foreshore of West Kingston Clarke (1971). Between 1970 and 1980 industry and warehousing had expanded along the Spanish Town Road near Three Miles. According to the urban growth and Management study (1978) highlighted the fact that the bulk of industrial zoned land located parallel to Marcus Garvey Drive was vacant. One of the problems wit regard to the planning of industrial locations in the Kingston Metropolitan Region is the slow rate (except warehousing and other port related activities) at which these industrial estates were developing. Industrial surveys conducted in 1968 and 1970 revealed that very little industrial development had taken place in the zoned area outside Newport East and West within the 2year. It was discovered that nearly 80 new factories had been established throughout other parts of Kingston's urban area amounting to a total acreage of 61 acres. The use of land outside of the industrial estate raised the question about the factors that influenced businesses to chose sites elsewhere. Some locations chosen by business men contravened existing zoning regulations. These developments overtook areas which were exclusively residential such as Callman Town, Franklin Town and Maxfield Park (within the study area). The Jamaica Industrial Development Corporation recognized the need for factory space by small businesses and established small industry complexes. There were three in the KMR, namely White Marl, Manchester square and Marcus Garvey Drive.
Existing Land use Within Airport locality Boundary
The Tinson Pen aerodrome is bordered by Marcus Garvey Drive along its western and south western property line Boundary. This area forms part of the Kingston Waterfront. The dominant land use occurring is Industrial/warehousing. It is within this area that Newport West is found at approximately 0.7 miles from Tinson Pen. The Kingston Container Terminal (KCT), which is operated under a management contract by APM Terminals (Jamaica) Ltd, is a transshipment port that consists of a North and South Terminal A myriad of heavy duty equipment is found on site including:
- 3 mobile cranes
- 74 straddle carriers
- 24 trailer trains
- 4 train tractors
The North Terminal
- 413 metres of berth space for docking of vessels
- 47 hectares of yard space for stacking containers;
- 4 super-Post Panamax ship-to-shore gantry cranes
The South Terminal (Gordon Cay)
- 1,220 metres of berth space
- 5 post-Panamax gantry cranes
- 8 super post-Panamax ship-to-shore gantry cranes
- 82 hectares (25 unpaved) of container storage space
Further Southeast along Marcus Garvey Drive is the Petrojam refinery. It is a 36,000 barrel per day hydroskimming refinery that produces a full range of domestic, transportation and industrial petroleum products.
The Northwestern and eastern boundary of the Tinson Pen property line is demarcated by the intersection of Marcus Garvey Drive and the Portmore leg of Highway 2000 and the industrial estate of 300 acres at Three Miles in West Kingston respectively.
The residential community of Greenwich Town is found directly beneath the approach path of runway 32 and extends southeasternly for 0.4 miles until it . Runway 14's approach path however is predominantly undeveloped. The only physical infrastructure found spanning this area is railway line from the now defunct Kingston Railway Station located in Downtown Kingston.
Spanish Town Road runs parallel to Marcus Garvey Drive 0.6 miles north is. The land uses north of Spanish Town Road which fall within the study area extends from the Horizon Remand Centre to a distance along Spanish Town Road of approximately 0.5 miles to its intersection with Marcus Garvey and Hagley Park Road. North above Spanish Town Road between the aforementioned limits, the dominant land use is Residential including the communities of Delacree Pen, Whitfield Town and MaxField Park. The linear developments along Spanish Town Road show some level of variation in the types of land uses. There is the Maypen cemetery, institutional activities (Horizon Remand Centre, St Andrew Technical High School), Commercial (small shops, garages, gas stations), Industrial (Akali Group of Companies, Kingston Industrial Work) and numerous derelict buildings.
