Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review Redacted - Redacted - RS

CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON
REPORT NUMBER: PO 36378
NELSON AIRPORT OPERATIONS AND

REGULATORY REVIEW
JULY 16, 2019

NELSON AIRPORT
OPERATIONS AND
REGULATORY REVIEW
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON
FINAL REPORT
PROJECT NO.: 19M-00612-00

CLIENT REF: PO 36378
DATE: JULY 16, 2019
WSP
WSP.COM
Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

Project No. 19M-00612-00 June 2019
Corporation of the City of Nelson Page 2
TABLE OF 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1
CONTENTS 1.1 Background.................................................................... 1
2 SITE VISIT ...................................................... 2

2.1 Airport Review ............................................................... 2
2.2 Consultations................................................................. 2
2.3 Airport Context .............................................................. 2
3 REGULATORY REVIEW ................................ 4

3.1 Regulatory Context ....................................................... 4
3.2 Airfield Inspection Results ........................................... 4
3.3 Other Issues ................................................................... 9
4 AIRPORT OPERATIONS REVIEW ............... 12

4.1 Airport Goveranance ...................................................12
4.2 Airport Management ...................................................12
4.3 Airport Finances ............................................................ 2
4.4 Operational Challenges ................................................ 3
5 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 8
5.1 Regulatory ...................................................................... 8
5.2 Operational..................................................................... 8

Corporation of the City of Nelson Page iii
TABLES
TABLE 2.1 – LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS ................................ 2
FIGURES
FIGURE 4.1 – GOVERNANCE OPTIONS ............................. 12
APPENDICES
A REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Corporation of the City of Nelson Page iv
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
WSP Aviation has been engaged by the City of Nelson to complete an operations and regulatory review of Norman
Stibbs Airport. The review includes a gap analysis of regulatory requirements applicable to Norman Stibbs Airport,
as specified in the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). Additionally, the WSP team has considered overall
airport operations, management, and governance in the context of a registered aerodrome in Canada.
The report provides the City of Nelson, as operator of the Airport, general recommendations regarding key findings,
and recommendations for the safe, efficient and compliant operation of Norman Stibbs Airport, and any areas of
concern which may require further study.
Norman Stibbs Airport is owned and managed by the City of Nelson. Although commonly referred to as an airport,
Norman Stibbs Airport is formally classified as an aerodrome. According to the Aeronautics Act, the Federal
legislation that addresses all aviation in Canada, an aerodrome is any area of land, water, ice or other supporting
surface used, designed, prepared, equipped or set apart for use either in whole or in part for the arrival, departure,
movement or servicing of aircraft and includes any buildings, installations and equipment situated thereon or
associated therewith.
Norman Stibbs Airport is an unlighted aerodrome, registered in the Canada Flight Supplement (CFS), meaning that
information of importance to pilots is presented in a publicly available document known to pilots and others in the
aviation industry. This document is published by the national air navigation service provider NAV CANADA, more
commonly recognized as the not-for-profit entity that provides air traffic control services and air traffic management
in Canada.
The Airport is identified in the CFS simply as Nelson, BC and does not refer to the common title Norman Stibbs
Airport, as identified in the Airport Operations Manual and on signage at the Airport. To avoid confusion with
language and terminology, this report will continue to refer to the aerodrome as Norman Stibbs Airport (the
Airport).
The Airport is located in the central portion of the City of Nelson adjacent to downtown in a narrow mountainous
valley. The airport property is surrounded by the City of Nelson on all sides with the exception of the north west
where the property is bordered by Kootenay Lake and adjacent Elephant Mountain/Mount Nelson. Runway 04-22,
which is 3,100 feet in length and of asphalt construction, is the Airport’s only runway. The runway is used by both
fixed wing and resident helicopter traffic.
The nearest ground based navigation aid is a Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) located at Castlegar Airport. Norman
Stibbs Airport does not have any lights or Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP), limiting users to Visual Flight
Rules (VFR) only. The City of Nelson sells 100LL fuel from the card lock system. Jet fuel can be purchased from
local operators upon request.
PANORAMIC AIRPORT PHOTO

2 SITE VISIT
2.1 AIRPORT REVIEW
On May 15, 2019, the WSP team completed an on-site review of Norman Stibbs Airport facilities including the
airfield, General Aviation Terminal, hangars, storage units, and fuel system.
The airfield review included walking and driving the length of the runway and conducting a physical inspection of
the runway and taxiways. The other airport structures were viewed during an exterior site inspection with interior
reviews being limited to the General Aviation Terminal and the Nelson Pilots Association building.
2.2 CONSULTATIONS
During the site visit, the WSP team consulted with key airport stakeholders to collect local user experience and
recommendations. The City of Nelson completed arrangements for WSP to meet with the stakeholders listed in
Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 – List of Stakeholders
ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE POSITION
City of Nelson Colin Innes Acting Airport Manager
Kootenay Lake Aviation Thierry Noblet Owner/ Operator
Nelson Pilots Association Vic Corrie Airport Society Founding Member
Kootenay Valley Helicopters Jeff Parker General Manager
Nelson Pilots Association Wade Nearing Airport Society Founding Member
Nelson Pilots Association Karen MacDonald Former Airport Manager
Nelson Pilots Association Cal Laybourne Snow Ploughing / Airfield Maintenance / Retired
Nelson Pilots Association Wade Nearing Hangar Owner
Throughout the in-person consultations, the WSP team completed a standardized survey, collecting various
information including, but not limited to: organization overview, operational statistics, relationship with the Airport
management, as well as issues and opportunities for the Airport.
It should be noted that not all personnel identified above were included in the pre-determined list of stakeholders.
Upon arrival at the facility, WSP was greeted by additional stakeholders who wished to add their individual
perspectives on the Airport.
There was an attempt to have a conference call with Steve Benwell of High Terrain Helicopters; however, the
interview was unable to occur due to interference with cellular phone signals in the mountains. An email was
submitted to the City of Nelson, requesting email address contact details for Mr. Benwell. At the time of this report,
no email address has been received.
2.3 AIRPORT CONTEXT

Norman Stibbs Airport was built by the City of Nelson shortly after World War II on lands purchased from CP Rail
and the Ministry of the Environment. During consultations, the airport site was identified as a reclaimed landfill.

