[Breaking] "Fundamental Review Needed for Gimhae New Airport Promotion"

[Asia Economy Reporter Moon Chaeseok] The Gimhae New Airport Verification Committee concluded at 2 p.m. on the 17th that the "Gimhae New Airport Basic Plan (draft)" requires fundamental review.

It was judged that significant supplementation is needed in the areas of safety, facility operation and demand, environment, and noise.

The following is the full text of the announcement.

We will announce the verification results of Gimhae New Airport.

Gimhae New Airport was decided to be promoted as the Southeast region’s new airport after a preliminary feasibility study by the airport design and engineering specialist company Paris A?roport Ing?nierie (ADPi) in 2016. Accordingly, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) prepared the "Gimhae New Airport Construction Basic Plan (draft)" in December 2018, aiming for completion in 2026 with an annual passenger handling capacity of 38 million.

Subsequently, during the follow-up process on the basic plan (draft), opinions were raised mainly by the three local governments of Busan, Ulsan, and Gyeongsangnam-do that Gimhae New Airport is unsuitable to function as the gateway airport of the Southeast region. Due to ongoing conflicts surrounding the promotion of Gimhae New Airport, the Busan-Ulsan-Gyeongnam region and MOLIT agreed in June last year to have the appropriateness of the basic plan (draft) verified by the Prime Minister’s Office and to abide by the results. In December last year, the Prime Minister’s Office launched the Gimhae New Airport Verification Committee composed of experts in various fields and entrusted the verification task to it.

The Verification Committee undertook the verification work with a strong sense of responsibility, examining 11 key issues and 22 detailed items across four fields: safety, facility operation and demand, noise, and environment. The committee made every effort to conduct objective and scientific verification through intense discussions, field investigations, expert consultations, and sometimes seeking authoritative interpretations from related organizations such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Ministry of Government Legislation.

We are now announcing the results to the public. First, we thank the committee members who devoted themselves to the verification despite the COVID-19 situation, and also express gratitude to the officials from Busan-Ulsan-Gyeongnam, MOLIT, and the Prime Minister’s Office support team who spared no effort and cooperation during the verification process.

Before presenting the verification results, we will first explain the project overview using a model of Gimhae New Airport and then announce the verification results.

Looking at the model, the current Gimhae Airport has two parallel runways. One is 3,200m long and 60m wide, and the other is 2,743m long and 45m wide. Currently, the Air Force holds the control zone. The Gimhae New Airport plan (draft) mainly involves constructing an additional V-shaped runway 3,200m long and 45m wide on the west side of Gimhae Airport, along with building an international terminal, control tower, and transportation facilities such as roads and railways accordingly.

Briefly describing the surrounding terrain of the new airport site, there are mountains such as Dotaesan to the north of Gimhae Airport, Geumjeongsan to the northeast, Seunghaksan to the southeast, and Imhosan and Gyeungunsan to the northwest. We hope this overview helps in understanding the Gimhae New Airport and our announcement.

Now, we will present the verification results.

1. Safety field.

In the safety field, we verified the appropriateness of the retention of obstacles on the approach surface, the feasibility of establishing flight procedures, the possibility of bird strikes, and the effectiveness of prevention measures. Airport safety is directly related to the lives of users, so we verified it with strict standards based on relevant laws, domestic and international standards, and expert opinions. When differing opinions arose within the committee during verification, we formed an expert panel on flight procedures to seek opinions and inquired authoritative interpretation agencies such as ICAO and the Ministry of Government Legislation to enhance objectivity.

First, regarding the retention of obstacles on the approach surface. For verification, we first examined whether Gimhae New Airport is a military or civilian airport, as the applicable laws and standards differ depending on the airport’s nature. Through consultation with the Air Force, it was concluded that Gimhae New Airport is a civilian airport, and the standards for civilian airports such as the "Airport Facilities Act" should be applied to verify the retention of obstacles.