COMPATIBLE AND INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES
The assessment of the impacts that existing land use have on the Tinson Pen Aiport's operation is contingent upon the degree to which adjacent land use in compatible or incompatible. The urban form and function of the study area has been greatly determined by goverments intervention. The use of land use regulation tools to zone the area north and south of the airport industrial coupled with the emergence of informal settlements along Marcus Garvey Drive and Spanish Town Road has dictated spatial layout and functional characteristics of the study area. It is argued by members of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots' Association that local governments review and approve uses and structures with minimal attention to the effects they will have on the Tinson airport operations. Local officials may make decisions detrimental to an airport for a variety of reasons, including the promise of substantial fiscal benefits from certain types of commercial uses and industrial uses or simply unawareness about how a perfectly acceptable development in other circumstances can have potentially devastating impacts on airport operations. the two primary categories of compatibility risks to airports are uses that put too many people on the ground in harm's way, Airspace obstructions and uses that may interfere with actual aircraft flight or may distract pilots Minnesota Department of Aviation (2006).
The ICAO Environmental controls and land use (2001) highlighted the fact that there are basic categories of concern when assessing compatible land uses. Some factors to consider include the type and density of developments, height of structures, distracting lights, reflective glare, smoke, dust, induced fog, electronic interference, and bird attractants. These conditions can distract the pilot and interfere with their safe approach and departure from an airport. Land uses that can lead to, or contribute to, these conditions should be discouraged in the airport environs. See Table it gives a general synopsis of the what land uses are compatible within the diffirent obstacle limitation surfaces are an airport
The issue of noise compatibility is not a critical issue for land uses within the Tinson Pen airport locality. The intricate process of determining aircraft Overflight areas, measuring noise level for noise sensitive uses such as libraries, schools, hospitals and developing noise contours around The Tinson Pen aerodrome is not needed. The rational for excluding these processes is derived from the Oregon Department of Aviation (2003) study. It purported that the land use compatibility tool that often does not work well at small domestic airports is an airport noise compatibility plan generated with noise exposure contours. FAA Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental handbook, states in part that “no noise analysis is needed at airports whose forecast operations do not exceed 90,000 annual propeller operations or 700 annual jet operations.” Aircraft noise analyses results have shown that these airports do not produce noise exposure contours at significant levels.
To the achieve this level of jet and propeller operation a jet aircraft would land and depart nearly every day during a one-year period and a propeller aircraft would land and depart nearly 125 times a day, every day for one year. This certainly does not describe the mundane activities at the Tinson Pen aerodrome See Figure The highest level of activity was seen in 2004 with a total movement annual movement of 23,862. This coincided with the period during which Air Jamaica Express was operational. Additional the Tinson Pen operations manual states that the most restrictive type of aircraft that can operate at the airport is the 41 seater De Havilland Canada DHC-8-100/200 Dash aircraft. The is a twin engine regional turboprop airliner. This type of aircraft along with single engine aircraft such as the Cessna 150, Cessna 172 Cessna 208 Grand Caravan that operate daily have miniscule noise profile. See figure.
From the land use map it is indicative that industrial land use is the most dominant activity at the industrial estate and Newport West are located with the Transition Zone and horizontal surface. These activities are noise compatible land uses. However the community of Greenich town which is located directly within the approach surface of Runway 32 is only 50 metres from the primary surface. This condition has the potential of generating small degree of noise nuisance. This is because aircraft which are on final approach for runway 32 once aloft the 50 metre mark are typically between 70 to 100 feet above the Greenwich Town community. The low altitude of aircraft on final amplifies the noise generated by small aircraft operating at the aerodrome. The noise generated from small aircraft taking off using runway 32 is of minimal concern. This is because the noise generated by small aircraft preparing for take off at full throttle is ephemeral once the aircraft is in motion. The airport manager had confirmed that there have been no complaints formally or informally lodged from residents of the Greenwich Town community
Height of Structures.
