Airport Master Plans
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6 provides guidance on airport master planning for airports of all sizes. A master plan establishes the long-term vision for your airport, evaluates current conditions and future demand, identifies facility requirements, and provides the strategic framework for capital investment decisions over a 20-year planning horizon.
A full master plan study is a substantial undertaking, typically conducted by a qualified aviation planning consultant and funded through AIP or state aviation grants. For a small GA airport, a master plan study might cost between $200,000 and $500,000 depending on scope and complexity — but with a 90 percent federal share, the local cost is a fraction of that.
If your airport's master plan is more than 15 years old, it is likely outdated in its demand forecasts, facility assessments, and development recommendations. Contact your FAA program manager or state aeronautics agency to discuss whether an update is warranted and how to fund it.
What a Master Plan Covers
A typical master plan study includes an inventory of existing facilities and conditions, aviation activity forecasts (based aircraft, operations, fleet mix), a facility requirements analysis comparing existing capacity to projected demand, alternatives analysis for development options, an environmental overview, a financial feasibility assessment, and an updated Airport Layout Plan.
Even if you cannot justify a full master plan study, many of these elements can be addressed individually through smaller planning efforts. An ALP update, a hangar demand study, or a pavement management plan can each be conducted independently and funded through AIP or state grants.
The Airport Layout Plan
If there is one planning document every airport must have, it is a current Airport Layout Plan. The ALP is a scaled drawing that depicts your airport's existing facilities, planned development, property boundaries, runway protection zones, and building restriction lines. It serves as the official record of your airport's planned development and is a prerequisite for most AIP-funded projects.
An ALP must be approved by the FAA. Any proposed development on the airport — new hangars, taxiway extensions, fuel system relocations — should be reflected on the ALP before construction begins. Building improvements that are not shown on an approved ALP can create problems when you later seek AIP funding, because the FAA may determine that the unapproved development conflicts with the airport's planned layout.
Keep your ALP current. When your airport's physical configuration changes — new hangars are built, property is acquired, an approach is modified — update the ALP to reflect the as-built condition. An outdated ALP creates complications for future development and grant applications.
Hangar Development Planning
Hangar construction is one of the most common capital needs at small GA airports. Waiting lists for hangar space are widespread — a strong signal of unmet demand — but building hangars involves significant capital investment and carries financial risk if demand projections prove overly optimistic.
Assessing Demand
Before committing to hangar construction, conduct a demand assessment that looks at several indicators:
- Current waiting list. How many aircraft are on the waiting list, and how long have they been waiting? A long, persistent waiting list with low turnover is the strongest indicator of genuine unmet demand.
- Based aircraft trends. Is your based aircraft count growing, stable, or declining? Look at five- to ten-year trends, not just the current number.
- Regional competition. What hangar availability exists at nearby airports? If surrounding airports have vacancies, your waiting list may be driven by price rather than true shortage — meaning new hangars at market rates may not fill as quickly as you expect.
- Fleet mix. What types of aircraft need hangar space? The demand for 40-foot T-hangars versus 60-foot box hangars versus large conventional hangars depends on the fleet composition at your field.
Hangarly tracks hangar occupancy, waiting list depth, and based aircraft data over time — giving you the historical trends you need to support a hangar development business case. When it comes time to present a proposal to your governing body or a grant application to the FAA, having data-backed demand analysis makes a material difference. Explore Hangarly's reporting.
Hangar Types and Sizing
ACRP Report 113 provides detailed guidance on planning general aviation facilities, including hangars. The right mix of hangar types depends on your market:
- T-hangars are the workhorses of small GA airports. Nested units that share common walls, they provide cost-effective individual aircraft storage for single-engine piston aircraft. Standard T-hangar doors are typically 38–42 feet wide and 10–12 feet tall.
- Box hangars (also called individual hangars or shade hangars) provide more flexible enclosed space for larger aircraft or aircraft owners who want room for a workbench and storage. They are more expensive per unit than T-hangars but command higher rents.