Next, we verified whether mountainous obstacles such as Obongsan, Imhosan, and Gyeungunsan, which are above the height of the obstacle limitation surface (OLS) on the approach surface of the new runway, need to be cut. Regarding this, there was a difference of opinion about the "Airport Facilities Act," so we requested an authoritative interpretation from the Ministry of Government Legislation. The response was that, in principle, obstacles above the approach limitation surface should be removed, and exceptionally, to leave them in place, prior consultation with local governments is required. According to this, the MOLIT’s basic plan (draft), which assumes the retention of mountainous obstacles, requires fundamental review.

Second, the feasibility of establishing flight procedures. Although Gimhae New Airport is a civilian airport, Busan-Ulsan-Gyeongnam argued that military standards (FAA) should also be applied considering that the Air Force will use the new runway, and in this case, ‘Gyeungunsan South 4’ located in the approach direction of the new runway violates the obstacle clearance surface (OCS). During verification, there was disagreement on whether additional map error correction was needed even after measuring obstacle heights. Upon inquiry with the Air Force operating military standards, it was confirmed that no additional map error correction is needed when actual measurements are taken. As a result, even applying military standards, Gyeungunsan South 4 does not violate the OCS.

We conducted verification on the safety of the missed approach procedure, the last stage of flight procedures. Regarding the missed approach procedure for the existing runway, Busan-Ulsan-Gyeongnam argued that military standards should be applied and that normal procedure establishment is impossible under CAT-I standards. Verification confirmed that military standards need to be applied, and the procedure meets the stricter CAT-II standards, so there is no problem applying CAT-I.

Regarding the missed approach procedure for the new runway, there was also a claim that approach procedures are impossible under CAT-I, but it was judged that applying the stricter CAT-II standards poses no problem.

Next, whether the missed approach procedure for the runway is fully established. The existing runway’s flight procedures use a 1:5,000 scale map, which raised the issue of whether this violates the MOLIT notification "Flight Procedure Work Standards." An expert panel was formed to hear opinions, and after requesting authoritative interpretation from ICAO, it was judged that more detailed maps than those specified in the notification can be used. The Verification Committee considered that the expressions in the current notification could cause interpretive differences and recommended revising it to clearly reflect ICAO’s intent. Meanwhile, it was judged that even applying military (FAA) standards to the existing runway, the missed approach procedure can be established.

For the new runway, the landing runway length was shortened by 200m to 3,000m, raising concerns that the missed approach procedure is incomplete. The Verification Committee considered expert panel opinions that the missed approach procedure uses a mixed method of conventional and performance-based navigation (PBN) within a single segment, which does not meet flight procedure establishment standards, and that the definition of the reference fix needs to be redefined. Therefore, the flight procedure is not fully established, and a complete redesign of flight procedures is necessary in the future.

The last issue in the safety field is the possibility of bird strikes and the effectiveness of prevention measures. The Verification Committee judged that the planned new airport area is located in the Nakdong River estuary delta, where various birds reside year-round, but since MOLIT has only drafted a strategic environmental impact assessment and lacks sufficient data, objective verification is difficult. If the basic plan’s final version and environmental impact assessment proceed later, it is necessary to secure sufficient data at that stage to evaluate bird strike risks and prepare prevention measures.

2. Facility operation and demand field.

This field reviewed whether the new runway length is appropriate, whether runway capacity is sufficient or additional expansion is needed, and whether air traffic demand forecasts are appropriate.

First, we examined whether the new runway length of 3,200m meets criteria considering warming-induced temperature increases and maximum takeoff weight application, and whether it supports long-haul routes.

Regarding the need to consider warming-induced temperature increases, the Verification Committee confirmed that warming is not a mandatory application and that the basic plan (draft) already partially reflects estimated temperature increases due to warming (29.8℃ → 31.5℃). Regarding whether maximum takeoff weight should be applied, it was confirmed that regulations allow runway length to be reviewed based on weights less than maximum takeoff weight considering economic factors. Regarding long-haul route operation, it was judged that a 3,200m runway length allows operation of routes such as New York without issues by reducing fuel load without changing payload (passenger or cargo volume).

Second, whether the joint use of runways and taxiways by civilian and military can handle an annual passenger volume of 38 million, and if insufficient, whether additional expansion is possible.