NORMAN STIBBS AIRPORT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
The Airport supports both commercial air services and general aviation activity. There are currently three aviation
commercial operators consisting of two helicopter operators and a flight school/fixed wing aerial services company.
The Nelson Pilots Association has also indicated a very active general aviation community including the use of
private aircraft by residents to access secondary-homes in Nelson from other communities. The General Aviation
terminal also houses a non-aviation tenant.
Consultations identified Norman Stibbs Airport as important infrastructure for aviation emergency services.
Specifically, the British Columbia provincial air ambulance MedEvac serves the City of Nelson from the Airport on
average 2-3 times per week. Additionally, the Airport supports seasonal wildfire suppression aircraft, including
both fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. It was reported that at times during the fire season, there is a significant
presence of wildfire suppression aircraft, which can cause significant congestion at the Airport. The Nelson Pilots
Association also provided a letter from BC Wildfire Service dated February 20, 2019 in support of the Airport
stating “The SFC [Southeast Fire Centre] regards the Nelson Airport to be a very important part of its response
infrastructure”.
The aviation activity could not be independently verified as no aircraft movement statistics were made available for
review. Additionally, no data is publicly collected as this airport does not have a Flight Service Station (FSS) or
other Nav Canada Facilities. Aviation activity was determined based on anecdotal information provided during the
consultation interviews.
Throughout the consultations, it was reported that Airport land was highly sought for aviation development
opportunities, such as additional hangars. With the exception of one small hangar being constructed adjacent to the
row of general aviation hangars at the time of the site visit, it was identified that land development requests can
generally not be fulfilled. There is currently no land development plan for the Airport to designate available lands
for various uses (e.g. airfield, air terminal and operations, airside commercial and airport reserve). A significant
challenge is the constrained location of the Airport and its ability to obtain additional property to address demand for
land.
Throughout the consultation period, there was a common theme regarding the Airport’s uncertain future. It was
indicated that there has been consideration given to closing the Airport with the intent of repurposing airport lands
for non-aviation development. The uncertain future of the Airport is a potential barrier to advancement and
development. Capital facility investment deferral may result in larger investment requirements in the future, should
airport capital projects be delayed.

3 REGULATORY REVIEW
3.1 REGULATORY CONTEXT
The regulatory review of Norman Stibbs Airport focussed on the regulatory requirements for aerodromes as dictated
by the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). The CARs are broken down into ten distinct parts that apply to
different facets of aviation in Canada.
Specifically, the review involved CARs Part III, which addresses aerodromes, airports, and heliports. The focus of
the review was on Part III, Subpart 1 – Aerodromes, as those are the regulatory requirements directly applicable to
Norman Stibbs Airport, at this time.
The regulatory structure is captured below:
Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs)
• Part III – Aerodromes, Airports and Heliports
o Subpart 1 – Aerodromes
Part III, Subpart 1, more commonly referred to as CAR 301, identifies the minimum requirements for an aerodrome
to operate in Canada. The items required by CAR 301 are listed in the gap analysis in Section 3.2 below, identifying
where Norman Stibbs Airport was compliant with the regulatory requirement, or where non-compliance was
observed.
Although pertinent items are listed below in Section 3.2, a full enumeration of the regulatory requirements is
provided in Appendix A.
Designated Provisions, and the associated penalty for not complying with each provision, are outlined in CAR
103.08 – Schedule II. The penalties are those that may be levied by Transport Canada on an individual and/or a
corporation that does not comply with a provision. Where appropriate, the designated provision and associated
penalty are provided for information in the analysis below. The penalty is associated with an individual occurrence,
and multiple occurrences of a non-compliance can lead to multiple fines.
3.2 AIRFIELD INSPECTION RESULTS

The airfield inspection and document review evaluated compliance with the following topics, as required by CAR
301. The results of the inspection are presented below:
Inspection
Although not discussed as part of the interview process, it is imperative that should a Civil Aviation Safety Inspector
from the Federal Department of Transport (Transport Canada) request access to Norman Stibbs Airport, they must
be granted access to the aerodrome for the purpose of conducting an inspection. They may also request
documentation associated with the operation of the facility under the authority of CAR 103.02(1).
Registration
When an airport, aerodrome, or heliport is listed in the Canada Flight Supplement (CFS) or Water Aerodrome
Supplement (WAS), it is considered to be “registered” in that document. Once registered, the information provided in
the publications must be kept up-to-date and accurate to ensure the safety of the flying public.
As Norman Stibbs Airport is listed in the CFS, it is the responsibility of the City of Nelson, as the operator of the
Airport, to provide Transport Canada and NAV CANADA with accurate and up-to-date information regarding the
operation of the aerodrome. This information is provided to pilots and the rest of the flying public by way of the
Canada Flight Supplement and/or the Water Aerodrome Supplement.

CAR 301.03(3) states:
(3) The operator of an aerodrome registered pursuant to subsection (1) shall notify the Minister
immediately after any change is made to the location, marking, lighting, use or operation of the aerodrome
that affects the information published by the Minister pursuant to subsection (1).
If the information in the CFS is not updated and maintained as necessary per CAR 302.03(3), Transport Canada can
issue a fine of $5,000 for an individual or $25,000 for a corporation.
The pre-onsite document review combined with the onsite airfield inspection and interviews and post-onsite records
review and interviews identified the following areas of non-compliance with the regulatory requirements associated
with the registration of the Norman Stibbs Airport:
1. Although updates had been made from time-to-time, no one was reviewing the CFS on an ongoing basis to
determine if information was accurate and up-to-date.
2. Errors or inaccurate information were observed in the CFS (current at the time of inspection)
a. A closed taxiway was not identified as closed in the CFS sketch.
The Public Facilities itemization did not identify car rental, public internet and WIFI were available, although
interviews identified that these facilities were available.
In accordance with subsection 301.03(2) of the CARs, Transport Canada can choose to remove a registered
aerodrome from the CFS (resulting in it no longer being registered) where the operator does not meet the
requirements in CAR 301 or where using the aerodrome is likely, in Transport Canada’s opinion, to be hazardous to
aviation safety.
CFS AERODROME SKETCH

Markers and Markings
Interviews identified that a taxiway has been closed until the surface can be repaired. In the interim, red flags or
cones were not installed at the entrances of the closed taxiway, at the time of the onsite inspection.
CAR 301.04(s) states:
The operator of an aerodrome, other than a water aerodrome, shall install red flags or red cones along the
boundary of an unserviceable area.
Transport Canada can issue a fine of $5,000 for an individual or $25,000 for a corporation for incorrect markings
specified by CAR 301.04(5).
CAR 301.04(5) states:
Where a taxiway or part of a taxiway is closed, the operator of the aerodrome shall place on each end of the
closed taxiway, or portion thereof, a closed marking with the dimensions set out in Schedule I to this Subpart.
The closed marking provided on the taxiway nearest to the threshold of Runway 04 was not of the dimensions
specified in Schedule I.
Concrete blocks were placed on one of the taxiways to prevent aircraft and vehicles from accessing that part of the
maneuvering area. These blocks should be painted in more conspicuous colours (combined orange/white is
typically used for aviation). Additionally, the taxiway should have a yellow “X” painted in the area that is not
suitable for use by aircraft.
TAXIWAY CLOSURE USING CONCRETE BARRICADES
Transport Canada can issue a fine of $5,000 for an individual or $25,000 for a corporation for incorrect markings
specified by CAR 301.04(5).