The aspect has proven to be problematic for the Tinson Pen aerodrome. The first impact is related to the Portmore Leg of Highway 2000. Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulation The most critical locations with regard to height are beneath the airport approach surfaces. The satellite imagery acquired for the study area is not current, therefore it does not depict the Portmore Leg of the Highway 2000 project see Figure, However as the image show it falls within the approach surface of runway 14. The Environmental Impact Assessment Report on Highway 2000 Portmore to Causeway revealed that The interchange proposed at the intersection of Highway 2000 with Marcus Garvey Drive would create complications due to the proximity of the flight paths and the critical envelope of the Tinson Pen Aerodrome. The engineer design team assessed the Tinson Pen flight paths and critical envelope inorder to design the interchange to take account of the flight path requirements and not to form an obstruction. The National Environment Planning Agency (NEPA) had expressed concerns over the interchange design. Subsequently, TransJamaican Highway on May 14, 2003 responded with the following clarification: “In order not to form an obstacle to aircraft operations and eventual aerodrome extension, a grade separated interchange has been designed, with an overpass and loop located approximately 600m in the west of the actual intersection. The parts of the future road which are located within the 15% envelope needed for plane arrivals and departures are not more elevated than the existing road - this means in the average less than 0.60 m above ground level. The new road forms by no means an obstacle to aircraft operations”.
The second height restriction problem is encountered is due south of the aerodrome at Newport West within the horizontal surface. The standard traffic pattern utilized at Tinson Pen is a left hand pattern that is flown at 800 feet as depicted in Figure It incorporates a upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind leg, base leg and final approach leg. When runway 14 is in use for take off and landing, aircraft in the traffic pattern are north of the aerodrome and parallel Spanish Town approximately o.5 miles from Tinson Pen. The Chief instructor of Caribbean Aviation Centre outlined the fact that when runway 32 is in use for takeoff and landing the standard left hand traffic pattern cannot be maintained as part of operational procedure. This is because the Height of the Cranes, Port lights and stacked container storage see Fig would force aircraft negotiate the trafiic pattern too close to aerodrome thereby restricting maneuverability or operate too far making flights uneconomical. Therefore the port facility has restricted Tinson Pen to an unconventional right hand traffic pattern away from the port when runway 32 is in use. With the exception of Newport west all other land use within the airport locality has not introduced any notably height obstruction.
Transport Canada (2005) identified that severe problems arise when birds make regular flights across airport properties—when they fly between roosts and feeding areas, for instance. The greatest problem at many airports is the presence of one or more waste disposal sites within the vicinity. Landfills that accept putrescible or edible waste are major attractant of hazardous bird species. The Riverton City Dump is located outside of the Tinson Pen airport locality. However the Transport Canada study established a criterion that garbage disposal landfills should be sited a minimum of 8 km away from the airport. Riverton City dumps 3km west of Runway 14 approach surface. Interviews with operators at Tinson Pen had highlighted the problem of aircraft bird strikes occurring along the approach path of runway 14. There is a high probability that the Riverton dump attracts birds from the Kingston Harbour which scavenge for organic matter at the dump site. Douglas (2000-2002) seabird study in the Kingston Harbour showed that three types of birds Royal Terns, Brown Pelicans and the Sandwich Terns were the main species of birds observed over this period. The movement of these large birds within the horizontal surface and approach surface is a potentially dangerous condition which must be addressed.
Smoke generated by nearby business, industry, or field burning operations may induce severe visual difficulties when a pilot during navigation or in preparation to take-off or land. An extensive amount of smoke can drastically curtail airport operations. Dust, fog, and steam, that all contribute to reduced visibility can limit the effectiveness of an airport. Pilots from Tara courier expressed that industrial activity with the airport locality has not severely affect visibility at the aerodrome. Directly east of the aerodrome on the leeward side of Long mountain, visibility is reduced mainly because of the emission from the Carib Cement factory. This of course does hamper operations at the Tinson Pen aerodrome because it fall outside the aerodrome locality by approximately 6 miles. However it has by the Airport authority report that when the Riverton Dump is on fire for prolonged period as was the case in 2005 and 2007, smoke particles had drifted to the airport locality due to prevailing southwesterly winds. The visibility at the aerodrome was reduced to 2-3 miles. This is particularly dangerous to aircraft operating under Visual flight rules (VFR). It are a set of aviation regulations under which a pilot may operate an aircraft in weather conditions sufficient to allow the pilot, by visual reference to the environment outside the cockpit, to control the aircraft's attitude, navigate, and maintain safe separation from obstacles such as terrain, buildings, and other aircraft. The stipulated weather minima for VFR aircraft within Tinson Pen uncontrolled airspace below 1000 feet above the surface is not less than 2 miles. This puts the reduced visibility of 2-3 miles dangerously close to the threshold.
