Skip to main content

Full text of "DTIC ADA292758: Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan 1994."

See other formats


19950329 008 



U.S. Department 
of Transportation 


Federal Aviation 
Administration 


DOT/FAA/ASC-94-1 


Prepared by: 

Federal Aviation Administration 
Office of System Capacity 
ond Requirements 
Washington, DC 20591 











II ClADin NOTICE 



TfflS DOCUMENT IS BEST 
QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY 
FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED 
A SIGNMCANT NUMBER OF 
COLOR PAGES WHICH DO NOT 
REPRODUCE LEGIBLY ON BLACK 
AND WHITE MICROFICHE. 











Office of the Administrator 


us. Department 
of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 
Administration 


800 Independence Ave., S.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20591 


NGV t 1994 


I am pleased to present the 1994 Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan. Building system 
capacity that will minimize delays and allow fair access for all types of aviation is one of seven 
key strategic issue areas for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 


Aircraft delays cost the airlines and their passengers millions of dollars each year. Over the 
last 3 years, the same 23 airports have experienced 20,000 hours or more of annual aircraft 
flight delays, even though the demand for aviation services has been relatively static and the 
number of flights delayed 15 miputes or more has declined systemwide. The latest aviation 
activity forecasts (March 1994) project a moderate rate of growth in passenger enplanements 
and air carrier aircraft operations as the United States economic recovery gathers strength. As 
the number of aircraft operations increases, the level of delay will increase unless improvements 
are made to aviation system capacity. 


The FAA is committed to increasing the capacity and reducing delays in the National Airspace 
System. In an effort to energize and refocus our efforts, I recently announced the creation of the 
Administrator's Council on Capacity. The Council will be chaired by the Assistant Administrator 
for Airports and the Executive Director for System Operations. The Council, working closely 
with industry, will be responsible for developing priorities for agency programs based on their 
impact on capacity and will provide impetus to accelerate the development of near term capacity 
initiatives. 


Improving aviation system capacity is a continuing dynamic process that evolves as user needs 
change and technology advances. This plan attempts to identify and facilitate actions that can be 
taken by both the public and private sectors to prevent projected growth in delays while at the 
same time remain flexible and practical in order to accommodate future change. 


This plan supports the FAA Strategic Plan, which is consistent with the Secretary of 
Transportation's National Transportation Policy. 





Accesion For 


-y—^ 

NT'S CRA8^i 

p-J’S p T V' 



t iP i Ko 

Unaonouaced 


□ 

□ 

Justification, 




By 


Disirlb^JtiO; 


ni=;^ 


anci ! or 

)eciai 


David R. Hinson 
Administrator 






Technical Report Documentation Page 


1. Report No. 

DOT/FAA/ASC-94-1 

2. Government Accession No. 

3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle 

1994 Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan 

5. Report Date 

10-01-94 

6. Performing Organization Code 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

7. Author(s) 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA 

MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA 

JIL Systems, Arlington, VA 

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of System Capacity and Requirements 

Washington, DC 21591 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

ASC-1 


15. Supplementary Notes 

This report resulted from a collaborative effort by the Office of System Capacity and Requirements, other FAA 
organizations, the MITRE Corporation, the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, and JIL Systems. 


16. Abstract 


A comprehensive review of Federal Aviation Administration programs intended to improve 
the capacity of the National Air Transportation System. The Plan identifies the causes and extent 
of capacity and delay problems currently associated with air travel in the U.S. and outlines various 
planned and ongoing FAA projects with the potential to reduce the severity of the problems in the 
future. The major areas of discussion are: 

1) Airport Development 

2) Airport Capacity 

3) Airspace Capacity 

4) New Instrumant Approach Procedures 

5) Technology for Capacity Improvement 

6) Marketplace Solutions 


17. Key Words 


18. Distribution Statement 



Civil Aviation 

Airport Capacity 

Aviation Capacity 

Aviation Delay Reduction 


Document is available to the public through the 

National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161 

19. Security Classit (of this report) 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

21. No. of Pages 

22. Price 

UNCLASSIFIED 

UNCLASSIFIED 

362 



Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) 


Reproduction of completed page authorized 








1994 ACE Plan 


Table of Contents 


Chapter 1 — Introduction. 

1.1 .The Need for Aviation System Capacity Improvement. 

1.2 .Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan. 

1.3 .Level of Aviation Activity. 

1.3.1 .Activity Statistics at the Top 100 Airports. 

1.3.2 .Traffic Volumes in Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCS) 

1.4 .Delay. 

