theSheetNews.com

The Mammoth Yosemite Airport’s (MLH) Airport Layout Plan Updated Narrative (ALPUN) took a major step toward being submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Tuesday.

The Mammoth Lakes Airport Commission, meeting for one of the last times before it merges with the Mobility Commission to form the Transportation Commission, passed the ALPUN unanimously, with errata and some other language changes added.

The current ALPUN is designed to supersede the 2000 ALP. According to Town Staff’s report to the Commission, the new narrative points out FAA items that need to be either addressed directly, or reviewed for potential modifications or waivers. The ALPUN is an intricate document, made up of input from the Town, airport design and constructions consultants Mead & Hunt, as well as considerable public comments on virtually every facet.

Staff maintains that, per Mead & Hunt’s analysis, that certain reservations expressed by the public about aspects of the airport’s needs, especially if it is to be upgraded from a B-III to C-III facility, must take into account that there really is no airport “standard.” This condition is, staff insisted, common at many airports, and it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect that the FAA might grant waivers or other considerations.

In terms of forecasting enplanements, Staff pointed out that some of Mammoth’s peer airports’ statistics were used to formulate estimates, which are predicated in part on some key changes in new air service routes. Burbank, for example, has been dropped from consideration, and other routes are being scaled back somewhat. And the growth pattern has been adjusted down several thousand enplanements to appear more conservative, though some of that growth depends on Mammoth Mountain Ski Area’s continuing commitment to subsidies.

Airport Commissioner John Walter noted that MMSA’s winter forecast only doubles the number flights over 20 years.

The ALPUN isn’t without its critics. Stephen Kalish and Owen Maloy, two of the Airport’s most vocal watchdogs, both submitted detailed comment letters, taking issue with everything from runway taxiway separation and safety areas, to hangar locations and a need to address the disposition of the Green Church, which they point out has impacts on the runway protection zone at the end of the runway.

“This ALPUN reminds me of a paper handed in at an exam I once proctored at USC. The girl who handed it in appeared to think she had done well. But when I looked at it, I saw that she had mistaken form for substance. The math was irrelevant and so were the sketches,” Maloy wrote via e-mail.

Kalish suggested that the revised ALPUN “geometry” would not be acceptable to the FAA, adding his concern that the document should be rewritten and rethought to either keep the airport at a B-III status (even at the risk of losing Horizon Airlines and its Q400 plane service) or provide an expansion plan, including moving hangers and taxiways, to upgrade MLH to a C-III facility.

Malloy, who was present at the Commission meeting, seemed to sum up their concerns in public comment.

“There is an FAA process for requesting modifications of standards … you have to address each one with separate documents,” he said. “The way this is being presented — moving the taxiway and hangers — you’re saying you don’t intend to do them. All you have to do is say you plan to meet [the obligations] eventually. Otherwise, you [irritate] the airlines and the FAA, which could bounce [the ALPUN] back.”

The way it’s composed now, parts of the ALPUN don’t comply with FAA rules and can be appealed, says Maloy.  He also posited that the FAA treats runway safety area improvements as “maintenance,” and not a capital improvement item, and suggested that those be removed from the airports Capital Improvement Project list.

Airport Director Bill Manning suggested the narrative was important to find out what the FAA has in mind. “The FAA will tell us what’s required,” he replied, “whether we’ll stay a B-III airport or change. We need to get the FAA’s response.”

One item that Maloy suggested he and Kalish would find favorable was Staff’s incorporating their idea to modify Environmental language such that “required environmental documents will be completed for all airport projects.” As opposed to a previous versions, which only mentioned Environmental Assessments, no specific reference would be made to either EAs or more formal Environmental Impact Reports, since at this point there is now way to determine which will be needed for particular projects.

“It’s being left intentionally open-ended, but I think we need to add that specific language to clarify our position,” Commissioner Thom Heller opined.

“In any case, it goes without saying we’ll follow the law,” Community Development Director Mark Wardlaw added.

Heller’s only other question was whether Manning thought that, given the Town’s precarious budget situation, we could pull off any of the projects. “Are we realistic in saying we’ll be able to meet some semblance of the timeline?” he asked Manning.

“The majority of the funding [for the new terminal expansion] will come from the FAA,” Manning answered. “The new terminal project is top priority, and the rest will have to happen as funding [from the Town and the FAA] becomes available, but yes, projects will be completed.”

Council is expected to also set a date for merging the Airport and Mobility Commissions, though according to Mobility Chair Sandy Hogan, a meeting of the two commissions to work out a smooth transition has yet to be set.

Seats on the Airport Commission are also up for re-election, though 6-year Commissioner Deb Pierrel this week sent a letter to Town Council saying that, “When my current Airport Commission term is up, I will not be seeking appointment to the newly transitioned Transportation Commission, nor any other current commission vacancies.”