The Port lights from figure have been beneficial to ground operations at Tinson Pen in the night. The orientation of the lights focus on the port however the intensity of the light has a luminescent effect close to the aerodrome which is poorly lit. Lights, depending on its orientation and intensity are potentially hazardous since they can detract from a pilot's ability to identify an airport at night. A pilot may perceive such lights from adjacent land uses as part of the airport and/or runway lights. Fortunately the operators at the Aerodrome have not expressed any concerns regarding light distractions of this nature.
Washington State Department of Transportation (2006) determined that the problem of encroachment is primarily attributed to the expansion of Urban areas and the pursuit of dense developments, undeveloped around airports and Local land use authorities not always well informed about adverse impacts on airports. In an article compatible land use planning initiative (1998) it indentified One of the most incompatible land uses near airports is residential encroachment. It argued that most stress on an airport is because of the complaints generated by individuals. In many cases politicians, in an effort to expand the tax base of local government at the expense of the airport, opting instead for short-term financial gains. The implication of residential encroachment on the Tinson Pen aerodrome has manifested it is a different way. The problem is seen in the community Greenwich Town, which is located in the approach surface of runway 32. There is a critical safety concern for both residents and aircraft operating at the aerodrome. A primary means of limiting the risks of damage or injury to persons or property on the ground due to near-airport aircraft accidents is to limit the density of land use development in these areas Oregon Department of Aviation (2006). The great majority of general aviation aircraft landing accidents take place on or immediately adjacent to the runway. Indeed, National Transportation Safety Board data between 1990 -2000 indicated that three-fourths (77%) of all general aviation landing accidents occur during touchdown or roll-out (usually hard or long landings, ground loops, etc.). it is clear that accident probabilities increase with closer proximity to runway ends both because of greater concentration of aircraft over that area and because aircraft are flying at low altitude. Landing aircraft at Tinson Pen get to as close as 50 to 70 feet of the Greenwich Town. This does not contravene ICAO standards state that for built up areas the minimum altitude at which an aircraft in VFR flight may be flown over any community or open air assembly is 1000 feet with exception of when landing or taking off. Despite this fact, aircraft accidents involving over shooting or under shooting runway 32 poses a serious safety concern for the community.
The issue of industrial encroachment is seemingly contradictory because Industrial land use under certain condition is deemed a compatible land use with airport activities. However land is a finite resource and is subject to population pressures to use it for multiplicity of purposes. Similarly, the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (2003) postulated that the Ukiah Municipal Airport in the United States faced pressure from nearby development land use conflicts among competing users, whether residential, commercial, industrial or aviation, occured as density of development increased near the. Tinson Pen Through the years, that particular part of Montgomery County in Maryland has seen tremendous residential and industrial development, some of it because of the airport. Unfortunately, poor local zoning allowed too many residences, too close. Today, noise-related phone calls are a common occurrence and are a real problem for the airport. In addition, because the sponsor failed to plan for the future of the airport, the airport is land locked, with little, if any, potential for expansion. By seeking excessive industrial development near the airport, and using much of the land that way, the airport has cut off its ability to expand. Subsequently, the airport faces parking and hangar problems, which is a terrible thing today because that particular airport, being so close to Washington, DC, and to adequate round transportation, could have been a terrific GA and corporate airport for the Washington metropolitan area.