1.4.1 .Sources of Delay Data. 

1.4.2 .Delay by Cause. 

1.4.3 .Delay by Phase of Flight. 

1.4.4 .Identification of Delay-Problem Airports. 

1.4.5 .Identification of Forecast Delay-Problem Airports. 

1.5 .The FAA Strategic Plan and the FAA Operational Concept — 

A Vision for the Year 2010. 

1.5.1.System Capacity Goals and Objectives. 


1-1 

. 1-1 
.1-4 
.1-5 
.1-5 
. 1-6 
1-11 
1-11 
1-12 
1-13 
1-14 
1-16 

1-19 

1-20 


Chapter 2 — Airport Development 


2.1 .Delay and the Need for Airport Development. 

2.2 .New Airport Development. 

2.3 .Development of Existing Airports — Airport Capacity Design Teams 

2.3.1 .Airport Capacity Design Teams — Recommended Improvements. 

2.3.2 .Airport Capacity Design Teams — Potential Savings Benefits. 

2.4 .Construction of New Runways and Runway Extensions. 

2.5 .Airport Tactical Initiatives. 

2.6 .Terminal Airspace Studies. 

2.7 ..Regional Capacity Design Teams. 

2.8 .Airport Capacity Design Team Updates. 


2-1 

.2-1 

.2-2 

.2-4 

.2-7 

.2-8 

2-11 

2-19 

2-20 

2-20 

2-21 


Chapter 3 — New Instrument Approach Procedures 


3.1 .Independent Parallel Approaches Using the Precision Runway 

Monitor (PRM). 

3.2 .Independent Parallel Approaches Using the Final Monitor Aid (FMA) 

with Current Radar Systems.. 

3.3 .Independent Parallel Approaches to Triple and Quadruple Runways 

Using Current Radar Systems. 

3.4 .Simultaneous Operations on Wet Intersecting Runways. 

3.5 .Improved Operations on Parallel Runways Separated by Less Than 

2,500 Feet. 


3.6 . 

3.7 . 

3.8 . 

3.9 . 

3.10 


Dependent Approaches to Three Parallel Runways. 

Simultaneous (Independent) Converging Instrument Approaches. 

Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches. 

Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)/ 

Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTl) for Separation Assistance 
Approach Procedure Applicability at the Top 100 Airports. 


3-1 

.3-3 

.3-4 

.3-5 

.3-6 

.3-7 

.3-8 

.3-9 

3-10 

3-11 

3-12 


V 








































































1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 4 — Airspace Development. 

4.1 .New York Airspace Capacity Project. 

4.1.1 .Liberty East Reconfiguration and Rerouting. 

4.1.2 .Resectorization of New York ARTCC (ZNY) Area D. 

4.1.3 .Stewart Area Airspace Redesign. 

4.1.4 .Potential Traffic Growth at Newburgh/Stewart International Airport (SWF) 

4.2 .Jacksonville Airspace Capacity Project. 

4.2.1 .The Proposed Palatka MOA/ATCAA Realignment. 

4.2.2 .Rainbow Area Airway... 

4.2.3 .Proposed ACMI/Thunder Area Airway. 

4.2.4 .Orlando Approach Control Airspace Modification. 

4.2.5 .Jacksonville Center Proposed Airspace Redesign Alternative. 

4.3 .Atlanta Center Airspace Capacity Project. 

4.4 .Miami Center Airspace Capacity Project. 

4.5 .Studies in Progress. 


4-1 

..4-4 

..4-4 

..4-6 

..4-8 

..4-9 

4-10 

4-10 

4-11 

4-12 

4-13 

4-14 

4-15 

4-17 

4-18 


Chapter 5 — Technology for Capacity Improvement. 

5.1 .Airport Surface Capacity Technology. 

5.1.1 .Airport Surface Traffic Automation Program. 

5.2 .Terminal Airspace Capacity Technology. 

5.2.1 .Terminal ATC Automation (TATCA). 

5.2.1.1.. . Converging Runway Display Aid/Controller Automated Spacing Aid 

5.2.1.2.. . Center-TRACON Automation System. 

5.2.2 .Precision Runway Monitor (PRM). 

5.2.3 .Precision Approach and Landing Systems. 

5.2.4 .Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) Applications .... 

5.2.5 .Wake Vortex Program. 

5.2.6 .Terminal Area Surveillance System. 

5.3 .En Route Airspace Capacity Technology. 

5.3.1 .Automated En Route Air Traffic Control (AERA). 

5.3.2 .Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) and Oceanic ATC. 

5.3.3 .Communications and Satellite Navigation. 