- Conventional hangars provide large clear-span space suitable for multi-engine aircraft, turboprops, and light jets. These are typically the province of FBOs or commercial operators rather than individual aircraft owners.
Financial Feasibility
Hangar construction costs vary widely by region, but as a rough benchmark, a T-hangar unit costs between $35,000 and $60,000 to construct (2024–2026 pricing), while a standard box hangar can range from $80,000 to $200,000 or more depending on size and specifications. These numbers exclude site preparation, utilities, and taxiway access.
Your lease rates need to cover debt service (if financed), operating costs, insurance, and a contribution to a maintenance reserve over the hangar's useful life. A common mistake is setting hangar rents to cover debt service alone, leaving nothing for the inevitable maintenance and replacement costs that begin accumulating from day one. Plan for a 30- to 40-year useful life for steel hangar structures, with significant maintenance interventions needed for doors, roofing, and electrical systems along the way.
Protecting Against Incompatible Land Use
Encroachment by incompatible development — residential subdivisions, commercial buildings, tall structures — near airports is one of the most significant long-term threats to the viability of small GA fields. Once incompatible development is built, it is extremely difficult and expensive to reverse. Prevention is the only practical strategy.
Understanding Part 77 Surfaces
14 CFR Part 77 establishes the imaginary surfaces around airports that define the airspace that must be kept clear of obstructions for safe aircraft operations. These include approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces, and conical surfaces. Any proposed construction or alteration that would penetrate these surfaces requires FAA aeronautical study through the 7460-1 notice process.
As an airport manager, you should understand where your Part 77 surfaces extend and monitor development proposals within those areas. When a developer files a 7460-1 notice for construction near your airport, the FAA evaluates the proposed structure — but the FAA's determination is advisory, not binding. Local zoning enforcement is your primary protection.
Working with Local Government
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5190-4B provides comprehensive guidance on airport land use compatibility planning. The most effective protection comes from local zoning and land use regulations that restrict incompatible development before it is proposed. Key tools include:
- Airport overlay zoning. Overlay zones that impose height restrictions, noise compatibility standards, and prohibited land uses within defined areas around the airport. These should be consistent with your Part 77 surfaces and approach paths.
- Comprehensive plan integration. Work to ensure your airport is recognized in the local comprehensive plan as critical infrastructure, with land use policies that protect its operational viability.
- Avigation easements. Acquire avigation easements over properties in approach zones to secure the legal right to overfly and to limit the height of structures and vegetation.
- Real property acquisition. When feasible, acquire land in runway protection zones and critical approach areas. AIP funds can be used for land acquisition for these purposes.
Incompatible development is the leading cause of GA airport closures in the United States. Once residential neighbors move in, noise complaints, political pressure, and property value arguments follow. Proactive engagement with your local planning authority is not optional — it is essential to your airport's survival.
Infrastructure Condition Assessment
Planning for the future requires an accurate understanding of your current infrastructure's condition and remaining useful life. A pavement management plan — which catalogs the condition of every paved surface on your airport and projects when maintenance or rehabilitation will be needed — is one of the most valuable planning tools available.
Pavement condition inspections use standardized indices (PCI — Pavement Condition Index) to rate each section of pavement on a 0–100 scale. This data allows you to prioritize rehabilitation projects, forecast when surfaces will need reconstruction, and make the case for timely maintenance intervention. AIP funds can be used for pavement management plan development.
The key insight from pavement management research is that preventive maintenance (crack sealing, seal coating) performed at the right time extends pavement life dramatically and costs a fraction of what reconstruction costs after a surface has been allowed to deteriorate past the point of repair. This is one area where spending money sooner saves significantly more money later.
The next chapter covers emergency preparedness — developing an emergency plan for your airport and establishing the mutual aid relationships you will need when something goes wrong.