Pierrel did express concerns about the merger as it relates to the airport’s future, saying that, “While I understand the mindset behind the commission restructuring, I would like to share one concern I have. The airport is in its infancy, really, and already in need of a new terminal building. It can be a huge benefit to our community and economic development if handled well, with proper oversight. It is a pivotal time in Mammoth fiscally, and my worry is that the Airport, with all of its issues and diverse needs, may not receive the constant and focused oversight I feel it is in dire need of, with a broader reaching commission.”

The Airport Commission will hold a joint meeting with Town Council at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, June 6 to discuss the ALPUN and other airport matters.

County must match more for FAA grants

New federal legislation and uncertain state funding could leave Mono County holding the bag for up to three times the amount of matching funds for current and future Federal Aviation Administration grants.

Once such current grant was awarded to the runway at Bryant Field Airport in Bridgeport for its reconstruction. County staff has been working with engineers on design and plans to put the project out to bid this spring with construction anticipated this summer.

Legislation signed by President Barack Obama in February, however, has put a hitch in the County’s giddy-up.

At Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, Interim Assistant Public Works Director Garrett Higerd explained that the FAA Reauthorization legislation signed in February requires the County to match FAA grant funds at 10% rather than its previous 5% responsibility.

For the Bryant Field Runway Reconstruction Project, this means the County would have to supply up to $244,100 rather than $122,050. The total of the project is estimated at $2.4 million.

Previously, the California Division of Aeronautics kicked in 2.5% of the County’s 5% match responsibility. If it commits this funding for the Bryant Field project, then the County’s match responsibility would be $183,075. Higerd was fairly certain that the state would not pull the 2.5%, meaning that at the most, the County would have to match FAA grants by approximately 7.5%, rather than the full 10%.

Higerd added that the CDA is responding to the new legislation and may bump up its contribution to 5%, which would bring the County’s responsibility down to $122,050; still twice as much as its original responsibility. The CDA is expected to vote on this increase at the end of the month.

A match increase will also apply to separate costs for engineering and planning services on the project. For Bryant Field, the County is working with Reinhard Brandley, the same consultant being used at the Mammoth-Yosemite Airport. Mammoth Lakes Town Manager Dave Wilbrecht had not yet heard about the FAA Reauthorization legislation, but since the Town currently only receives money from the FAA for enplanements, not specific projects, he didn’t believe Mammoth-Yosemite would be affected at this time.

Before it would allow the County to continue moving forward with the runway reconstruction project, the FAA required a tentative nod from the Board of Supervisors that it would continue even with the increased match, Higerd said.

Supervisor Tim Hansen was supportive of the project, even with an increased match.

“It’s a tangible result and well worth it,” he said.

His fellow supervisors agreed and gave the nod that Higerd needed for the FAA, realizing that if they did not, the County would lose approximately $2.4 million in grant dollars.

“Bryant Field is a major regional asset for the area,” Supervisor Byng Hunt said. “It would be a wise match.”

Supervisor Hap Hazard requested that Higerd ask the FAA if there was any possibility that the County could provide a soft match to offset some of the costs.

The bid packet for the project will come before the supervisors in the next few months.

FAA finds little out of place in AFFF investigation

The results are in from the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) investigation of possible safety violations at Mammoth Yosemite Airport.

The investigation stemmed from allegations by a former Mammoth Airport employee, Doug Kriese, that the airport had maintained an inadequate level of AFFF, or aqueous film-forming foam agent at the end of 2010.

According to the FAA report, the ARFF, or Airport Rescue and Firefighting vehicle contained AFFF in an amount that satisfied the Airport Index requirement but not another regulatory requirement.

A portion of the regulation states that there must be enough AFFF to “mix with twice the water required to be carried by the vehicle.” According to the report, “the airport was unaware of the regulatory requirement and believed that by satisfying the Index requirement they were satisfactory.”

“It took the FAA inspectors awhile to find this and we were unaware of the regulation,” explained the Town of Mammoth’s Airport and Transportation Director Bill Manning. “It’s a nuance in the whole deal.”

Essentially, it means that while the airport was compliant in one area of FAA index regulation, they were not compliant in a regulatory area; a minor error.

“The letter is a warning letter, which is the lowest form of sanction we can take. As you can see, the violations were inadvertent and the airport has already taken corrective actions,” explained FAA Public Affairs Manager Ian Gregor in an e-mail.

“When the FAA conducts an investigation they have to send a letter no matter what,” Manning explained. “Every year when they do an inspection they send a letter of correction even if there is nothing wrong,” he continued in order to prove his point that the Warning Letter was just part of FAA bureaucracy.