5.3.3.1.. .Aeronautical Data Link Communications. 

5.3.3.2.. . Satellite Navigation. 

5.3.4 .Aviation Weather... 

5.4 .Traffic Flow Management.. 

5.4.1 .Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS). 

5.4.2 .Operational Traffic Flow Planning (OTFP). 

5.5 .System Planning, Integration, and Control Technology. 

5.5.1 .National Simulation Capability (NSC). 

5.5.2 .Analysis Tools. 

5.5.2.1.. . Airport Network Simulation Model (AIRNET). 

5.5.2.2.. .Airport and Airspace Simulation Model (SIMMOD). 

5.5.2.3.. .Airfield Delay Simulation Model (ADSIM) and 

Runway Delay Simulation Model (RDSIM). 

5.5.2.4.. . The Airport Machine. 

5 . 5 . 2 . 5 .. . National Airspace System Performance Analysis Capability (NASPAC) . 


5-1 

..5-2 
..5-2 
..5-3 
..5-3 
..5-4 
..5-4 
..5-6 
..5-6 
..5-8 
..5-9 
.. 5-9 
5-10 
5-11 
5-12 
5-13 
5-13 
5-13 
5-14 
5-15 
5-16 
5-17 
5-18 
5-18 
5-19 
5-20 
5-20 

5-20 

5-21 

5-21 


VI 
















































































1994 ACE Plan 


5 . 5 . 2 . 6 .. . Sector Design Analysis Tool (SDAT) .5-21 

5.5.2.7.. . Terminal Airspace Visualization Tool (TAVT) .5-22 

5.5.2.8.. . Graphical Airspace Design Environment (GRADE) .5-23 

5.6.Vertical Flight Program.5-23 


Chapter 6 — Marketplace Solutions. 

6.1 .Regional/Commuter Carriers. 

6.2 .Civil Tiltrotor. 

6.3 .The Next Generation of Aircraft. 

6.4 .Airport Expansion and the Local Community... 

6.4.1 .New^ Hubs at Existing Airports. 

6.4.2 .Expanded Use of Existing Commercial Service Airports. 

6.4.3 .Enhance Reliever and General Aviation (GA) Airport System. 

6.4.4 .Conversion of Closing Military Airfields and Joint Use of Military Airfields 

6.4.5 .Developing a Regional Airport System. 

6.5 .Demand Management. 

6.6 .Intermodalism. 

6.7 .High-Speed Rail. 

6.8 .Telecommunications. 


6-1 

. 6-1 

.6-2 

.6-3 

.6-4 

.6-5 

.6-6 

.. 6-8 

..6-9 

6-15 

6-16 

6-17 

6-18 

6-20 


Chapter 7 — Summary.7-1 

Summary.... 7-1 

Appendix A — Aviation Statistics..A-1 

Appendix B — Airport Layout Directory.B-1 

Appendix C — Airport Capacity Design Team Summary...C-1 

Appendix D — New Runway & Runway Extension Construction.D-1 

Appendix E — Layouts of the Remaining Top 100 Airports.E-1 

Appendix F — Airport Capacity Design Team Potential Savings.F-1 

Appendix G — Airspace Design Team Studies.G-1 

Appendix H — New Technology for Improving System Capacity.H-1 

Appendix I — Glossary.1-1 

Appendix J — Index.J-1 


vii 














































1994 ACE Plan 


List of Tables 


Table 1-1. Distribution of Delay Greater Than 15 Minutes by Cause.1-13 

Table 1-2. Average Delay by Phase of Flight.1-14 

Table 1-3. Delays of 15 Minutes or More Per 1,000 Operations at the Top 100 Airports.1-15 

Table 1-4. 1993 Actual and 2003 Forecast Air Carrier Delay Hours.1-17 

Table 2-1 Major New Airports — Under Construction and Planning Studies.2-3 

Table 2-2. Status of Airport Capacity Design Teams.2-5 

Table 2-3. Summary of Capacity Design Team Recommendations.2-9 

Table 2-4. Potential Savings Benefits from Airfield Improvements 

Recommended by Airport Capacity Design Teams.2-10 

Table 2-5. New and Extended Runways Planned or Proposed.2-15 

Table 3-1. Candidate Airports for Independent Parallel Approaches Using the 

Final Monitor Aid (FMA).3-4 

Table 3-2. Candidate Airports for Independent Parallel Approaches to 

Triple and Quadruple Runways.3-5 

Table 3-3. Candidate Airports for Simultaneous Operations on 

Wet Intersecting Runways.3-6 

Table 3-4. Candidate Airports for Improved Operations on Parallel Runways 

Separated by Less Than 2,500 Feet.3-7 

Table 3-5. Candidate Airports for Dependent Approaches to Three Parallel Runways.3-8 

