General Aviation Stakeholder Meeting
June 24, 2024
TL;DR
No changes to hangar spaces until 2030.
Site T will remain at least until the lease expires in 2039.
They are open to new construction but water and utilities are an issue.
Keeping Rwy 7/25 open is an issue of funding and space for GA expansion.
They will keep us in the loop with a monthly newsletter.
Courtney, Bill Borgsmiller (ACI) and Bruce Gibson are focused on attracting a light aircraft maintenance shop.
Let Trevor ‘tbrumm’ at the airport email site ‘co.slo.ca.us’ know if you want to be on the list and didn’t get the notification for this meeting.
Courtney Johnson (CJ), Courtney Pene, and Trevor Brumm (TB) were present for the airport
Trevor had a short presentation covering:
Construction
Taxiway A will have mill and overlay resurfacing in the summer of 2025 that should last 5 years.
A new exit (B3) from Rwy 29 will be constructed in the summer of 2025.
Tenants
Do not park trailers and lifts outside of hangars.
Hangar inspections have begun. They are looking to make sure the hangars are used for aeronautical purposes* and the hazardous materials are stored properly. Finish up remaining hangars in July.
Oceano
They are looking for bike donations, fixed gear with rear brakes.
Discussion opened.
There is an ongoing issue with trash cans at Site N. It’s not interesting to those not affected but the result is that they will look into putting a dumpster there and get back to Site N tenants at the end of the week.
There is a new Community Engagement person starting on July 8th. Later on in the discussion several people asked about increasing communications from the airport and several people were in favor of a monthly email. CJ thought that would be a good idea. People said to do it even if it was just to say “there is nothing to say”. Dylan Krassensky (tower manager) offered to provide info as well.
If you are not already on the email list, send a request to Trevor ‘tbrumm’ at the airport email site ‘co.slo.ca.us’
CJ stated several times that they will not displace anyone from hangars ‘until the last possible minute’.
Maureen Sherman asked about the plans for Site T and CJ stated there will be no changes to the lease until it expires (March 31, 2039). This is good news since the depiction on the Airport Master Plan shows these hangars disappearing.
(CJ) Construction for the widening of Taxiway A will not begin until 2030 at the earliest. Before that happens an RFP will be issued for development of sites J and K. Anyone can bid on the RFP. Erik Steeb asked that we (SLO Pilots Association and GA pilots) be allowed to participate in the crafting of the RFP and the criteria for awarding the contract. CJ appeared to agree. Proposals could include keeping some of the existing hangars as long as they did not break the TOFA (Taxiway Object Free Area) line.
Allan Settle (Airport Land Use Commissioner and airplane owner) raised the issue of keeping Rwy 7/25 for a safety area if the main runway is closed. (After the meeting I asked Dylan if that is possible and in general the answer is yes, it depends on where the accident aircraft is located and the severity of the accident. The closure of both runways about a month ago when a taildragger ground looped was because it happened right at Rwy 25. The airport was closed for 45 minutes, so make sure you always land with enough fuel to get to PRB or SMX plus reserves.) CJ said that when the plan was developed she fought to keep Rwy 7/25 but that it is not feasible to do so and allow for future GA expansion. (This issue was brought up several times and it’s not clear why other areas are not available for future development. The Chevron Superfund site and PFAS contamination were mentioned. I have included info on both and will ask TB for details.)
At the end of the meeting Eric Paton mentioned that he does engine out exercises with his students and that landing on Rwy 25 can be done 200' lower than returning to Rwy29.
(CJ) The plan is for pushing the middle section of Taxiway A out 400' in 2030. The restaurant will be closed just before construction begins. Old terminal will be removed and a new building constructed. The existing restaurant will be given the opportunity to bid on the new space.
The lack of A&Ps on the field was brought up and Bill Borgsmiller (BB ACI) said that he is actively working to get a small GA mechanic. Possibly using the old space (Large blue hangar next to the terminal.) or build a building in the old hush house on Site L (The wall where the Airliners used to run up.) He’s working with Cuesta to see if any of their A&P graduates will be interested.
Chris Szarek asked when the last commercial RFP was approved and it was at least 40 years ago [It was 1986 for Site Q]. He also asked if the current AMP was still in effect and CJ said yes. That plan calls for hangars along Rwy 7/25.
If I am summarizing CJ correctly, the issue right now for any expansion of hangars is utilities, specifically water. The airport is at the end of the line for water from the city and there is no capacity to increase the amount. That affects fire suppression systems in any new hangars. She is working to get key pieces in line before any RFPs can be issued.
Ron Moray asked about new funding in the last FAA budget: could include keeping Rwy 7/25 open. CJ said there is no funding for keeping it open. Funding would have to come from tenant fees.
A woman I don’t know (Annie?) asked about 100LL availability in the future. (BB ACI) talked about the current options, Swift which requires an STC and is for (low compression engines), GAMI 100LL which also requires an STC for (higher compression engines). He can’t get either at the moment. People in the audience brought up the fact that using either of these fuels voids the Continental and Lycoming waranties.
There is another fuel in development, SAF that meets the ASTM spec so no STC would be required.
G100UL As ‘Unapproved’ For Cirrus SR Series
GAMI Responds to Cirrus G100UL Service Advisory
Lycoming Clarifies G100UL Warranty Impact
FAA APPROVED MODEL LIST (AML)
Developing Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)
Chris Szarek brought up the issue of safety markings for UPS planes next to the fuel pumps. The FEDEX planes have markings on the ground where moving props are located. No markings are on the ground next to the UPS planes.
Ron Moret asked whether the FAA grant considered safety concerns for GA. Can Rwy25 be extended. I think the answer was no because it is a Superfund Site because of PFAS. [We need to follow up on that since I don’t know what that means. See below.]
Chris Isler brought up that Long Beach has separated GA from the airlines rather successfully and wondered if that would work here. CJ is open to keeping the runway open but long-term it is not sustainable.
There are several plans with different timeframes that have been submitted to the FAA she will put the interim plan online.
Someone asked what will happen if we don’t make these changes and CJ said the airlines will pull out. [Not likely. The changes are going to happen.]
We cannot restrict the size of planes that the airlines fly into here.
After the meeting Eric Paton and John Scarry talked to Dylan. He would be happy if GA used Rwy 25 more, especially for takeoffs to the practice areas and the east as long as pilots stay off the extended centerline. Crossing over the runway to the north is a bit problematic. He’s also fine with landing on Rwy 7 or 25 and touch and goes or taxi-backs on Rwy 25.
=====
* Aeronautical Purposes
What aeronautical uses of a hangar are permissible? Link
FAA Response.
Storage of active aircraft.
Shelter for maintenance, repair, or refurbishment of aircraft, but not the indefinite storage of non-operational aircraft.
Construction of amateur-built or kit-built aircraft provided that activities are conducted safely;
I suppose the rules are somewhere in this document, FAA Airport Compliance Manual - Order 5190.6B if anyone cares to look them up.