Warning Notices
The Lake Side Walk walking path follows the perimeter of the airport prior to the threshold of Runway 04 and then
along the full length of the runway. A parking lot is located prior to the airport fence. Although the walking path
and parking lot are in close proximity to the airport and, in some cases, directly under the approach of low-flying
aircraft, there were no notices of low-flying aircraft observed.
LAKE SIDE WALK PATH
ABSENCE OF LOW-FLYING AIRCRAFT NOTICES
CAR 301.05 states:

Where low-flying or taxiing aircraft at or in the vicinity of an aerodrome are likely to be hazardous to
pedestrian or vehicular traffic, the operator of the aerodrome shall immediately
(a) post notices warning of the hazard on any public way that is adjacent to the maneuvering area; or
(b) where such a public way is not owned or controlled by the operator, inform the authorities
responsible for placing markings on the public way that there is a hazard.
Transport Canada can issue a fine of $3,000 for an individual or $15,000 for a corporation for not providing the
appropriate signage required by CAR 301.05.
Wind Direction Indicator

It was observed that the wind direction indicator provide on the North side of the runway was partially obscured by
trees which are in excess of the wind sock. Although it is not anticipated that this would constitute a non-compliance
at this time, the growth around the wind direction indicator should be monitored to ensure that vegetation does not
impede the visibility of the wind direction indicator from pilots or its accuracy.

CAR 301.06 states:
(1) Except where the direction of the wind at an aerodrome can be determined by radio or other means such as
smoke movement in the air or wind lines on water, the operator of the aerodrome shall install and maintain at
the aerodrome a wind direction indicator that is
(a) of a conspicuous colour or colours;
(b) in the shape of a truncated cone;
(c) visible from an aircraft flying at an altitude of 300 m (1,000 feet) above the wind direction
indicator; and
(d) illuminated when the aerodrome is used at night.
NORTH SIDE WIND DIRECTION INDICATOR WITH PARTIAL OBSTRUCTION
Lighting
The on-site inspection found that there was no lighting provided to support nighttime operations. Norman Stibbs
Airport is not used at night, therefore there is no requirement to comply with lighting requirements.
Prohibitions
On-site observations and interviews did not identify any non-compliances with the prohibitions identified in the
regulations.

Fire Prevention
The on-site inspection did not reveal any evidence of smoking or displaying an open flame while airside. No
smoking signs and fire extinguishers were observed airside.
3.3 OTHER ISSUES

Airport Certification
Although Norman Stibbs Airport is not certified as an airport, it is important to understand the impact certification
would have on the existing facility, and what triggers exist that could require certification.
Certification as an airport involves an exponential increase in regulatory compliance requirements over those faced
by aerodromes. For airports, regulatory compliance is required with respect to:
 Comprehensive certification standards that govern runway lighting, markings, signage, obstacle limitation
surfaces and more;
 Safety Management Systems (SMS) – A highly comprehensive requirement to implement a system of
policies, processes and procedures associated with documentation, training, hazard identification and
investigation, and a full quality assurance program;
 Wildlife Planning and Management documentation, training and procedures;
 Emergency Planning and Management documentation, training and procedures;
 Airport Operations Manual (AOM) content and review requirements; and
 Winter Operations procedures, training and documentation.
The above list is not exhaustive but is used to articulate the level of involvement and commitment associated with
certification.

Nelson
4 AIRPORT OPERATIONS REVIEW
4.1 AIRPORT GOVERANANCE
Norman Stibbs Airport is owned and operated by the City of Nelson. More specifically the Airport is operated as
part of the Public Works and Operations department. The background documentation indicated the prior existence of
an Airport Committee. Consultations confirmed that the Airport Committee was no longer active and not currently
part of Airport Governance. Consultations indicated that a new aviation fuel-delivery system was being procured
under a grant and that the Nelson Pilots Association had secured funding for temporary seasonal student staff.
The Governance model at Norman Stibbs Airport meets the characteristics of an airport that is ‘Municipally Owned
and Operated’ within a City Department. Airport Committees comprising of elected officials or appointees are
typically part of this model and are involved in setting Airport priorities and budgets.
As the Airport Owner and Operator, the City of Nelson is responsible for Norman Stibbs Airport in ensuring:
 Safe Airport Operations  CFS updates;
 Regulatory Compliance as an aerodrome  Hazard Reporting e.g. NOTAMs
 Airport Planning  Facility Maintenance; and
 Airfield Inspection;  Capital Planning and Delivery.
4.2 AIRPORT MANAGEMENT

There is a range of governance approaches commonly implemented at airports across Canada. Governance models
can range form no involvement in the form of airport sale or closure to governance by an Airport Authority (an
independent not-for-profit entity responsible for the airport on a long-term lease agreement). Table 4.1 presents
common airport governance models and their relative complexity.
Figure 4.1 – Governance Options
The spectrum of airport governance represents a consistent increase in complexity but also an increase in autonomy
of the airport owner. The City of Nelson may consider alternative governance models to align with its vision for the
Airport, mission, and strategic direction, once determined. During the site visit and through subsequent
consultations, no vision of the airport was identified. This may be a result of the Airport’s uncertain future. The
most likely option would be Governance by the Municipality or an Airport Commission.
The governing body is not necessarily synonymous with the airport operator. The airport can be operated by the
governing body but operations can also be provided by a third-party under contract. While airport operations
delivered by the governing body can provide control, third-party operations under the right agreement can provide
benefits like cost savings and expertise not available otherwise.
During the consultations, it was identified that a third-party operating proposal was with the City of Nelson for
consideration. It is recommended that any third-party contract be considered once the future of the Airport is
determined and a governance structure is in place, which can effectively manage such arrangement.