Table 3-6. Candidate Airports for Independent Converging Approaches.3-9 

Table 3-7. Potential Siting of New IFR Approach Procedures and 

Their Associated IFR Arrival Capacity.3-13 

Table 4-1. Summary of Airspace Improvement Alternatives Analyzed.4-2 

Table 6-1. Preliminary List of Airports Located Near the 23 Delay-Problem Airports.. 6-7 

Table 6-2. Potential Civil Role of Closing Military Airfields. 6-12 

Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1991 and 1992.A-2 

Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1992 and Forecast 2005 .A-5 

Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1992 and Forecast 2005.A-8 

Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1991 to 1992 .A-11 

Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1991 to 1992.A-14 

Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements.A-17 

Table A-7. Total IFR Aircraft Handled at ARTCCs.A-22 

Table A-8. Percentage of Operations Delayed 15 Minutes or More.A-23 


viii 






























1994 ACE Plan 


List of Figures 


Figure 1-1. Growth in Gross Domestic Product and Domestic Passenger 

Enplanements, 1965 to 2005.1-2 

Figure 1-2. The Top 100 Airports by 1992 Enplanements.1-7 

Figure 1-3. The 20 Continental U.S. Air Route Traffic Control Centers.1-8 

Figure 1-4. Operations at Air Route Traffic Control Centers.1-9 

Figure 1-5. Airports Exceeding 20,000 Hours of Annual Delay in 1993 and 2003, 

Assuming No Capacity Improvements.1-18 

Figure 2-1. Airport Capacity Design Teams in the United States.2-6 

Figure 2-2. New Runways or Runway Extensions Planned or Proposed 

Among the Top 100 Airports.2-13 

Figure 2-3. New Runways or Extensions Planned/Proposed Among the Airports 

Forecast to Exceed 20,000 Hours of Annual Aircraft Delay in 2003.2-14 

Figure 3-1. Independent Parallel Instrument Approaches Using the 

Precision Runway Monitor (PRM).3-3 

Figure 3-2. Parallel Instrument Approaches Using the Final Monitor Aid (FMA).3-4 

Figure 3-3. Triple and Quadruple Parallel Approaches.3-5 

Figure 3-4. Simultaneous Operations on Wet Intersecting Runways.3-6 

Figure 3-5. Independent and Dependent Parallel Approaches.3-8 

Figure 3-6. Triple Approaches: Dual Parallels and One Converging.3-9 

Figure 3-7. TCAS/CDTI for Separation Assistance.3-11 

Figure 4-1. Northeast oblique view of radar tracks traversing New York 

Center’s Area D in a single day..4-7 

Figure 6-1. Location of Closing Military Airfields in Relation to 

Airports Forecast to Exceed 20,000 Hours of Delay in 2003.6-13 

Figure 6-2. Intercity Corridors Tentatively Proposed for High-Speed Rail.6-19 

Figure A-1. Traffic Handled by ARTCCs, FY91 and FY92.A-20 

Figure A-2. Traffic Handled by ARTCCs, FY92 and Forecast FY05.A-21 


IX 




























1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 1: Introduction 


Chapter 1 

Introduction 


1.1 The Need for Aviation System Capacity 
Improvement 


In 1993, 23 airports each exceeded 20,000 hours of annual 
flight delays. With an average aircraft operating cost of about 
$1,600 per hour of delay,^ this means that each of these 23 air¬ 
ports incurred at least $32 million dollars in annual delay costs. 
By 2003, the number of airports that will exceed 20,000 hours 
of annual delay is projected to grow from 23 to 32, unless ca¬ 
pacity improvements are made.^ The purpose of this plan is to 
identify and facilitate actions that can be taken to prevent the 
projected growth in delays. These actions include: 

• Airport Development. 

• New Air Traffic Control Procedures. 

• Airspace Development. 

• New Technology. 

• Marketplace Solutions. 


In 1993, 23 airports exceeded 
20,000 hours of annual flight 
delays. By 2003, the number of 
airports that will exceed 20,000 
hours of annual delay is projected 
to grow to 32, unless capacity 
improvements are made. 


