The Airport Advisory Board voted unanimously on Thursday to conduct a wind study at Aspen-Pitkin County Airport.

It investigates situations in which air traffic detects extreme wind shear that could affect aircraft takeoff and informs flight 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 commonly associated with strong temperature inversions or density gradients. Wind shear can occur at high or low altitudes.”

“Wind shear can occur at many different levels of the atmosphere, but it is most dangerous at lower levels because of the potential for a sudden loss of air speed and altitude,” the National Weather Service said. conditions.

The study will include analyzing existing reports, conducting stakeholder interviews with various Aspen operators, looking at aircraft flight data, and examining weather models. Once completed, a report will be produced with recommendations for possible systems such as radars or wind sensors that can be deployed in Aspen.

Another part of the study, which is scheduled to begin in the fall and continue into the winter, includes installing three additional wind sensors at the north and south ends of the airport to help collect more minute-by-minute weather data and include it in the report.

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

“I think anything related to safety is always at the top of our priority list,” said airport director Dan Bartholomew.

The $125,000 needed for the study will be provided either from airport funds or from grants applied for by the airport.

The wind study was presented to the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners by the FlightOps Safety Task Force. The airport advisory board had to agree to move forward with the study because it needs approval to present it to commissioners as part of a supplemental airport budget proposal or 2025 process that will come up in the next few months.

More news

The board also discussed leasing patio covers at the airport, heard an update on the Fly with Integrity program, reviewed the 2025 budget, discussed grants, and then addressed Wednesday’s Board of County Commissioners meeting on the two ballot questions related to the airport.

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

“There’s a lot of nuance here, but I wish it were simpler,” she said. “I wish the wording was simpler so people can make their decision without having to ask.”

“But Valerie, it’s such a complex issue,” said Jacque Francis, chairman of the airport advisory board. “It’s not that simple. You can’t ask such a simple question because that would be inaccurate.”

With their request, the commissioners seek to amend Article II of the county’s governing document, the Home Rule Charter, to give Pitkin County sole authority to approve and implement the structure and related regulatory plan for the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport.

Our Airport Our Vote’s question seeks to amend the Home Rule Charter, Pitkin County’s governing document, to limit county officials’ authority to extend or relocate runways at Aspen/Pitkin County Airport beyond the dimensions and locations existing on January 1 without voter approval, and to clearly define the term “runway.”

As for Francis, the board must stick to its decision to move forward with the airport layout plan, regardless of the outcome of the November election.

“I will say that as a board, while not unanimous, we voted to move forward with the airport layout plan,” she said. “That’s something we did as a board, and as a board member you have to support that. As a person and with personal opinions you can support whatever you want, but our board moved forward with that, and we stand by it because that was our board decision.”