Airpark Relocation Information

72 Comments

1. 1. Is there any planning or potential for including a shallow lake for RC use for float flying, RC boats, etc?
   2. Do you need any qualified help designing and implementing a reasonably valid survey for members, neighbors, or any other interested parties? If yes, I can volunteer myself.

   • 1 The Pioneer-Blunn master plan includes a lake sometime in the future adjacent to our site to the north. The club will work with the City of Arvada to be allowed to access the lake for float flying and rc boating when the future lake is developed. Your idea of a dedicated body of water on the club site will be evaluated.
     2 There will be a survey. Please contact me, one of the new field committee members, or a board member directly.

2. I use a powered wheelchair and have found that it is difficult and uncomfortable to drive my chair on the loose rock in the parking area and in the area between the assembly tables and the concrete leading to the runway. Wheelchairs such as mine with 10 -14 inch wheels have difficulty with loose surface material such as crushed rock, wood chips and loose dirt as the wheels dig in and the chair becomes high centered preventing movement. The rock at the present site is also extremely bumpy and jolting to drive on. The parking lot is not a big deal as long as I can park reasonably close the border of it with the air park.

   • I agree; that’s a concern that should be addressed. We should think about providing handicapped parking up close and look into a smoother surface.

   • We will take in to consideration accessibility as we design the new airfield.

3. Thanks for all your past, present, and future work on this project!
   My priority in a flying sight is to keep the sun out of our faces. You’ve done that better with the new proposed layout than our current field is (which is not bad at all). I hope you are able to retain nearly an E-W runway orientation as you consider airspace conflict between the two new runways.

4. 1) I support the idea of two air fields as we have today. Not only is the current East field often occupied by larger and much faster planes, it can get very busy due to its popularity. It is very nice for new pilots with smaller, foamy type planes to fly in a calmer and quieter setting. It would be nice if both fields coud be concrete – but its it’s understandable it that could not be the case.

   2) Sufficient power to both fields would be a definate plus. This could not only reduce long term charging station expenses (solar, batteries and such) but could also be a means of supporting our web-weather technology and it would make our larger events (warbirds etc.) that much better – and may even open the door to additional vendors.

   3) On demand access to the lake for club members to fly or boat would be a terrific plus. Many of the lakes in Arvada are simply not accessible to modelers. In this case, a means of getting out on the water to perform rescues would be useful. Possibly a small but secured launch-site/storage for the club boat?

   4) Distrubuted gazebos. Yes, two very large ones are nice to have and necessary for large events. However, the addition of smaller distributed gazebos allow pilots throughout the year to benefit with protection from the sun and rain.

   • I agree with Joe Wagner. It would be great if the smaller field could also be paved.

   • I doubt if we will get concrete on the short runway, but asphalt may be possible.

     • Doesn’t asphalt need to be resealed periodically? If we look at the cost of each reseal how long until we will spend what it would have cost to pave with concrete? I am not criticizing the response and do not know the answer but I am just asking the question.

   • Thank you for the suggestions. We’ll add them to our list of suggestions for further evaluation and consideration.

5. I support trying to incorporate 2 fields/runway. However, long term sustainability is a major design consideration. IOW… who will be our members 10, 15, 20 years from now. In my opinion, the only thing we know for sure, is that large fixed-wing aircraft will still need a long, wide runway with plenty of over-fly area, and that over-fly area is growing with larger, faster planes. The ovals on the current design are for relatively small or average sized aircraft. We know that jets, pattern planes and other larger scale models fly a somewhat larger pattern. The current design concept push the limits of the western over-fly boundary to the western limit of the property boundary. In doing so, we may be limiting or restricting large aircraft over-fly on the west end in the future. Additionally, the current concept has an immediate over-fly limitation/restriction to the east. The eastern over-fly boundary could not be over-flown without creating a potential safety hazard for the amenities shown to the east. I believe that our designs should prioritize the main/large field being located to allow for a greater buffer between the western and eastern over-fly boundaries and the property limits. This requires that the main/large field move further east and be more geographically centered within the property limits, which also creates greater limitations for other amenities. Given these considerations, as well as certain topographic challenges, I’m not sure 2 runways are entirely feasible. I also agree that retaining a nearly an E-W runway orientation is essential.