For three consecutive years, the number of flights exceeding 
15 minutes of delay has decHned. After a decrease of just over 
24 percent from 1990 to 1991, flights exceeding 15 minutes of 
delay decreased nearly 6 percent in 1992 compared to 1991 and 
nearly 2 percent in 1993 compared to 1992. The forecast for 32 
airports exceeding 20,000 hours of annual delay in 2003 is 
eight less than the 40 airports predicted three years ago for the 
year 2000. These and other delay statistics reflect three years of 
declining or almost static aviation activity. 

In the United States, economic growth has averaged only 
1.9 percent annually during the 1990s, a period that included a 
three-quarter economic recession in 1990 and 1991. The slow 
pace of the economic recovery in this country and economic re- 


1. The actual average aircraft operating cost is $1,587 per hour. The cost for 
heavy aircraft 300,000 lbs. or more is $4,575 per hour of delay, large aircraft 
under 300,000 lbs. and small jets, $1,607 per hour, and single-engine and 
twin-engine aircraft under 12,500 lbs., $42 and $124 per hour respectively. 
These figures are based on 1987 dollars, the latest data available. 

2. For a listing of airports exceeding 20,000 hours of annual delay, see 
Table 1-4 and Figure 1-5. 


Chapter 1-1 



Chapter 1: Introduction 


1994 ACE Plan ' 


Even with overall demand for air 
travel relatively static, demand at 
the most congested airports re¬ 
mained high. The same 23 air¬ 
ports have experienced over 
20,000 hours of annual aircraft 
flight delays since 1990. 


cessions in several major world trade areas have had a signifi¬ 
cant impact on the demand for aviation services. Commercial 
air carrier domestic passenger enplanements have increased at 
an annual rate of only 0.8 percent during the last four years. 

Yet, even with overall demand for air travel relatively static, 
demand at the most congested airports remained high. The 
same 23 airports have experienced over 20,000 hours of annual 
aircraft flight delays since 1990. As the economy continues to 
recover, the demand for air travel will grow. As the number of 
aircraft operations increases to meet that demand, the level of 
delay will increase concurrently unless improvements are made 
to system capacity. 

Over the next twelve years, the economy is expected to re¬ 
bound and sustain a moderate rate of growth averaging 2.6 per¬ 
cent.^ Gross domestic product (GDP) is a significant indicator 
of business activity, which, in turn, drives aviation activity. Fig¬ 
ure 1-1 illustrates the historical growth in GDP and commercial 
air carrier domestic passenger enplanements since 1965 and the 
anticipated growth through 2005. 



Figure 1-1. Growth in Gross Domestic Product and Domestic Passenger 

Enplanements, 1965 to 2005 


Chapter 1-2 














1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 1: Introduction 


According to FAA aviation forecasts,^ air carrier domestic 
passenger enplanements are expected to increase at an average 
annual rate of 3.5 percent between 1994 and 2005, and domes¬ 
tic air carrier aircraft operations are forecast to increase at an 
average annual rate of 1.9 percent during the same twelve-year 
period. The higher growth predicted for passenger enplane¬ 
ments relative to aircraft activity is the result of significantly 
higher load factors, larger seating capacity for air carrier air¬ 
craft, and longer passenger trip lengths. International air carrier 
passenger enplanements are forecast to increase at an annual 
rate of 6.5 percent, and regional/commuter airline passenger 
enplanements are expected to grow 6.9 percent annually. 

Although the current delay forecasts continue to project se¬ 
rious delays in the absence of capacity improvements, the mes¬ 
sage contained in succeeding chapters is positive. For example, 
a great deal is being done to improve capacity and reduce delays 
through new construction projects at airports and recent en¬ 
hancements in Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures. Airspace 
capacity design projects are being undertaken to study the ter¬ 
minal airspace associated with delay-impacted airports across 
the country. In addition, there are many emerging technologies 
in the areas of surveillance, communications, and navigation 
that will further improve the efficiency of new and existing 
runways and of terminal and en route airspace. 

In fact, these capacity-producing improvements are fre¬ 
quently interrelated; changes in one often require changes in 
the others before all the potential capacity benefits can be real¬ 
ized. Resolving the problem of delay requires an integrated ap¬ 
proach that develops capacity improvements throughout the 
aviation system, while at the same time maintaining or improv¬ 
ing the current level of aviation safety. Improvements in capac¬ 
ity — constructing new runways and taxiways, installing en¬ 
hanced facilities and equipment, applying new technologies — 
generally require long lead times. We must start preparing now 
for improvements that take 5 to 10 years to plan, develop, and 
implement. 