The letter also noted that personnel training for live fire exercises were not at acceptable levels.

“This was the third year in a row that we have conducted our personnel training onsite,” Manning said. “The FAA had approved the two previous year’s trainings but this year they felt that we needed to send our employees to a one-day class in Riverside, which we have signed them up for in May.”

Manning went on to say that the airport had been trying to go above and beyond the minimum requirement by having the training onsite since the employees were able to work with the equipment they would actually use in an incident and train with the emergency agencies they would actually be working with, namely Long Valley Fire Department and Mammoth Lakes Fire Department.

“Going to Riverside is actually cheaper and easier than doing the training onsite,” Manning added.

So what about Kriese, the employee who made the allegations in the first place? He believes the Airport Director, i.e. Manning, should have known about the regulations and there should have been enough AFFF to mix with twice the water required to be carried by the vehicle.

“The letter confirms that the vehicle [ARFF] did not have enough AFFF in it,” Kriese said. “If the Director doesn’t know about the regulations than maybe it’s time to move on to a new director.”

Kriese was, however, relieved that the airport had not been fined by the FAA because he did not want the Town to have to cover the costs.

“I don’t think the Town should have to pay for the airport management’s mistakes,” Kriese said. “I just wanted people to know that there is mismanagement out there [at the airport].”

“The bottom line is that we were never out of index and public safety was never jeopardized,” Manning concluded. “We take that very seriously.”

The airport has already taken corrective action for both issues and the FAA stated in its letter that the case is closed and does not warrant any legal enforcement.

The results are in from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding allegations from former Mammoth Airport employee Doug Kriese claiming the airport had been out of compliance with its level of AFFF or aqueous film-forming foam agent at the end of 2010.

According to a letter from the FAA, the ARFF, or Airport Rescue and Firefighting vehicle contained AFFF in an amount that satisfied the Airport Index requirement but not another regulatory requirement. A portion of the regulation states that there must be enough AFFF to “mix with twice the water required to be carried by the vehicle,” which the airport did not have in October 2010. According to the report, “the airport was unaware of the regulatory requirement and believed that by satisfying the Index requirement they were satisfactory.”

It was also noted in the report that personnel training for live fire exercises was not at acceptable levels.

The airport has already taken corrective action for both issues and the FAA stated in its letter that the case is closed and does not warrant any legal enforcement.

For background on this story, check out The Sheet’s story FAA Probes MMH.

Former airport employee Doug Kriese may not be too thrilled if a report pending from the Federal Aviation Administration doesn’t go his way. Kriese, readers may recall, was the whistleblower who notified the FAA of safety regulation violations he says he witnessed at the airport during his tenure there from October 2009 through Jan. 23, 2011.

The FAA has yet to release its determination, but on Wednesday during the Mammoth Airport Commission’s regular meeting, Airport and Transportation Director Bill Manning briefed commissioners that, according to sources who may be privy to the report, preliminary indications are that the FAA report will not be a “clean report,” but will show that the airport was not out of compliance. He didn’t elaborate further, only adding he had no definitive, inside knowledge of what was in the report.

The investigation included, at the very least, a focus on an alleged breach of FAA safety regulations section 139, which deals with aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment. Kriese alleged that after the airport’s annual burn exercise in early December 2010, the AFFF, or aqueous film-forming foam used for fire suppression, in the airport’s rescue vehicle was completely emptied. When Kriese went to refill the tank, he found that there was only enough left to fill it 20 percent. He claimed that he notified his superior, Manning, who then ordered 100 gallons of the necessary foam.

The delivery time, however, was one week, which meant that the airport would go an entire week without this fire suppressant stocked at adequate levels. Kriese said he suggested to Manning they go to Fire Station #1 in Mammoth and borrow some AFFF. Then, when the new foam arrived, they could replace what they had borrowed.

Release to the public and media of the FAA’s final report is expected soon.

In other air service news, on Tuesday the Mono County Tourism Commission formed a subcommittee to streamline how the County interfaces with its fellow air service partners, namely Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mammoth Lakes Tourism. The subcommittee will also serve as a liaison to Mono’s Board of Supervisors particularly as concerns how much financial support the County is willing to contribute (if anything) to subsidizing more of the “shoulder season” periods of air service. (MMSA has said it will continue its full support of winter service, but is backing off of other times that aren’t yielding as much return.)

The Board is divided on the matter. Supervisor Byng Hunt thinks the County should participate to some degree, but Supervisor Larry Johnston is dead set against any Board-approved funding.

Chair Jimmy Little and Commissioner Danna Stroud suggested the subcommittee could help better define the County’s role, in terms of “deliverables, product and what [financial support] is going to buy.” Little opined that perhaps the other partners weren’t specific enough during their recent Board presentation as to reasons why the County should fund air service, leaving the perception that the funding would be more of a “bailout.”