   • The new field committee needs to bring closure to the decision regarding one or two runways. There will be a survey of the mebership00 and this will be a topic for the survey so we can get feedback from the membership prior to finalizing a decision, but two runways is feasible and can be done safely.
     · A study of the club’s membership demographics and trends for the next 10 or 15 years would be helpful. Joe’s comment regarding the future need for a location to fly larger fixed wing airplanes off a runway and not in parks makes sense. However, “larger” fixed wing aircraft isn’t limited to large scale, turbine jets, and pattern planes. Many of the other smaller glow and electric planes also require a runway and can be flown off of a smaller runway than the large concrete runway.
     · The current west runway is used. There are pilots who prefer a less crowded place to fly, are intimidated by the larger planes at the east field, or are newer pilots that prefer the more laid back west runway atmosphere. If we are concerned about losing membership these members can’t be ignored.
     · The conceptual smaller east runway would likely be limited to electric only to limit noise at the Spring Mesa houses.
     · The separation between the 2 runways is more than 600 ft greater than the distance between the current runways.
     · The perimeter lines aren’t really boundaries. The west boundry could be overflown without creating a safety hazard. Overfly to the east of the large runway is shown as it is to limit potential overly and safety to the east runway.
     · One runway makes it harder to close for multiple day events for paying members.
     · The larger oval was established using the normal flying pattern of large planes not small or average planes.

6. Is it possible to have the north apron of the west field be a grass runway? Maybe not all 750 feet of it – perhaps 500 feet. I could see this benefiting anybody with a tail skid (WWI), those that might prefer grass over concrete (typically larger aircraft), and those of us that want our landings to look better since there’d be no centerline.

   Also, there’s such a desire to fly off a local pond and, per the discussion at the May meeting, we don’t know if/when we’d be able to use the local pond included in the master plan. So, what about fitting a smaller pond of our own somewhere around the east field or between the two fields?

   • Hopefully at some time the city can provide us with water, electricity, even sewer. I would think that the bike park would have somewhat modern restroom facilities. If we have water we could grow whatever we want.

   • Thank you for the suggestions. We’ll add them to our list of suggestions for further evaluation and consideration.

     • Grass will be difficult to the lack of water and power for irrigation. There are problems with a pond for float flying. These include but aren’t limited to: lack of water and a safe location on the new site. The only way to locate a float fly plan would be to eliminate the proposed east runway.

       • Maybe the east runway could be half water. Just kidding.

         What would it take to get power dropped at the flying locations? Is it worth the expense?

         • Thank you for the suggestion. We already have electrical power on our list of suggestions for further evaluation and consideration.

7. Has there been any consideration to Heli Pads? I see nothing on the plan for this..

   • What you’re seeing above as of this date is just a general design. Detailed design is in progress and even the general design could still change somewhat.

8. I hope the field video camera will be at the field with the paved runway at the new location. I assume the pilot barriers will be at least 25ft back from the near edge of the runway.

   • There will likely be still cameras at both fields. Several pilot barrier layouts are being evaluated.

9. Ran the rc car track it was great! I’m not an rc plane flyer but it was nice to know low power Estes rockets allowed. Definitely plan to become a member. I would invest into making a rc crawler course!!!

   • I like the idea of 2 runways like we currently have. Some of us that fly the smaller or slow flying planes get intimidated by the larger and faster planes and like the smaller strip to fly in a more relaxed setting. We all have different styles of flying, I think having just 1 long runway, it will get crowded and possibly could drive away members that want to fly in a more relaxed setting.

     I see the above comments about float flying/boats, anyway we can use Blunn Reservoir next to us for that?

   • Welcome to the club. Regarding the crawler course and rc track, you signed your comment anonymously so we can’t contact you about specific design. Please contact one of the new field committee members (you can do this on the new field website) or club board members directly to discuss specifics about what a car track and crawler tack should look like.

   • I’m just guessing, but isn’t a crawler track basically a pile of rocks and dirt? I think that would be easy to accomplish. As far as rockets, we only allow them at the west field only when no other activities are taking place, and only with extreme care and non-dry conditions. Our by-laws about rockets are very minimal, and your comment made me think we may need to update.