Norman Stibbs Airport is currently managed by the Director Public Works and Utilities as part of his general
portfolio. Airport maintenance such as snow cleaning, pavement sealing, and landscaping is done with some support
from City staff, but is primarily completed by volunteers. The work is typically completed using older surplus City
equipment, which only current and former employees are authorized to operate. Consultations indicated that this was
due to City insurance requirements. The equipment was generally reported to be adequate for its purpose, but is
often only available if not in use for other City work. There are risks in the ongoing ability to properly maintain the
Airport with a substantial reliance on former City staff, borrowed equipment, and volunteers. A more sustainable
and managed approach to airport maintenance should be established, which may include the detailing of
requirements and formalizing of responsibilities and obligations of all parties involved.
The site review and subsequent consultations did not identify any maintenance schedule or work plans associated
with airport maintenance. In addition, no specific capital plan was identified. Maintenance appeared to be completed
on an as-available or breakdown basis. Maintenance planning and capital planning is a key process ensuring safe
facilities and developing appropriate budgets for an airport.
During the site tour and consultations, no formal airport inspection process was identified. No documentation of
airfield condition report was provided. Based on the consultations, it appears the most recent airfield review was
conducted in 2003 by Pennco Engineering. Additionally, no documentation regarding the following maintenance
and capital needs (further discussed in section 4.5 Operational challenges) was provided:
 Depressions near the threshold of Runway 22;
 Paint marking condition on runway, taxiway, and apron;
 Pavement condition including crack sealing needs; and
 Fencing improvements including restricted access system.
Consultations indicated instances of unauthorized access to the airfield including snowmobiles entering the property
to purchase gas.
The Airport background document provided had generally not been updated for some time. For example, the
Airports Operations Manual (AOM) was dated March 2005. While this documentation is not required for an
aerodrome, having a current AOM is sound airport management practice. The interviewees indicated that policies,
procedures and airport documentation were not in regular use at the Airport.
The site visit and consultations did not result in any evidence of planning for the future needs of Norman Stibbs
Airport. Airport planning is an important exercise in supporting the long-term viability of an airport. An Airport
Master plan with a 20-year planning horizon is common at most Canadian airports.
4.3 AIRPORT FINANCES

The Airport is funded as part of the department of Public Works and Operations’ operating budget. Specifics of the
Airport budget where not available but were described as a general fund without specific allocations to various
airport activities or projects. No specific fund was identified for the planning for large capital projects such as
resurfacing of runways and other airport movement surfaces. Consultations indicated that the budget is modest and
there was also a significant reliance on grants and volunteers to operate and maintain the Airport.
Airport fees and charges are set according to the Airport Establishment Bylaw and the following fee types are
collected as detailed in Schedule A of the Bylaw:
 Permanent Fixed Based Operator (FBO) - Bare Minimum Land Leases
 Seasonal FBO Annual Fee
 Airport Terminal Building Lease
 Tie-Down Space Fee
 Transient Parking Fee
 Commercial Landing Fee
 Fire Season Negotiable Fee

During consultations, several stakeholders suggested the need for an Air Terminal User Fee for each commercial
operator passenger using this facility. Revenue collected could be used for direct improvement of the Airport like
the Airport Improvement Fee (AIF) at most major airports in Canada.
The City of Nelson manages the collection of fees and charges associated with leases, annual fees, and negotiable
seasonal fees. Data, such as aircraft registration, to support the other fees including Tie-Down, Transient Parking,
and Commercial Landing was observed to be collected by the seasonal student staff and Pilots Association
members. Collection of the fee data appears to be occurring on a best-effort basis, consequently some revenue may
be lost. The process for determining fees was not reviewed as part of the scope of work; opportunities may exist to
align fees and charges with market rates and best practices. No data was provided on revenue associated with
airport fees and leases.
Many municipal airports are generally viewed as an extension of city infrastructure, not unlike roads and utilities,
which are community services and can support economic prosperity. Municipal airports are not usually a source of
profit and are not typically self-sufficient due to the direct costs of maintaining significant infrastructure. Airport
funding models typically reflect this philosophy. Economic Impact Assessments (EIAs) are a readily accepted
method of determining the financial benefit of an airport and assist in garnering support for the required investment.
During consultations, a previous EIA was presented. This report could serve as the basis for a future City of Nelson
led EIA study if desired.
During stakeholder discussions, it was reported that the Norman Stibbs Airport had some success in attaining grants
for the procurement of a new fuel system and funding of seasonal student staff. There did not appear to be a
sustained system to support efforts in seeking supplemental grant funding. As grants are an important source of
funding for municipal airport, particularly for capital projects, it is recommended that a short list of potential grants
be compiled and City resources be provided to support grant applications. This effort may be supplemented by
support of airport stakeholders who have had success in acquiring grant funding in the past.
4.4 OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES

Norman Stibbs Airport, like many similar airports, is facing various challenges. From the site review and subsequent
consultations, the following operational challenges were identified:
1. Commitment to the Airport’s Future: The Airport’s future has not been determined, as there has been
interest in closing the Airport to benefit non-aviation development. An unknown future can lead to deferred
maintenance of critical facilities like a runway and significantly increase the cost of replacement in the
future.
2. Capital planning and funding: The airport movement surfaces (runways, taxiways, and apron) are aging
and will require rehabilitation in the future. No formal planning for phasing or capital requirements appears
to be in place. A detailed infrastructure review should be completed to better define this challenge. A
funding strategy including grants is required to deliver the required capital projects.
3. Maintenance planning and delivery: Airport maintenance is dependent on volunteers and loaned City of
Nelson staff. The ongoing feasibility of this maintenance model should be further evaluated.
Additionally, the maintenance of the Airport should be formally planned, documented, and scheduled to
ensure the most efficient and cost-effective delivery.
4. Land Availability: Consultations have indicated a strong demand for additional land to develop aviation
business and support facilities, such as hangars. The Airport’s geographic location has limited its ability to
acquire land. There is the possibility of acquiring a small parcel which would require the relocation of
Lakeside Drive.
5. Processes and Procedure Documentation: No current documented processes or procedures appeared to

be implement in the operation of the Airport. Documented processes and procedures clearly articulate
tasks and responsibilities associated with operating an aerodrome or airport. For example, airports and