Mono Economic Development Director Dan Lyster said that reticence on the part of the Board is likely due to the County being not as fiscally flexible as it was last fall when it kicked in $45,000. “If people are flying in and going to Bodie or Lee Vining or Bridgeport, that’s where the value to the County is,” he indicated, choosing to focus his remarks on potential benefits of air service investment

As envisioned by the commission, the subcommittee would include both Little and Stroud, Lyster and Alicia Vennos from County EDD, and ideally MLT Director John Urdi and MMSA Marketing CEO Howard Pickett, as well as Supervisor Hunt and Board Chair Hap Hazard.

“There has been a lot of communication between Mammoth Lakes Tourism, Mammoth Mountain and the Mono County Tourism Commission about the benefits of year-round air service to the county as a whole. The recently established Air Service Sub-committee should help articulate those benefits,” Vennos commented.

Lara Kirkner contributed to this report.

Airport safety questioned by former employee

It seems the Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MMH) is a magnet for trouble. As the Town of Mammoth Lakes continues to deal with the Hot Creek litigation (Town Council met in closed session Wednesday night to discuss the status of the case, but according to Mayor Skip Harvey there was no reportable action), a new set of waves is slapping the transportation hub in the face.

Former airport employee, Doug Kriese has notified the Federal Aviation Administration of safety regulation violations he says he witnessed at the airport during his tenure there from October 2009 through Jan. 23, 2011.

Kriese explained to The Sheet, “I am not a disgruntled employee; I am just trying to tell the truth about what has been going on at the Mammoth Yosemite Airport.”

Kriese was terminated on Jan. 23 and his official paperwork claims it was because he had failed to complete his probationary period, although he questions the validity of this excuse.

Ian Gregor, Public Affairs Manager for the FAA’s Pacific Division, confirmed that the FAA is indeed currently conducting an investigation at the Mammoth Yosemite Airport. However, since the investigation is ongoing, he was unable to comment on what it entailed.

Brian Picken, Assistant Airport and Transportation Director for the Town of Mammoth also confirmed that an investigation was underway at the airport.

“We let an employee go and that person has gone to the FAA, the TSA and the manufacturer of the fire truck filing allegations that are untrue,” Picken said, referring indirectly to Kriese.

The investigation includes, at the very least, a focus on an alleged breach of FAA safety regulations section 139, which deal with aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment. Kriese alleged that after the airport’s annual burn exercise in early December 2010, the AFFF, or aqueous film-forming foam used for fire suppression, in the airport’s rescue vehicle was completely emptied. When Kriese went to refill the tank, he found that there was only enough left to fill it 20 percent. He claimed that he notified his superior, Airport and Transportation Director Bill Manning, who then ordered 100 gallons of the necessary foam.

The delivery time, however, was one week, which meant that the airport would go an entire week without this fire suppressant at adequate levels. Kriese said he had suggested they go to Fire Station #1 in Mammoth and borrow some AFFF. Then, when the new foam arrived, they could replace what they had borrowed from the Mammoth Lakes Fire Department.

In an e-mail attachment, Kriese quoted Manning as having said in response, “If we do that, we’ll look stupid down here. We don’t want to look stupid. Let’s just hope nothing happens and nobody finds out.”

[At press time Manning had not returned The Sheet’s phone call.]

The foam ended up taking three weeks to arrive because it became lost in the mail. Upon arrival it took another two weeks to be poured into the firefighting equipment.

“They should have at least notified the air carrier so they could decide whether or not to land,” Kriese explained.

According to FAA regulations for the size of planes at the Mammoth Yosemite Airport, there must be one vehicle “carrying at least 500 pounds of sodium-based dry chemical, halon 1211, or clean agent; or 450 pounds of potassium-based dry chemical and water with a commensurate quantity of AFFF to total 100 gallons for simultaneous dry chemical and AFFF application.” As well as another vehicle “carrying an amount of water and the commensurate quantity of AFFF so the total quantity of water for foam production carried by both vehicles is at least 1,500 gallons.”

The regulations also state: “In addition to the quantity of water required, each vehicle required to carry AFFF must carry AFFF in an appropriate amount to mix with twice the water required to be carried by the vehicle.”

Lastly, the regulations explain that the rescue and firefighting capability described above must be provided on the airport, during air carrier operations, with very few exceptions.

Picken claimed that the investigation, being conducted by FAA investigator Jake Florendo, was wrapping up this week, but did not know what the repercussions would be if the FAA confirmed that the airport had indeed violated safety regulations. Some people have speculated that the airport would be fined.

Gregor stated that the results of the investigation would be available in a few weeks.