     • You are correct that a crawler course would mainly consist of a pile of rocks/dirt. There are lots of things that you can do with a pile of rocks though ie. bridges, tunnels, that sort of thing. I am a current member that joined primarily for the RC track and I’m glad to see that the plan is to continue to have one. I would love to be involved with the new RC track!

10. I do not have a sense of the scale of things, but here are my thoughts:

    1) I’d like as much separation of the pattern boxes as possible. Thus, I’d like to see the pattern boxes occupy either the center or far ends of the proposed pilot boxes. Two reasons… first and foremost, greater separation lessens the chance of a mid-air. Second, greater separation also provides greater separation of center maneuvers which provides less distraction to the other box.

    2) I cannot tell how much room is behind the pilot boxes to the next line of fencing, but we need at least 20 feet. We want the judges directly behind the pilots, but an ample distance back to see over their heads and for safety.

    Also, in general, I don’t see the need for as much fencing as you are proposing. If you look at LAMA (for example) and many other more recently designed fields. A lot of the intermediate fencing is omitted in favor of greater distance to the pits, with longer taxiways to the runway. I’d like to see a more open field design as I don’t think the fencing (excluding a spectator barrier) really adds a lot to the safety of the field.

    Joe P.

    • From the new airpark committee:
      Currently, the pattern stations are the same distance apart as the current ones which is what Dan suggested. Regardless, they’re just paint so moving them around in the pilot stations isn’t a big deal. By the way, there are now gaps in the front pilot station fencing to allow people to move back and forth to the runway without going around the sides of the pilot stations.

      There’s 20 feet behind the pilot boxes to the next line of fencing.

      The reason there are two lines of fencing is that one is for normal field use (spectators stay behind the pits in the parking lot) and the other is for events (spectators are in the pits and stay behind the starting and runup area while the planes mostly pit in the starting and runup area or to its sides). The third line is debatable but the idea is to protect the pilots in the stations from a big plane running up in the starting and runup area. This is modeled on our current configuration which has three lines of fences. However, these fences are planned to be 3 feet tall instead of the 4 foot and 6 foot tall fences we have now at the present field.

      The taxiways are 69 feet long and 20 feet wide.

      • Am I correct that you have basically two pilot stations which will have up to 3 pilots in each? It seems that they may be closer together than what we have now, and to me would cause interference/crowding. Also, if the current fences are at 4 feet I would like them to remain at that height. I sometimes like to rest my hands on the fence, and I’ve seen others do the same. Also a 3 foot fence will only provide protection from a plane on the ground. I like the idea of being able to duck down if a plane is heading at me, not drop to the ground. I personally like the spacing of the stations we have now, and if wanted shorter side fences on each station if that is preferred by the majority. And the fence behind the stations simply set back another ten feet or so to allow for judges. I think this is the sort of question which should be put on a poll to members. Also with the runway perfectly East-West as shown, the Sun well be setting North of the centerline in the Summer. I prefer the slightly canted orientation we now have. But I’m not much of a morning flier when there may be a advantage as shown.

        • From the new airpark committee:
          The May 24 concept has 2 pilot stations without fences separating the pilots from each other. The goal is to get pilots closer together within a pilot station to enable better communication between pilots. The pilot stations are wide enough to hold six pilots and six spotters easily.

          The proposed fences in front of the pilots are 3 ft, composite non-conductive, radar friendly, fences. The lower fences are to allow children and adults who must fly from a seated position to see their planes on takeoff and landing. An option would be to have both 3ft and 4ft fences since there are (3) 12ft long fences in front of each the two pilot stations, and there are other alternatives that will be considered..

          The runway orientation is largely dictated by the site. There are large, deep, depressions east and west of the location of the west runway. There will only be approx. 120 ft of run off from the ends of the runway to the depressions with the east-west orientation in the May 24 concept. If the runway is “slanted” the west of the runway would be in one of the depressions. Additionally, the east west orientation avoids the runway centerline from passing over the road and thus putting takeoff and approach over cars traveling to the “quiet” field. It also avoids the runway centerline from passing over the existing bike path to the south.

          There will be a survey or poll. However it’s not practical to question every detail in a survey or poll. It would create too many questions and discourage participation. We are relying on feedback like you have provided here.