According to FAA aviation fore¬ 
casts, air carrier domestic passen¬ 
ger enplanements are expected to 
increase at an average annual 
rate of 3.5 percent between 1994 
and 2005, and domestic air car¬ 
rier aircraft operations are forecast 
to increase at an average annual 
rate of 1.9 percent. 


Resolving the problem of delay 
requires an integrated approach 
that develops capacity improve¬ 
ments throughout the aviation sys¬ 
tem, while at the same time main¬ 
taining or improving the current 
level of aviation safety. 


3. EAA Aviation Forecasts^ Fiscal Years 1994-2005, FAA-APO 94-1, March 
1994. The economic scenario used to develop the FAA Aviation Forecasts 
for the period 1994 through 1999 was provided by the Executive Office of 
the President, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). For the period 
from 2000 through 2005, the economic scenario used consensus growth 
rates of the economic variables, based on forecasts prepared by DRi/ 
McGraw-Hill, Evans Econometrics, and the WEFA Group. 


Chapter 1-3 



Chapter 1: Introduction 


1994 ACE Plan 


The Aviation Capacity Enhance¬ 
ment Plan is an important part of 
Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) and Department of Transpor¬ 
tation (DOT) efforts to improve the 
Nation's transportation system. 

The Aviation Capacity Enhance¬ 
ment Plan supports the key strate¬ 
gic issue of improving capacity 
and access. 

The Aviation Capacity Enhance¬ 
ment Plan identifies the causes of 
delay and quantifies its magnitude. 


1.2 Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan 

The v^viation Capacity Enhancement Plan is an important 
part of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department 
of Transportation (DOT) efforts to improve the Nations trans¬ 
portation system. The Secretary of Transportation’s National 
Transportation Policy (NTP) describes the enormity of the 
Nation’s transportation infrastructure needs and sets as a major 
theme the need to maintain and expand the national transpor¬ 
tation system. The Federal Aviation Administration Strategic 
Plan, based on the NTP, provides the long-term goals and ob¬ 
jectives towards which the FAA is working. The newly devel¬ 
oped FAA Operational Concept bridges the gap between the 
broad policies and strategies of the FAA Strategic Plan and the 
specific actions and projects in the numerous operating-level 
plans throughout the FAA. The FAA Operational Concept de¬ 
lineates the operational capabilities that must be in place to 
achieve an operating vision of the future for the year 2010. The 
Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan supports the key strategic 
issue of improving capacity and access. 

The Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan is also linked to 
other FAA operating-level plans. In particular, it addresses re¬ 
quirements for research, for facilities and equipment, and for 
airport improvements that can be funded from the FAA’s Air¬ 
port Improvement Program (AIP). Each of these areas is ad¬ 
dressed in a major FAA plan, and the Aviation Capacity En¬ 
hancement Plan generates requirements for each of those plans. 
The Research, Engineering, and Development (rE&D) Plan is 
used to determine which systems and technologies the FAA 
should use to accomplish agency goals and objectives. The 
RE&D Plan includes the research needed to validate the new 
instrument approach procedures detailed in Chapter 3. The 
Capital Investment Plan (CIP) provides a framework for invest¬ 
ment in the facilities and equipment needed to improve the 
National Airspace System (NAS). The CIP funds the techno¬ 
logical improvements described in Chapter 5. The National 
Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) presents airport im¬ 
provement projects nationwide that are eligible for AIP funding. 
Among these are projects to build new airports and to improve 
existing airports to increase capacity and safety. These projects 
are discussed in Chapter 2. 

The Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan identifies the 
causes of delay and quantifies its magnitude. The plan cata¬ 
logues and summarizes programs that have the potential to en¬ 
hance capacity and reduce delay. Within the plan, these pro¬ 
grams have been organized into broadly related categories that. 


Chapter 1-4 


1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 1: Introduction 


in turn, parallel chapter development: Airport Development, 
New Instrument Approach Procedures, Airspace Develop¬ 
ment, Technology for Capacity Improvement, and Marketplace 
Solutions. 


1.3 Level of Aviation Activity 

1.3.1 Activity Statistics at the 
Top 100 Airports 


The top 100 airports in the United States, as measured by 
1992 passenger enplanements, are shown in Figure 1-2.'^ These 
100 airports accounted for over 92 percent of the 514.2 million 
passengers that enplaned nationally in 1992. 

In 2005, 775 million domestic and international passengers 
are forecast to enplane at these airports.^ This represents a pro¬ 
jected growth in enplanements of nearly 64 percent over the 13 
year period of the forecast, an average annual rate of growth of 
about 5 percent. 