Runway capacity was analyzed based on the practical capacity used by civilian and military currently operating (separation interval 5NM, 8NM during missed approach), and it was judged that the number of flights to handle 38 million annual passengers can be calculated. However, using only the current south and east taxiways may cause delays due to flight waiting times and reduce airport capacity, so it was judged necessary to install a dedicated west taxiway for category C aircraft from the airport’s opening.

Regarding the need for runway length extension and additional construction, considering the estimated passenger demand of 29.25 million in 2056, additional construction may be unnecessary, but the site conditions are limited to accommodate all future expected changes.

Third, whether the passenger demand forecast for Gimhae New Airport is reasonable. The Verification Committee judged that the forecast of about 29.25 million passengers by 2056 was reasonable, using the "Preliminary Feasibility Study Standard Guidelines," excluding routes expected to operate less than three times a week, and excluding passengers in the Yeongnam region expected to choose other airports. However, considering future uncertainties, it is necessary to supplement forecasts based on actual data.

3. Noise field.

The noise field reviewed the appropriateness of noise damage prediction conditions, the scope of noise damage, and changes in noise measurement units.

First, the appropriateness of noise damage prediction conditions such as ① aircraft operation frequency, ② aircraft types and times, and ③ military long-distance flight routes, and the scope of noise damage were verified. The Verification Committee judged that applying 189,000 flights and a nighttime operation ratio of 8.9% in the basic plan (draft) was a reasonable estimate. Long-distance flights related to military training should be reviewed reflecting the eastern long-distance flight plan* established by the Ministry of National Defense, and as a result, the noise damage scope was confirmed to be somewhat expanded compared to the original basic plan (draft). However, the impact was not significant due to the small number of military flights. Regarding the expansion of nighttime operations, it is technically possible but may be limited due to noise complaints and economic factors.

* Busan-Ulsan-Gyeongnam uses ICAO’s Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP), MOLIT uses the "Airspace Management Regulations" (MOLIT notification)

Lastly, regarding changes in noise evaluation units. According to the "Noise and Vibration Control Act (revised September 2017)," from 2023, the noise evaluation unit will change from the current WECPNL to Lden. The Verification Committee judged that considering the opening time of Gimhae New Airport, it is desirable to apply Lden in the basic plan (draft). In this case, the noise damage scope is expected to increase significantly compared to the existing WECPNL use, so the number of affected households needs to be recalculated.

4. Environment field.

The environment field verified whether the construction of Gimhae New Airport damages bird habitats and migration routes, and whether the reclamation and disconnection of Pyeonggangcheon stream damages the river environment.

First, whether MOLIT’s strategic environmental impact assessment downplayed or distorted the damage to major bird migration routes and habitats. The Verification Committee requested data such as survey scope, frequency, and personnel from Busan-Ulsan-Gyeongnam and MOLIT, but both sides failed to provide sufficient data, making it difficult to verify which side is valid.

Second, whether a plan for alternative habitats for birds is necessary and, if established, whether it is appropriate. The Verification Committee judged that the draft strategic environmental impact assessment omitted the alternative habitat creation plan, and currently there is no concrete data to verify its appropriateness. Therefore, if the final strategic environmental impact assessment and environmental impact assessment proceed later, detailed analysis of bird habitat and migration route damage and preparation of specific alternative habitat creation plans will be necessary.

Third, issues related to ecological and environmental damage due to Pyeonggangcheon stream course change and reclamation, and water quality of Eco Delta City (EDC). Analysis through data review and field visits (February 6, 2020) confirmed that the current water quality and quantity of Pyeonggangcheon rely entirely on artificial water circulation. Therefore, the impact of Pyeonggangcheon course change on the water quality and quantity of the Seonakdong River is expected to be minimal. Also, the EDC project under the runway has been considering drawing water from the Seonakdong or Nakdong Rivers since before the Gimhae New Airport site selection, so it is difficult to see that Pyeonggangcheon reclamation seriously affects the water quality and quantity of the downstream EDC.

Fourth, regarding changes to cultural heritage zones, the Verification Committee has limitations in issuing verification results that infringe on the authority of the Cultural Heritage Committee, which decides on such matters. However, it was judged that future measures to minimize damage to natural monument areas and create alternative habitats are necessary.