11. Please ask the City if they will authorize addtitional spending to add a paved handicap use pathway from the parking area to the pit/taxiway area of each field. The Club will then mark at least two parking places at each field for the SOLE use of our members whom require this form of access.

    • ______

    • Yes, Ian, I agree! To be more specific, ADA accessible paved ramps for the folks that require them.

      I am a current AAM member

    • From the new airpark committee. Ian Isaacs is a member:
      As noted in a previous comment, accessibility will be considered in the design of the new airpark. We are looking at surfaces that would be more wheel chair friendly, handicap friendly, and more maintenance free for the pit area, parking, road, and runway aprons. For example, recycled asphalt, which would be a hard surface. The club is already authorized for additional spending for upgrades but if the upgrades involve additional cost the club will have to pay for them. The club should designate whatever number of handicap parking spaces that would be necessary to be code compliant.

12. I am newer club member but I have been using solar to charge my batteries for the last 3 years. Curious if there has been any consideration of setting up 24 volt charging stations in addition to the 12 volt ones? I noticed several folks flying 6s planes so I think this would be beneficial. I think a large majority of today’s chargers operate on 24 volts. I would like to help in anyway I can, solar charging my RC has become a second hobby for me.

    • I’m pretty sure the east field charging station could be reconfigured to supply 24V, but at the time we designed it, 12V chargers were the most common, and providing both 12 and 24 volt outputs would have complicated things.
      Your ideas for providing dual voltage outputs would be appreciated. It would also be nice to add logging of the current and total amp-hours on the output side; the solar charge controller only logs the solar input to the batteries.

      • From the new airpark committee:
        Upgrades to the charging stations are not a new airpark issue and can be done at any time. Submit a proposal to the board for consideration and approval showing what you propose, how the work would be accomplished, who would do the work, and what the cost would be.

    • From the new airpark committee:
      Welcome to the club. We haven’t considered upgrading the charging station to 24V but stations will be relocated. The upgrade doesn’t have to wait for the new airpark. Submit a proposal to the board for consideration and approval showing what you propose, how the work would be accomplished, who would do the work, and what the cost would be. We are looking into possible 110v power to the new airpark as an upgrade.

      • The availability of AC power would perhaps completely eliminate the need for solar charging stations though… and create a demand for DC power supplies instead.

13. I’m a new member and very casual user, so I may have missed some of the history here, but why is this being proposed? I looked at the earliest committee meeting PDF but didn’t see any reasons for moving or problems with the current fields. My apologies if I missed this above. Thanks!

    • The Jefferson Parkway is going to be built right through the middle of our current site, thus we have to move.

    • From the new airpark committee:
      Welcome to the club. We have known about this for several years. A new highway, called Jefferson Parkway, will run from Hwy 93 on the south, through our current airfield at the CL circle, to Hwy 128 on the north. That’s bad news for the club. The good news is that the city of Arvada and the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority are working with the club to provide a new site and to pay to construct new facilities like what we have now. Any upgrades from what we have now will have to paid for by the club.

14. I hadn’t been at the field during a rain storm before but was today. There was approx 1/2″ or less of rain and the pit area, start up area and approx. 100ft at the east end of the runway were under water. I hope grading at the new site will take care of this type of problem.

    Regarding fence around the pilot boxes. i am in favor or 3-3.5ft fence in front of the pilot and that high or higher to the side of the box.

    • The cement runway was installed with a highway paving machine that was capable of producing a perfectly flat surface with great precision. Thus the runway is so level and flat that water doesn’t run off of it as it would if the runway surface was crowned. So when rain is in the forecast Sid…bring your float plane out with you. 😉

    • From the new airpark committee:
      There will be emphasis and attention on grading of the new site for good drainage and low maintenance particularly at the runways, CL circle, pit areas, parking areas, and the road.

15. I strongly support a layout that includes 2 runways similar to what we have now. A smaller runway is ideal for flying smaller aircraft “low and slow and close” versus the concrete runway for the larger, combustion powered models. I favor the arrangement showing the short runway to the east because this provides a flyover buffer for the pilots at the long runway who might drift out a little too far on occasion. I am also in favor of pilots stations that are fenced and set back from the runway by 20-30 feet.