many aerodromes have written procedures that guide snow removal, pavement markings painting, runway
inspections, aircraft fueling, etc. These procedures provide a means of ensuring that all staff complete the
task the same way, reducing the possibility of errors. Documented processes clearly identify the what, why,
who, when and how associated with a given activity or responsibility at an aerodrome. Further, documented
processes and procedures can be used as training reference for new employees or those assuming
responsibility for a task for the first time. This is particularly important at Norman Stibbs Airport, as there
is a large reliance on seasonal staff or volunteers to complete maintenance.
6. Airport Operations Manual: The provided Airports Operations Manual (AOM) was dated March 2005.
An AOM is a required document for all certified airports and the requirements for this document are set out
in CARs Part III Subpart 2 Division 1 302.08. Although an Airport Operations Manual (AOM) is not
required by regulation for an aerodrome, it is strongly recommended that all aerodromes, especially those
operated by a municipality, utilize one. An AOM provides the City of Nelson with a mechanism to identify
and manage:
 Operational Procedures;  Emergency Response Procedures;
 Publications, Plans and Drawings;  Airport Maintenance Procedures;
 Airport Committees;  Disabled Aircraft Removal Procedures; and
 Airport Data;  Airport Markings and Signage
The current AOM is outdated and some of the information contained therein is not accurate. It refers to
procedures that a certified airport must follow, including obligations of the operator and compliance with
airport certification standards. Additionally, some of the information alluded to in the manual was not
provided to WSP, suggesting that it may not exist. Examples of clearly inaccurate or outdated information,
or information that could be missing include:
 The aerodrome magnetic variation was identified to have been last determined in 1998 and differs
significantly from what is published in the CFS;
 Section 1.7 states: “The Nelson Airport Plans to extend Runway 04 – 40.2 metres and Runway 22 –
50.9 metres to accommodate medivacs. Technical drawings are kept at the City of Nelson’s offices in
the Drafting Dept.”
o Note: As the AOM is dated March 22, 2005 this information is out of date or inaccurate
depending on whether the runway extension occurred or not. It is also irregular to identify capital
projects in an AOM.
 The reference to stop ways and clearways do not appear to reflect the current condition at the Airport.
 The AOM referenced Taxiway A and Taxiway B, but does not clearly assign either identifier to the
two taxiways. Further, the AOM did not identify that one of the taxiways is closed.
Interviews verified that reviews and updates of the manual were not conducted on a regular basis and that
those responsible for the manual did not have the means to properly verify whether information was
accurate and how to obtain accurate information. It is recommended that a comprehensive review of the
AOM, and all of the elements associated with it, be evaluated and updated, providing the City of
Nelson with a document that contains accurate information.
Absence of Master Planning: A Master Plan is a common document in the airport industry in planning an
airport over 20-years with a focus of the 5, 10 and 20-year planning horizons. The Master Plan typically
includes:
 Aviation Forecast  Facility Requirements
 Capacity Assessments  Development Plans
 Airfield Requirements  Land Use Plan
 Stakeholder Consultations

From the Master Plan, a long-term capital plan can be developed including project phasing. The Master
Plan is an important tool in documenting an airport’s future and should support airport management
decision making.
Helicopter Touchdown Pads: The AOM identified that there are two helicopter touchdown pads located
at the Airport. The painting of the two pads was inconsistent. These should both be painted in the same
configuration and should use either heliport standards or industry best-practices as a guideline.
Although there are no certification standards pertaining directly to markings at aerodromes, Transport
Canada encourages all aerodrome operators, in the interest of safety and efficiency, to take into
consideration the latest edition of the Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices – TP 312 or CAR
325 – Heliports Certification Standards, as guidance material.
7. Apron Surface Condition: The apron surface, and the helicopter touchdown areas in particular, show
significant signs of wear. The pavement surface was uneven, and created an uneven, potentially unstable
surface for aircraft. In addition, the surface was failing in multiple areas, creating a FOD hazard. There was
substantial ponding in the depressions on the apron.

Ponding as a result of depressions
Significant depressions in paved surface

FOD hazard from
asphalt breakup
APRON CONDITION PICTURES

Instrument Approach Procedures: Although no instrument approach procedures currently exist for
Norman Stibbs Airport, multiple interviewees identified a desire for the Airport to make available these
procedures in the future.
As an aerodrome, and not a certified airport, Norman Stibbs Airport is not required to comply with the
certification standards contained within Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices TP312 5 th
Edition (the current certification standard). However, as per Transport Canada Advisory Circular (AC) 301-
001 Procedure to be followed in order to support Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) at a non-certified
aerodrome, an aerodrome must ensure that the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) identified in TP312 5th
Edition are clear and free of any fixed or mobile obstacles in order to support an instrument approach.
Historically, these OLS were the criteria that guided the requirements for runway displacements to ensure
safe operations at an aerodrome.
Obstacle Limitations: Norman Stibbs Airport currently has a runway displacement on Runway 22.
Interviewees identified that the displacement was calculated by Transport Canada in the 1990s and has not been
revaluated since that time. It was identified that the displacement was due to the placement of two poles in the
parking lot of the Prestige Hotel – immediately prior to the threshold of Runway 22. The WSP team observed a
gazebo constructed on the property of the Prestige Hotel, which presents a closer obstacle to the runway and
would require assessment of its impact to the OLS. Additionally, there were vehicles and a fence located closer
to the runway than the lighted hydro poles. There is a possibility that the runway displacement may need to be
increased.
OBSTRUCTION POLES

GAZEBO CLOSER TO THE RUNWAY WHICH EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT OF BOTH THE BUILDING AND
LIGHTED/PAINTED HYDRO POLES.
Vegetation was observed prior to the threshold of Runway 04, which would likely violate the OLS
approach surface, resulting in the need for displacement of Runway 04. Alternately, the vegetation could
be removed.
VEGETATION IN THE APPROACH TO RUNWAY 04
AC 301-001 provides guidance to aerodrome operators with respect to the procedures associated with
verifying that the aerodrome can meet the requirements necessary to support an instrument approach
procedure. Specifically, the AC states:
“The aerodrome operator is responsible to ensure an assessment of the “Aerodrome Physical
Characteristics” is conducted and to maintain the aerodrome in the attested, or improved,
condition. It is expected that a qualified person will conduct the assessment of the actual
physical aerodrome characteristics. A qualified person in respect of this assessment, is a person
who, because of his knowledge, training and experience, is qualified to perform this
assessment.”