In 1992, over 25 million aircraft operations occurred at the 
top 100 airports. By 2005, operations are forecast to grow to 
approximately 35 million at these airports, a projected growth 
in operations of nearly 38 percent. 

Operations data for 1991, 1992, and 1993 and 
enplanement data for 1991 and 1992, as well as forecasts of op¬ 
erations and enplanements for 2005 for the top 100 airports, 
are included in Appendix A. 


The top 100 airports accounted 
for over 92 percent of the 514,2 
million passengers that enplaned 
nationally in 1992. 


4. The top 100 airports were chosen based on 1992 passenger enplanements 
as listed in preliminary data intended for the FAA s annual report, Terminal 
Area Forecasts. 

5. Based on preliminary data intended for the FAAs Terminal Area Forecasts. 
FY91 and FY92 operations and enplanement data for the top 100 airports, a 
forecast for the year 2005, and the percentage growth that the forecast rep¬ 
resents are shown in Appendix A, as well as a ranking by percentage growth 
in operations and enplanements. 


Chapter 1-5 




Chapter 1: Introduction 


1994 ACE Plan 


1.3.2 Traffic Volumes in Air Route Traffic 
Control Centers (artccs) 


In 1992, the total number of air¬ 
craft flying under IFR handled by 
all ARTCCs increased, but only by 
0.8 percent compared to 1991, 
from 36.4 up to 36.7 million op¬ 
erations. 

Center operations are forecast to 
increase from 36.7 million aircraft 
handled in 1992 to 46.5 million in 
2005. 


Air traffic volume statistics for 1992 show that instrument 
flight rules (IFR) operations increased at 11 of the 20 Conti¬ 
nental United States (CONUS) ARTCCs over 1991. In 1992, the 
total number of aircraft flying under IFR handled by all ARTCCs 
increased, but only by 0.8 percent compared to 1991, from 36.4 
up to 36.7 million operations.* Commercial aircraft handled at 
the centers increased by 1.3 percent, with commuter/air taxi ac¬ 
tivity up 5.4 percent, while general aviation and military activ¬ 
ity remained static. 

Aircraft operations at the centers are expected to grow at an 
average rate of 2.0 percent a year between 1992 and 2005.^ In 
absolute numbers, center operations are forecast to increase 
from 36.7 million aircraft handled in 1992 to 46.5 milhon in 
2005. In 1992, 49.9 percent of the traffic handled at centers 
were air carrier flights. This proportion is expected to increase 
only slightly to 51.4 percent in 2005. 

Figure 1-3 provides a map of the 20 CONUS ARTCCs. Fig¬ 
ure 1-4 compares the number of operations during FY91 and 
FY92 and provides a forecast for FY05 for each of the 20 CONUS 
ARTCCs. A breakdown by user group of the traffic handled by 
the centers in 1991 and 1992, operations data for the individual 
ARTCCs for 1991 and 1992, and forecasts for 2005 are included 
in Appendix A. 


6. Based on FAA’s Forecast of IFR Aircraft Handled by Air Route Traffic Con- 
trol Centers 1993—2005, FAA-APO-93-4, May 1993. 

7. Based on FAA Aviation Forecasts^ Fiscal Years 1994—2005, FAA—APO 94-1, 
March 1994. 


Chapter 1-6 




Figure 1-2. The Top 100 Airports by 1992 Enplanements 

Source; FAA'S Terminal Area Forecasts 

See Table A-6 in Appendix A for an alphabetic listing of the three-letter airport identifiers. 


Chapter 1-7 


















Air Route Traffic Control Centers 


1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 1: Introduction 


Albuquerque (ZAB) 
Atlanta (ZTL) 
Boston (ZBU) 
Chicago (ZAU) 
Cleveland (ZOB) 
Denver (ZDV) 
Fort Worth (ZFW) 
Houston (ZHU) 
Indianapolis (ZID) 
Jacksonville (ZjX) 
Kansas City (ZKC) 
Los Angeles (ZLA) 


Memphis (ZME) | 


Miami (ZMA) 
Minneapolis (ZMP) 
New York (ZNY) 
Oakland (ZOA) 
Salt Lake City (ZLC) 
Seattle (ZSE) 
Washington (ZDC) 



E] FY91 


500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 

Operations (000) 


Figure 1-4. Operations at Air Route Traffic Control Centers 

Source: Forecast of IFR Aircraft Handled by ARTCC, FY92-FY05, FAA-APO-93-4, May 1993 