    I am a big fan of the webcam that is focused on the wind sock and the grounds next to the runway. If the sock is standing straight out or there is standing water, I know not to make the drive from home out to the field. The weather station is a plus when it is working, but the camera is preferred if we can only have one of the two. (The weather station has been working perfectly the last couple of months!)

    I do not see a club house or running water restrooms as being a plus. The cleaning and upkeep requirements would just be too much.

    • I want to say that I FULLY support building out two runways. We have too much traffic for a single airfield. With the increase in jets and large pattern airplanes at the current East field it is just not practical for the folks who want to fly smaller electrics (quiet) airplanes to mix with all that traffic. I fly at the current West field because I want a casual and relaxed flying experience. I don’t want to mix with all the larger airplanes and jets. With only a single airfield I believe that the airspace will be far too crowded and not a fun fun flying experience. I think if AAM were NOT to build two airfields I would probably find a new club to fly at.

16. I want to say that I FULLY support building out two runways. We have too much traffic for a single airfield. With the increase in jets and large pattern airplanes at the current East field it is just not practical for the folks who want to fly smaller electrics (quiet) airplanes to mix with all that traffic. I fly at the current West field because I want a casual and relaxed flying experience. I don’t want to mix with all the larger airplanes and jets. With only a single airfield I believe that the airspace will be far too crowded and not a fun fun flying experience. I think if AAM were NOT to build two airfields I would probably find a new club to fly at.

    • It seems we have plenty of room at the new site for two runways, and I agree that trying to fly with the bigger (‘spensive) planes can be intimidating even for experienced flyer’s.

17. A water tap would be very nice

    • From the new airpark committee – this is something that is being considered. It would be almost $20K just for the tap, not including the service and cost of water used. Water is something that would have to be paid for by the club, doesn’t need to be done during the airpark relocation, and could be added at a future date if desired or needed.

18. I would like to see a hard surface (asphalt or concrete) for the control line circle. The Geotex we have now seems to require quite a bit of maintenance to the point where now the Geotex needs to be replaced. It would be interesting to get a projected added cost on this and see what the projected assessment would be.

    Mike

    • From the new airpark committee: We are looking at surface materials as an alternative to geotex for the CL circle, quiet runway, and aprons at the concrete runway. The committee will present alternatives with pros, cons, and costs. The goal is to reduce maintenance and cost for the club and to have a better surface.

19. The NEED FOR A CROSSWIND RUNWAY.

    My suggestion comes from my many years of full scale airplane flying from the nearby Rocky Mountain Metropolitan airport and years of R/C flight training at AAM’s flying site on Thursday evenings. Students and many R/C pilots are too often seen crashing their planes while attempting to take off or land in the high crosswinds that all too frequent come up and blow at a 90 degree angle to the one paved runway. Ask any instructor and they will tell you how frequently training was curtailed due to strong crosswinds that blow on Thursday evenings.

    Because our flying site’s location has strong winds that frequently shift to blow perpendicular to our paved runway, I would like to propose that we include a dirt, or Geotex, crosswind runway, in our new flying site plan. I was unable to post my crosswind runway drawings here so imagine a relatively short, North-South landing strip located at the east edge of the new paved runway. It would look like a sideways “T”.

    Having this runway available would allow for safer take off and landing operations when the winds, as they often do, shift to blow hard from the North or South. This runway option will enhance safety on the flight line by avoiding crashes into the pilot safety barriers. These crashes occur when strong winds are blowing out of the north causing airplanes, on take off and/or landing, to drift south of the runway impacting the pilot safety barriers. While the barriers may protect the flyers standing within them, the airplanes that drift into the barriers often sustain unnecessary, and substantial damaged.
    ALL AAM FLYERS, not just students, WOULD BENEFIT by having this crosswind runway available for safer take off and landing operations whenever the strong crosswind conditions require its use.

    The expense building a crosswind runway with a dirt surface would be minimal, just the cost of the initial grading. Upkeep would require mowing and weed control.
    The initial expense of a Geotex crosswind runway surface would, of course, be more than just dirt. But a Geotex surface would not require the ongoing maintenance of mowing and weed control.
    I am not even suggesting cement paving of this crosswind runway at this time due to the high cost of paving. But the option to pave it would certainly be open if and when finances were to permit.

    What I believe is most important is that AAM flyers have a perpendicular runway available for safer take off and landing operations when strong crosswinds to the main runway require its use.

