Aspen Airport advisory board votes to move forward with wind study

The Airport Advisory Board unanimously voted on Thursday to move forward with a wind study to be conducted at the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport.

It will look at situations where air traffic detects extreme windshear events that would affect aircrafts taking off and communicate that with aircraft crews.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, “Wind shear is a change in wind speed and/or direction over a short distance. It can occur either horizontally or vertically and is most often associated with strong temperature inversions or density gradients. Wind shear can occur at high or low altitude.”

---

---

“Wind shear can occur at many different levels of the atmosphere; however, it is most dangerous at the low levels, as a sudden loss of airspeed and altitude can occur,” the National Weather Service states.

The study consists of conducting analysis of existing reports, completing stakeholder interviews with different Aspen operators, looking at flight data from aircrafts, and studying weather models. Once these are complete, a report will be made with recommendations for possible systems, like radars or wind sensors, that can apply to Aspen.

---

---

Another part of the study, which would begin in the fall and continue into winter, includes deploying three additional wind sensors at the north and south ends of the airport that will be used to detect more minute-weather information to include in the report.

Once the study is done, a system will be installed at the airport, potentially in the air traffic control tower. The system will help alert controllers to these dangerous weather events.

“I think anything safety related is always high on our priority list,” Airport Director Dan Bartholomew, said.

The $125,000 needed for the study will either come from the airport funds or grants the airport applies for.

The wind study has been submitted to the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners by the FlightOps Safety Task Force. The Airport Advisory Board had to approve moving forward with the study because it needs authorization to take it to the commissioners as part of an airport supplemental budget proposal or a 2025 process, which is coming up in the next couple of months.

In other news

The board also discussed patio shelter leases at the airport, heard a Fly with Integrity Program update, went through the 2025 budget, had a grant discussion, and followed up with Wednesday’s Board of County Commissioners’ meeting regarding the two airport-focused ballot questions.

Valerie Braun, an Airport Advisory Board member, asked for clarification on the two ballot questions. One ballot question comes from the Pitkin County Commission and the other one comes from Our Airport Our Vote.

“There’s a lot of nuance here, but I just wish that it would be simpler,” she said. “I wish the wording would be simpler, so that people can come to their decision without having to ask.”

“But Valerie, it’s such a complex issue,” Jacque Francis, chair of the Airport Advisory Board, said. “It’s not that simple. You can’t ask that simple of a question because that’s inaccurate.”

The commissioners’ question seeks to amend Article II of the county’s governing document, the Home Rule Charter, to allow Pitkin County sole power to approve and carry out a physical layout and attendant regulatory plan for the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport.

Our Airport Our Vote’s question will amend the Home Rule Charter, Pitkin County’s governing document, to restrict county officials decision making power regarding the expansion or relocation of any runway at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport beyond the dimensions and locations that existed on Jan. 1 without voter approval. It also clearly defines “runway.”

As far as Francis is concerned, the board needs to stick by its decision to move forward with the airport layout plan, no matter what happens during November’s election.

“I’m going to say that as a board, we voted, not unanimously, but we voted to move the airport layout plan forward,” she said. “That’s something as a board that we have done, and as a board member, you need to support that. As a person and a personal opinion, you can support whatever you want, but our board moved that forward, and we stick by that because that was our board decision.”