5. Opinions on the Southeast region gateway airport

The Verification Committee was entrusted to verify the appropriateness of Gimhae New Airport as the Southeast region gateway airport. Currently, there is no legal or institutional definition of a gateway airport, but the committee assumed that a gateway airport is a large airport that plays a central role in entering a certain region or country, where aircraft, passengers, cargo, and services are highly concentrated, similar to a hub airport. The committee basically agreed that the level of Gimhae New Airport construction should be assigned functions concentrated as a representative airport of Korea in the Southeast region.

Meanwhile, Busan-Ulsan-Gyeongnam’s position is that a gateway airport must ① operate long-haul international flights and aircraft capable of long-distance routes, ② operate 24 hours, and ③ handle an annual demand of 38 million passengers.

Based on verification results in four fields, the Verification Committee judged that Gimhae New Airport meets the minimum basic conditions to serve as the Southeast region gateway airport. Specifically, it meets the gateway airport standards used in the past "2nd Mid- to Long-term Airport Development Plan (2000)" such as a 3,200m runway and service level III or higher, and can handle up to 38 million passengers annually. The 24-hour operation of the airport is considered a matter to be decided by the airport’s management conditions at service commencement. However, noise issues require consideration of resident consent and airport management together.

Nevertheless, there are future limitations. As the representative airport of the Southeast region, most of the usable land is already consumed, so even if additional runway demand arises in the future, expansion is impossible. Also, future development plans scattered around the airport are expected to continuously increase environmental damage factors such as noise.

In conclusion, Gimhae New Airport can fulfill the minimum role as the Southeast region gateway airport but has inherent limitations in accommodating and preparing for all expected future changes.

6. Comprehensive conclusion

We would like to inform you that the Verification Committee has reached the following conclusions by synthesizing the reviews by field and opinions on the appropriateness as a gateway airport.

1) The Gimhae New Airport Basic Plan (draft) requires significant supplementation in safety, facility operation and demand, environment, and noise fields. During verification, issues such as the need to supplement flight procedures, early installation of the west taxiway, limited expandability to respond to future demand changes, and expansion of noise scope were confirmed, which were not sufficiently reviewed when the project was finalized. Due to the nature of an international airport, the basic plan (draft) has limitations in its capacity to respond to various future environmental changes.

2) Regarding whether mountainous obstacles above the approach surface height of the obstacle limitation surface can be left in place, the Ministry of Government Legislation’s authoritative interpretation states that, in principle, they should not be left, and exceptionally, if left, consultation with related administrative agencies is required. According to this, the plan should assume cutting of obstacles such as Gyeungunsan, Obongsan, and Imhosan above the approach surface height, but this was not considered, resulting in an error contrary to the law’s intent. When assuming mountain cutting, fundamental review is needed on the project schedule, whether the obstacles can be physically and environmentally cut, and whether the allowable cost range is exceeded.

In conclusion, the Gimhae New Airport plan (draft) requires significant supplementation and is difficult to respond to future changes such as expandability. Also, considering the interpretation that project promotion requires removal of mountainous obstacles above the obstacle limitation surface height unless local government consent is confirmed, the promotion of Gimhae New Airport as the Southeast region gateway airport requires fundamental review.

We have explained the Verification Committee’s verification results in detail to help the understanding of the public and stakeholders.

Last year, MOLIT and Busan-Ulsan-Gyeongnam promised the public to abide by the verification results before the committee’s launch.

Although there were various external speculations and misunderstandings during the committee’s intense discussions, the committee has proceeded with verification unwaveringly, holding the position to respond through the final report.

Some may feel regret about the verification results, but we hope the government, Busan-Ulsan-Gyeongnam, and the public will respect the results reached after intense discussions and reviews since December last year.

Once again, we thank the committee members who devoted their time and passion as professors, scholars, and experts in the relevant fields to the verification. We also express gratitude to the public, Busan-Ulsan-Gyeongnam, MOLIT, and other stakeholders who patiently observed the committee’s activities.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.