It is recommended that the City of Nelson conduct an analysis of the obstacle environment in close
proximity to the aerodrome, including vegetation and man-made structures. The analysis would
determine if the current clearances provided by the displacement of the Runway 22 threshold is sufficient
and could be used to support the future pursuit of instrument approach procedures. Further, the analysis
could be used to comprise part of the assessment of the aerodrome’s physical characteristics, required to
support the implementation of an instrument approach procedure.
Obstruction Marking and Lighting: The previously identified hydro poles in the parking lot of the
Prestige Hotel are required under CAR 601/Standard 621 to be marked and lighted in a specific manner.
The paint markings on the poles have faded to the point that they do not provide the visual conspicuity
required to easily identify them to pilots taking off or landing.
It is recommended that the poles be re-painted for daytime visibility.
AERODROME SKETCH IDENTIFICATION OF POLES
OBSTRUCTION LIGHT ON POLE IS LOWER THAN THE HEIGHT OF THE POLE IMMEDIATELY
BEHIND IT

POLES WITH FADED OBSTRUCTION PAINT
Runway Surface Condition: Visual inspection of the paved surface of Runway 04-22 identified that there
were many uneven areas. Depressions in the runway were clearly observed due to ponding water on the
otherwise dry runway surface. Ponding water can lead to hydroplaning, resulting in a loss of control during
landing or take-off.
Interviews with stakeholders identified a common understanding amongst pilots using Norman Stibbs
Airport that they should only land on the right-hand side of Runway 22 due to the above described
pavement conditions. Pilots identified that landing on the left-hand side of the runway resulted in
significant pitching of aircraft as they passed over depressions in the runway. Pitching can lead to aircraft
damage or loss of control.
As previously referenced, Transport Canada could, in accordance with subsection 301.03(2) of the CARs,
choose to remove a registered aerodrome from the CFS where an ongoing condition at the aerodrome is
likely, in Transport Canada’s opinion, to be hazardous to aviation safety. The pavement condition is of
significant concern as it has the potential to be identified as a safety issue by Transport Canada.
Multiple accounts were received during consultation from pilots who use the right-hand side of Runway 22
due to the pavement condition as a regular practice. The depressions are common knowledge to local users
and are of significant concern. The entire length and width of a runway should be able to be utilized for
aircraft. Any part of the runway that is considered unsafe should be repaired, closed or where appropriate,
marked as unserviceable.

DEPRESSION ON RUNWAY WITH POOLED RAIN WATER
There was substantial crack-filling completed on the runway, which appeared to be effective. However,
the amount of crack-filling could be indicative of continued deterioration of the runway and should
be investigated further. There were examples (pictured below), where new cracks are appearing in the
surface of the runway and previously treated cracks are widening (pictured below). If left untreated, these
could create FOD and contribute to further decline of the runway.
PAVEMENT CRACKING EXAMPLES
It is recommended that the City of Nelson conduct a geotechnical investigation to determine the need for
and scope of future runway rehabilitation.

5 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 REGULATORY
The following prioritized regulatory recommendations have been identified for consideration:
REF. RECOMMENDATION NOTES
R.1 Review and Update of Aeronautical Review to include Canada Flight Supplement, and provide an update to Transport
Information Publications Canada and NAV CANADA with the most current and accurate information
including, among others: runway headings, lengths and measurements.
R.2 Regulatory Training Personnel with responsibility for the aerodrome and associated with operation of
the aerodrome receive at least basic training pertaining to the regulatory
requirements associated with operating an aerodrome.
R.3
R.4 Taxiway closure The closed taxiway should be marked with a yellow “X”. Other identifiers such as
concrete barriers should be painted in standard white and orange to identify an
aviation hazard.
R.5 Install Low Flying Aircraft Warning Warning signs of low-flying aircraft should be posted where this poses a hazard to
Sign pedestrians, vehicles or other.
R.6 Pole Markings The hydro poles in the parking lot of the Prestige Hotel should be repainted to
provide visual conspicuity required to easily identify them to pilots taking off or
landing.
5.2 OPERATIONAL
It is recommended that the City of Nelson consider the following prioritized operational recommendations:
O.1 Determine Airport Future The future of Norman Stibbs Airport should be determined in support of all
recommendations herein.
O.2 Governance Review Review the existing governance and consider alternate models as appropriate. The
governance model should also be documented including roles and responsibilities.

O.3 Operational Model Review Review airport model and long-term strategy for safe and efficient operations and
maintenance while considering:
a) long-term feasibility of using volunteers and City equipment;
b) availability of city resources;
c) current third-party operational plan from Nelson’s Pilots Association;
and
d) airport operations service providers (procured by RFP).
O.4 Airport Operations Manual (AOM) Update and maintain an AOM to formalize airport operations including, but not
limited to, plans and procedures (SOPs), governance, and Emergency Response
Plan.
O.5 Airport Master Plans Complete an Airport Master plan to forecast demand for airport infrastructure and
developable land as well as plan for the accommodation over a 20-year planning
horizon.
O.6 Obstacle Assessment Conduct an analysis of the obstacle environment in proximity to the aerodrome,
including vegetation and man-made structures.
O.7 Wind Direction Indicator Wind direction indicators should be regularly inspected and obstructions should be
removed.
O.8 Pavement Condition Assessment Conduct a geotechnical investigation to determine the need for and scope of future
airport pavement rehabilitation. The priority should be on repairing the depressions
impacting the safety of Runway 22.
O.9 Helicopter Pad Markings Helicopter touchdown pads should both be painted in the same configuration and
should use either heliport standards or industry best-practices as a guideline.
O.10 Maintenance and capital planning Develop a documented maintenance and capital plan which can be tracked and
budgeted.
O.11 Funding Review A review of airport funding should be completed including a market rate
comparison, budget requirements, historical grant successes and grant
opportunities. Resources to support grant application should also be investigated.
O.12 Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) Complete or adopt existing EIA to quantify the economic value the airport brings
to the community.
O.13 Aviation Movement Data Collection Formalize the collection, and analysis of airport movement data as practical. This
data forms the basis for airport decision making.
O.14 Land Demand Quantify demand and desired uses for airport lands.
O.15 Instrument Approach Procedures Develop a case for the addition of IAPs.
(IAP)