    Please seriously consider the additional safety and benefits of incorporating a perpendicular crosswind runway into the future flying site plan.

    Thank You,

    Dennis Wruk
    Posted July 17, 2019

    • From the new airpark committee. Everyone would like to have an alternative crosswind runway and this is possibly the most often voiced wish. Therefore, it has received a lot of consideration and study. Unfortunately, the site won’t accommodate it. Most important is safety. Part of the new airpark committee’s and the club’s mission is safety. You also correctly state that pilot safety could be improved with a crosswind runway. However, taking off and landing north/south at this site would require intentionally flying over people on the busy Ralston Creek Trail creating a serious safety issue and violation of the AMA and AAM safety codes. We’d be expanding possible safety issues for club members to now include safety of the general public. We can’t encourage flying over any areas we don’t want to be constantly overflown. There’s a difference between having to make an emergency landing because of a sudden high wind (rare) and constantly encouraging a north-south pattern (north south wind direction common). The committee has put a lot of thought and effort into orientating the runways to avoid overfly of the Ralston Creek Trail and over our own club members.

      You mention that cost would be minimal, but that’s not the case due to the existing terrain that has large depressions from prior gravel mining and a natural gulley that would be have to be filled with large amounts of imported dirt and compacted. Then there is the cost of creating and maintaining a suitable surface.

      • I have an idea, I think we should add to the 2nd smaller runway for the electric planes. Put a piece of AstroTurf 50-75’ long right next to the runway! It would not cost much and it would give the planes that don’t have landing gear (sailplanes, Super Fly’s, etc, anything that doesn’t have wheels for gear) a safe place to land and minimize damage from landing on a hard surface.

        • From the new airpark committee: We are looking at alternative runway apron options like turf, geotex, and a new product that is on the electric runway at the Tipple Tree Aerodrome.

      • Would an L shape be feasible instead of a T?

        • From the new airpark committee. There is room to construct a north south runway spur, either a T or an L shape. However, we also need to consider the terrain that our planes fly over. Landing approaches from the south, into a north wind, would fly over a busy pedestrian / bike trail which is not acceptable for safety reasons so there actually isn’t room. However, since there is a lot of interest in having a north – south runway we are taking another look at this at the east “quiet field” but at the west field there isn’t enough flyover room for larger planes.

20. What are the measurements of the two new fields? What material will they be made out of?

    • From the new airpark committee. The 2 runways will be the same dimensions as the current runways. 385ft x 32ft for the east runway and 740ft x 49ft for the west runway. The west runway will be concrete and we are looking at different options for the east runway, like geotex, artificial turf, a carpet material, and a much heavier duty geotex than we have now.

21. Would be nice to have a wider replacement for the current west field. Even the same type of material, but wider, would be great if an asphalt surface is too expensive.
    Thanks!

    • From the new airpark committee: This is the first request for a wider runway. The width of the material that is used has a lot to do with determining the width. We’ll take a look at widening the quiet runway which will be the east runway. If it requires more material than we currently are using at the west field, the club would have to pay for the additional material.

22. Since there will be other proposed groups/activities needing access to the Arvada Blunn/Pioneer Master Plan, could the designated Concessionaire of the Parkway be approached to help get the access road from HWY 93 to the new airfield paved? Paved access would make a much cleaner and safer entry especially in inclement weather. This would benefit anyone using various areas within the Master Plan.

    • From the new airpark committee:
      The concessionaire won’t be responsible for paving the access road since the current access roads aren’t currently paved, so, the club would have to pay for that. However, the new airpark committee is looking at some alternatives to gravel like recycled asphalt or recycled concrete to achieve what you are suggesting.

23. Hey, been reading through the previous posts and can’t seem to find what I’m looking for, is there a map somewhere showing the physical location of the new AAM? I see the park designs but nothing of where it actually is? (thanks in advance, I’ve been a member for nearly a year but just haven’t seen that information)

    • rather, where it will be 🙂

      • See on the top picture where it says “site entrance”? That’s our current site entrance – and the new one. It’s about a mile south of our current field, just south of Pioneer.

        • awesome, thanks for the info

    • Look at the link above: ARVADA BLUNN/PIONEER MASTER PLAN
      and the aerial photo jpg.