Our Proven Track Record For Success

A client purchased a large piece of property on Tropicana Blvd to construct several 500-foot tall buildings on the end of 19R at Las Vegas International.  Our client received a "Presumed Hazard" from the FAA and didn't understand the reasons the FAA was stating.  We analyzed the mathematics the FAA was saying was the issue and discovered existing and planned structures were not considered in their analysis.  We presented our arguments before members of the FAA in Washington, DC, they agreed to review this project taking into account the existing and planned obstacles in the airport environment.  Under much review the project did received higher heights than originally requested. Las Vegas Intl. objected to the FAA's approval and filed a petition against our client. We reargued the facts covered in the initial analysis, the FAA agreed that the original determination by their division was correct and overturned the airports objection.  Without us this project would not have been approved, resulting in a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The FAA issued a “presumed hazard”  for constructing a 500ft power line that crossed Tacoma narrows. Our analysis concluded the FAA’s objection to airport’s traffic pattern was located on the east side of the airport and won’t be affected by the power poles location on the west side. The determination was overturned and our client received approval.

The FAA issued a “presumed hazard” on the construction project for penetrating LaGuardia’s climb gradient. We analyzed the location and discovered the departure rules stated were not applied at the end of the runway. This gave our client the extra height needed to not penetrate the climb gradient. Our client was granted a “No Hazard” determination.

A “presumed hazard” determination from the FAA was issued on construction of a communication tower . We analyzed the area and discovered two power lines that penetrated the airport’s approach procedure, which FAA was unaware of their location. Our client was granted approval with a “No Hazard” and was able to construct the project.

The project received a "presumed hazard" by the FAA initially. Our analysis determined a higher height could be obtained than was allowed. We negotiated with the FAA and NY/NJ Port Authority for an acceptable height. Our client was granted a "no hazard" determination.

A power-engineering client was constructing a large power line run near Bridgeport Municipal Airport. The project received a "presumed hazard" from the FAA on their project. We conducted our analysis to the FAA's objection of penetrating the 40:1 slope and determined the area's topography already penetrated the slope. We told our client to route the lines around the hill, using it to shield the lines and prevent penetration to the 40:1 surface.  Our client was granted approval and allowed to construct their project.

A construction company client was planning to build an office building on the west side of O'Hare Airport and received a "presumed hazard". The FAA's objection was the building impacted the low-level wind sheer tower. Our task was to find an alternative location for the tower and still allow construction of the building. In our analysis we found there was only spot on the entire property that would make this work. The client agreed to it and the FAA retracted its original hazard determination and granted approval.

A hotel developer had a planned construction project, The Rosemont Hotel, which received a "presumed hazard" based upon interference to the VNAV approaches and glide slope into O'Hare.  Our analysis concluded the glide slope could not be a factor in the hotel hazard determination. We negotiated with the FAA to lower the glide slope height limitation. We suggested to our client to offer a reimbursable agree to change the current NULL reference glide slope to a capture effect facility.  The FAA is currently converting the VNAV approaches to the much narrower, greater precision LPV approaches.  Our client received a "no hazard" approval to build.

Caesar's Palace hired us to analyze the impact a two-tower addition to facility would have on the aeronautical environment. Initially a "presumed hazard" was issued by the FAA, we appealed the ruling that do to shielding there should not be an objection.  Our client received a "no hazard" determination and approval to build.

 T-Mobile was planning to put up a tower located 3.5 miles away from Monmouth Executive Airport and received a " presumed hazard".  The FAA stated the maximum allowed height was 1-foot above ground based on the planned LNAV procedure and the final approach fix for Monmouth Executive Airport. We conducted our analysis of the location and found a tower not listed in the obstacle database that was constructed by the NJ Turnpike Authority, which had been reviewed by the FAA. We showed the existing tower would prevent the planned LNAV procedure from achieving the minimums stated by the FAA. We also located another existing tower that affected the current final approach fix. We received approval from the FAA showing their analysis of the LNAV was flawed. Our client was granted approval and constructed to the height they desired.