APPENDIX
A REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
Inspection
301.02 The operator of an aerodrome shall, without charge, at the request of a Department of Transport inspector, allow the inspector
access to aerodrome facilities and provide the equipment necessary to conduct an inspection of the aerodrome.
Registration
301.03 (1) Subject to subsection (2), where the operator of an aerodrome provides the Minister with information respecting
the location, markings, lighting, use and operation of the aerodrome, the Minister shall register the aerodrome and publish the
information in the Canada Flight Supplement or the Water Aerodrome Supplement, as applicable.
(2) The Minister may refuse to register an aerodrome where the operator of the aerodrome does not meet the requirements of
sections 301.05 to 301.09 or where using the aerodrome is likely to be hazardous to aviation safety and, in such a case, shall
not publish information with respect to that aerodrome.
(3) The operator of an aerodrome registered pursuant to subsection (1) shall notify the Minister immediately after any change
is made to the location, marking, lighting, use or operation of the aerodrome that affects the information published by the
Minister pursuant to subsection (1).
(4) An aerodrome that is listed in the Canada Flight Supplement or the Water Aerodrome Supplement on the coming into
force of this Subpart is deemed to be registered pursuant to subsection (1).
Markers and Markings

301.04 (1) When an aerodrome is closed permanently, the operator of the aerodrome shall remove all of the markers and
markings installed at the aerodrome.
(2) The operator of an aerodrome, other than a water aerodrome, shall install red flags or red cones along the boundary of an
unserviceable movement area.
(3) Subsections (4) to (8) do not apply in respect of any manoeuvring area or part thereof that is closed for 24 hours or less.
(4) Where a runway or part of a runway is closed, the operator of the aerodrome shall place closed markings, as set out in
Schedule I to this Subpart, on the runway as follows:
o (a) where the runway is greater than 1 220 m (4,000 feet) in length, a closed marking shall be located at each end of
the closed runway or part thereof and additional closed markings shall be located on the closed runway or part
thereof at intervals not exceeding 300 m (1,000 feet);
o (b) where the runway is greater than 450 m (1,500 feet) but not greater than 1 220 m (4,000 feet) in length, a closed
marking of not less than one-half the dimensions set out in that Schedule shall be located at each end of the closed
runway or part thereof and an additional closed marking of the same dimensions shall be located on the closed
runway or part thereof at a point equidistant from the two markings; or
o (c) where the runway is 450 m (1,500 feet) or less in length, a closed marking of not less than one-half the
dimensions set out in that Schedule shall be located at each end of the closed runway or part thereof.
(5) Where a taxiway or part of a taxiway is closed, the operator of the aerodrome shall place on each end of the closed
taxiway, or part thereof, a closed marking with the dimensions set out in Schedule I to this Subpart.
(6) Where a helicopter take-off and landing area at an aerodrome is closed, the operator of the aerodrome shall
o (a) place a closed marking over the letter “H”, where the letter “H” identifies the helicopter take-off and landing
area, or, where no letter identifies the helicopter take-off and landing area, over the centre of the area; or
o (b) comply with subsection (4), where the helicopter take-off and landing area is a runway.
(7) Where a manoeuvring area or part thereof is closed permanently, the operator of the aerodrome shall
o (a) obliterate all of the markings that indicate that the manoeuvring area or part thereof is open; and
APPENDIX
o (b) subject to subsection (8), paint on the manoeuvring area or part thereof the markings required pursuant to
subsections (4) to (6).
(8) Where the surface of a manoeuvring area or part thereof is snow-covered or otherwise unsuitable for painting or where
the closure is not permanent, closed markings may be applied by means of a conspicuously coloured dye or may be
constructed from a suitable conspicuously coloured material or product.
Warning Notices
301.05 Where low-flying or taxiing aircraft at or in the vicinity of an aerodrome are likely to be hazardous to pedestrian or vehicular
traffic, the operator of the aerodrome shall immediately
(a) post notices warning of the hazard on any public way that is adjacent to the manoeuvring area; or
(b) where such a public way is not owned or controlled by the operator, inform the authorities responsible for placing
markings on the public way that there is a hazard.
Wind Direction Indicator
301.06 (1) Except where the direction of the wind at an aerodrome can be determined by radio or other means such as smoke
movement in the air or wind lines on water, the operator of the aerodrome shall install and maintain at the aerodrome a wind
direction indicator that is
o (a) of a conspicuous colour or colours;
o (b) in the shape of a truncated cone;
o (c) visible from an aircraft flying at an altitude of 300 m (1,000 feet) above the wind direction indicator; and
o (d) illuminated when the aerodrome is used at night.
(2) When an aerodrome is closed permanently, the operator of the aerodrome shall immediately remove all of the wind direction
indicators installed at the aerodrome.
Lighting
301.07 (1) Subject to subsection (2), where a runway is used at night, the operator of the aerodrome shall indicate each side
of the runway along its length with a line of fixed white lights that is visible in all directions from an aircraft in flight at a
distance of not less than two nautical miles.
(2) Where it is not practical to provide at an aerodrome the fixed white lights referred to in subsection (1) for reasons such as
the lack of an available electrical power source or insufficient air traffic, the operator of the aerodrome may, if a fixed white
light is displayed at each end of the runway to indicate runway alignment, use white retro-reflective markers that are capable
of reflecting aircraft lights and that are visible at a distance of not less than two nautical miles from an aircraft in flight that is
aligned with the centre line of the runway.
(3) The lines of lights or retro-reflective markers required by subsection (1) or (2) shall be arranged so that
o (a) the lines of lights or markers are parallel and of equal length and the transverse distance between the lines is
equal to the runway width in use during the day;
o (b) the distance between adjacent lights or markers in each line is the same and is not more than 60 m (200 feet);
o (c) each line of lights or markers is not less than 420 m (1,377 feet) in length and contains no fewer than eight lights
or markers; and
o (d) each light or marker in a line of lights or markers is situated opposite to a light or marker in the line of lights or
markers on the other side of the runway, so that a line connecting them forms a right angle to the centre line of the
runway.
(4) Fixed white lights displayed at each end of a runway pursuant to subsection (2) shall be placed so that they are not likely
to cause a hazard that could endanger persons or property.
APPENDIX
(5) Where a taxiway is used at night, the operator of the aerodrome shall indicate each side of the taxiway with a line of fixed
blue lights or blue retro-reflective markers placed so that the two lines of lights or markers are parallel and the distance
between adjacent lights or markers in each line is not more than 60 m (200 feet).
(6) Where a manoeuvring area or part thereof or a heliport is closed, the operator of the aerodrome shall not operate the lights
or keep the retro-reflective markers thereon, except as required for maintenance of the lights and markers.
(7) Where an aerodrome is used at night, the operator of the aerodrome shall indicate an unserviceable portion of the
movement area with fixed red lights, red retro-reflective markers or floodlighting.
(8) Where an aircraft parking area at an aerodrome is used at night, the operator of the aerodrome shall indicate the boundary
of the area with fixed blue lights or blue retro-reflective markers, placed at intervals not exceeding 60 m (200 feet), or with
floodlighting.
(9) Subject to subsection (10), where a heliport is used at night for the take-off or landing of helicopters, the operator of the
heliport shall illuminate the entire take-off and landing area with floodlights or
o (a) where the take-off and landing area is rectangular, shall indicate the boundary with no fewer than eight fixed
yellow lights, including one light at each corner, placed so that adjacent lights are not more than 13 m (42.5 feet)
apart; or
o (b) where the take-off and landing area is circular, shall indicate the boundary with no fewer than five fixed yellow
lights placed so that adjacent lights are not more than 13 m (42.5 feet) apart.
(10) Where it is not practical to provide at a heliport the fixed yellow lights referred to in subsection (9) for reasons such as
lack of an available electrical power source or insufficient air traffic, the operator of the heliport may use yellow retro-
reflective markers that are capable of reflecting aircraft lights and that are visible at a distance of not less than two nautical
miles from an aircraft in flight that is aligned with the approach path, if
o (a) a light source is provided to show the location of the heliport; or
o (b) where there is only one path for approach and departure, two lights are used to show the approach orientation.
(11) Where the lighting required by subsections (1), (2), (5) and (7) to (10) is operated by a radio-controlled system capable
of activation from an aircraft, the system shall meet the requirements set out in Schedule II to this Subpart.
(12) The operator of an aerodrome may display flare pots to provide temporary lighting for the landing or take-off of aircraft.
Prohibitions
301.08 No person shall
(a) walk, stand, drive a vehicle, park a vehicle or aircraft or cause an obstruction on the movement area of an aerodrome,
except in accordance with permission given
o (i) by the operator of the aerodrome, and
o (ii) where applicable, by the appropriate air traffic control unit or flight service station;
(b) tow an aircraft on an active movement area at night unless the aircraft displays operating wingtip, tail and anti-collision
lights or is illuminated by lights mounted on the towing vehicle and directed at the aircraft;
(c) park or otherwise leave an aircraft on an active manoeuvring area at night unless the aircraft displays operating wingtip,
tail and anti-collision lights or is illuminated by lanterns suspended from the wingtips, tail and nose of the aircraft;
(d) operate any vessel, or cause any obstruction, on the surface of any part of a water area of an aerodrome that is to be kept
clear of obstructions in the interest of aviation safety, when ordered, by signal or otherwise, to leave or not to approach that
area by the appropriate air traffic control unit or flight service station or by the operator of the aerodrome;
(e) knowingly remove, deface, extinguish or interfere with a marker, marking, light or signal that is used at an aerodrome for
the purpose of air navigation, except in accordance with permission given
o (i) by the operator of the aerodrome, and
APPENDIX
o (ii) where applicable, by the appropriate air traffic control unit or flight service station;
(f) at a place other than an aerodrome, knowingly display a marker, marking, light or signal that is likely to cause a person to
believe that the place is an aerodrome;
(g) knowingly display at or in the vicinity of an aerodrome a marker, marking, sign, light or signal that is likely to be
hazardous to aviation safety by causing glare or by causing confusion with or preventing clear visual perception of a marker,
marking, sign, light or signal that is required under this Subpart;
(h) allow a bird or other animal that is owned by the person or that is in the person’s custody or control to be unrestrained
within the boundaries of an aerodrome except for the purpose of controlling other birds or animals at the aerodrome as
permitted by the operator; or
(i) discharge a firearm within or into an aerodrome without the permission of the operator of the aerodrome.
Fire Prevention
301.09 (1) Subject to subsection 301.07(12) and subsections (2) and (3), no person shall, while at an aerodrome, smoke or
display an open flame
o (a) on an apron;
o (b) on an aircraft loading bridge or on a gallery or balcony that is contiguous to or that overhangs an apron; or
o (c) in an area where smoking or the presence of an open flame is likely to create a fire hazard that could endanger
persons or property.
(2) The operator of an aerodrome may, in writing, authorize maintenance or servicing operations on an apron that involve the
use, production or potential development of an open flame or that involve the production or potential development of a spark
where the operations are conducted in a manner that is not likely to create a fire hazard that could endanger persons or
property.
(3) The operator of an aerodrome may permit smoking in an enclosed building or shelter located on an apron where such
smoking is not likely to create a fire hazard that could endanger persons or property.

