14 C.F.R. § 77.19

Civil airport imaginary surfaces

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The following civil airport imaginary surfaces are established with relation to the airport and to each runway. The size of each such imaginary surface is based on the category of each runway according to the type of approach available or planned for that runway. The slope and dimensions of the approach surface applied to each end of a runway are determined by the most precise approach procedure existing or planned for that runway end.

(a) Horizontal surface. A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of a specified radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway of each airport and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. The radius of each arc is:

(1) 5,000 feet for all runways designated as utility or visual;

(2) 10,000 feet for all other runways. The radius of the arc specified for each end of a runway will have the same arithmetical value. That value will be the highest determined for either end of the runway. When a 5,000-foot arc is encompassed by tangents connecting two adjacent 10,000-foot arcs, the 5,000-foot arc shall be disregarded on the construction of the perimeter of the horizontal surface.

(b) Conical surface. A surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.

(c) Primary surface. A surface longitudinally centered on a runway. When the runway has a specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that runway; but when the runway has no specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface ends at each end of that runway. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. The width of the primary surface is:

(1) 250 feet for utility runways having only visual approaches.

(2) 500 feet for utility runways having non-precision instrument approaches.

(3) For other than utility runways, the width is:

(i) 500 feet for visual runways having only visual approaches.

(ii) 500 feet for non-precision instrument runways having visibility minimums greater than three-fourths statute mile.

(iii) 1,000 feet for a non-precision instrument runway having a non-precision instrument approach with visibility minimums as low as three-fourths of a statute mile, and for precision instrument runways.

(iv) The width of the primary surface of a runway will be that width prescribed in this section for the most precise approach existing or planned for either end of that runway.

(d) Approach surface. A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. An approach surface is applied to each end of each runway based upon the type of approach available or planned for that runway end.

(1) The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface and it expands uniformly to a width of:

(i) 1,250 feet for that end of a utility runway with only visual approaches;

(ii) 1,500 feet for that end of a runway other than a utility runway with only visual approaches;

(iii) 2,000 feet for that end of a utility runway with a non-precision instrument approach;

(iv) 3,500 feet for that end of a non-precision instrument runway other than utility, having visibility minimums greater that three-fourths of a statute mile;

(v) 4,000 feet for that end of a non-precision instrument runway, other than utility, having a non-precision instrument approach with visibility minimums as low as three-fourths statute mile; and

(vi) 16,000 feet for precision instrument runways.

(2) The approach surface extends for a horizontal distance of:

(i) 5,000 feet at a slope of 20 to 1 for all utility and visual runways;

(ii) 10,000 feet at a slope of 34 to 1 for all non-precision instrument runways other than utility; and

(iii) 10,000 feet at a slope of 50 to 1 with an additional 40,000 feet at a slope of 40 to 1 for all precision instrument runways.

(3) The outer width of an approach surface to an end of a runway will be that width prescribed in this subsection for the most precise approach existing or planned for that runway end.

(e) Transitional surface. These surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surfaces. Transitional surfaces for those portions of the precision approach surface which project through and beyond the limits of the conical surface, extend a distance of 5,000 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the approach surface and at right angles to the runway centerline.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2022 · leading case: One Energy Ents., L.L.C. v. Dept. of Transp., 2019 Ohio 359 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

One Energy Ents., L.L.C. v. Dept. of Transp., 2019 Ohio 359 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “{¶ 9} Additionally, an object with a height greater than any of the imaginary surfaces described in 14 C.F.R. 77.19 or 77.21 is considered an obstruction to air navigation under 14 C.”

Air Line Pilots' Ass'n Int'l v. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., John H. Shaffer, Adm'r, 446 F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1971). · cites it 3× “” 14 C.F.R. § 77.19 . This Acknowledgement states that an aeronautical study of the proposed construction has resulted in one of three determinations: That the proposed construction or alteration (1) Would not exceed any standard of Subpart C and would not be a hazard to air…”

Clark Cnty. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 522 F.3d 437 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “” Handbook ¶ 7 — 1—3(a); 14 C.F.R. § 77.19 (c)(1) (aeronautical study results in determination that proposed construction “[w]ould not exceed any standard of subpart C and would not be a hazard to air navigation”); see also, e.”

Aeronautics Comm'n of Indiana v. State Ex Rel. Emmis Broad. Corp., 440 N.E.2d 700 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). “23 (a), and also may require the FAA to conduct aeronautical studies in certain circumstances, see 14 C.F.R. §§ 77.19 (c)(3), .35(a). An initial hazard/no-hazard determination is made by a staff member in the FAA’s Air Traffic Division, and that decision is final unless the FAA…”

Flowers Mill Assocs. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 182 (Ct. Cl. 1991). “14 C.F.R. § 77.19 (c). Thus, even after a proposed structure is found to be an obstruction to air navigation, further investigation is required before it is determined that the structure is a hazard.”

Kupster Realty Corp. v. State, 93 Misc. 2d 843 (1978). “would then determine additionally if such obstruction was or was not a hazard to air navigation (see 14 CFR 77.19 [c] [2], [3], and Subparts D and E; see, also, Air Line Pilots’ Assn.”

3775 Genesee Street, Inc. v. State, 99 Misc. 2d 59 (1979). “The FAA would then proceed to make one of three findings (14 CFR 77.19): 1. That the construction will not exceed the obstruction standard determined pursuant to subpart C, and therefore is not a hazard to avigation; 2.”

Greater Orlando Aviation Auth. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 939 F.2d 954 (11th Cir. 1991). “Because the Aviation Authority did not appeal the order within sixty days of its becoming a final order, this court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal unless the Aviation Authority presents reasonable grounds for its failure to file within the statutory period.”

Susan Boggs v. FAA (6th Cir. 2019). “Second, they argue that 14 C.F.R. § 77.19 describes an Standard Operating Procedure 3.”

Cheryl Nolte Barnes v. Clark Cnty. (9th Cir. 2022). “ecord that Defendants have established in support of their attorneys’ fees motion that none of the projects involved technical specifications that triggered the alleged requirements of the FAA Circulars and URA that Defendants possess (and have provided just compensation for)…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.