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review Redacted - Redacted - RS

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review Redacted - Redacted - RS

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON

REPORT NUMBER: PO 36378

NELSON AIRPORT OPERATIONS AND

JULY 16, 2019

CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON

PROJECT NO.: 19M-00612-00

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

CONTENTS 1.1 Background.................................................................... 1

2 SITE VISIT ...................................................... 2

3 REGULATORY REVIEW ................................ 4

4 AIRPORT OPERATIONS REVIEW ............... 12

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

PANORAMIC AIRPORT PHOTO

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE POSITION

City of Nelson Colin Innes Acting Airport Manager

Kootenay Lake Aviation Thierry Noblet Owner/ Operator

Nelson Pilots Association Vic Corrie Airport Society Founding Member

Kootenay Valley Helicopters Jeff Parker General Manager

Nelson Pilots Association Wade Nearing Airport Society Founding Member

Nelson Pilots Association Karen MacDonald Former Airport Manager

Nelson Pilots Association Wade Nearing Hangar Owner

2.3 AIRPORT CONTEXT

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

3.2 AIRFIELD INSPECTION RESULTS

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

CFS AERODROME SKETCH

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

TAXIWAY CLOSURE USING CONCRETE BARRICADES

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

LAKE SIDE WALK PATH

ABSENCE OF LOW-FLYING AIRCRAFT NOTICES

CAR 301.05 states:

Wind Direction Indicator

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

NORTH SIDE WIND DIRECTION INDICATOR WITH PARTIAL OBSTRUCTION

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

3.3 OTHER ISSUES

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

4.2 AIRPORT MANAGEMENT

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

4.3 AIRPORT FINANCES

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

4.4 OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES

5. Processes and Procedure Documentation: No current documented processes or procedures appeared to

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

Significant depressions in paved surface

APRON CONDITION PICTURES

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

VEGETATION IN THE APPROACH TO RUNWAY 04

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

AERODROME SKETCH IDENTIFICATION OF POLES

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

PAVEMENT CRACKING EXAMPLES

Nelson Airport Operations and Regulatory Review WSP

REF. RECOMMENDATION NOTES