Chapter 1-9 







Chapter 1: Introduction 


1994 ACE Plan 


The busiest ARTCCs in 1992 were: Chicago, Cleveland, At¬ 
lanta, Washington, and Fort Worth. Forecasts for 2005 indi¬ 
cate a change in ranking of the busiest ARTCCs to: Chicago, 
Cleveland, Atlanta, Oakland, and Washington. The centers 
with the highest average annual growth rates are Oakland and 
Jacksonville, which are projected to grow by 3.9 and 2.8 percent 
respectively. The relatively high growth at these two centers re¬ 
flects the projected high growth of domestic traffic demand in 
the West and South. Oakland Center is forecast to experience 
the largest absolute growth, from 1.6 million aircraft operations 
in 1992 to 2.7 million in the year 2005, a 64 percent increase. 
This reflects the continuing development and strong projected 
growth on trans-Pacific routes. 


The busiest ARTCCs in 1992 were: 
Chicago, 

Cleveland, 

Atlanta, 

Washington, and 
Fort Worth. 

Forecasts for 2005 indicate a 
change in ranking of the busiest 
ARTCCs to: 

Chicago, 

Cleveland, 

Atlanta, 

Oakland, and 
Washington. 


Busiest ARTCCs in 1992 




Chapter 1-10 




1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 1: Introduction 


1.4 Delay® 

1.4.1 Sources of Delay Data 


Delay can be thought of as another system performance pa¬ 
rameter, an indicator that capacity is perhaps being reached and 
even exceeded. Currently, the FAA gathers delay data from two 
different sources. The first is through the Air Traffic Opera¬ 
tions Management System (ATOMS), in which FAA personnel 
record aircraft that are delayed IS or more minutes by specific 
cause (weather, terminal volume, center volume, closed run¬ 
ways or taxiways, and NAS equipment interruptions). Aircraft 
that are delayed by less than 15 minutes are not recorded in 
ATOMS. 

The second source of delay data is through the Airline Ser¬ 
vice Quality Performance (ASQP) data, which is collected, in 
general, from airlines with one percent or more of the total do¬ 
mestic scheduled service passenger revenue^ and represents de¬ 
lay by phase of flight (i.e., gate-hold, taxi-out, airborne, or taxi- 
in delays). Actual departure time, flight duration, and arrival 
times are reported along with the differences between these 
and the equivalent data published in the Official Airline Guide 
(OAG) and entered in the Computer Reservation System (CRS). 
ASQP delays range from 0 minutes to greater than 15 minutes. 
In the discussion that follows, “delay by cause” refers to ATOMS 
data, and “delay by phase of flight” refers to ASQP data. 

The delay data reported through ATOMS and ASQP are not 
without their problems. ATOMS is the official FAA delay report¬ 
ing system. However, it only reports delays of 15 minutes or 
more; it aggregates flight delays, thus making it impossible to 
determine if a particular flight was delayed; and it only reports 
flight delays due to an air traffic problem (i.e., weather, termi¬ 
nal volume, center volume, closed runways or taxiways, and 
NAS equipment interruptions). ASQP only reports on carriers 
with at least 1 percent of domestic passenger enplanements for 
scheduled air carrier flights. ASQP is used primarily for con¬ 
sumer on-time performance reporting and is under DOT con¬ 
trol. 


The FAA gathers delay data from 
two different sources. The first is 
through the Air Traffic Operations 
Management System (ATOMS), 
and the second source of delay 
data is through the Airline Service 
Quality Performance (ASQP) data. 


8. Although no existing delay reporting system is fully comprehensive, this 
Plan aims to identify problem areas through available data, such as the fol¬ 
lowing delay information and the previously mentioned aviation activity 
statistics. 

9. Airlines reporting ASQP data as of November 1, 1993 include: Alaska, 
American, America West, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, 
TWA, United, and USAir. 


Chapter 1-11 



Chapter 1: Introduction 


1994 ACE Plan 


The FAA is developing an im¬ 
proved aircraft delay data system 
to provide a single, integrated 
source of data to answer analyti¬ 
cal questions about delay at a de¬ 
tailed level. 


Flight delays exceeding 15 or 
more minutes, as recorded by AT¬ 
OMS, were experienced on 
275,759 flights in 1993, a de¬ 
crease of 1.8 percent over 1992. 


The FAA is developing an improved aircraft delay data sys¬ 
tem to provide a single, integrated source of data to answer 
anal)rtical questions about delay at a detailed level. This new 
system, the Consolidated Operations and Delay Analysis Sys¬ 
tem (codas), will use Enhanced Traffic Management System 
(ETMS), OAG, ASQP, and Aeronautical Radio Incorportated 
(ARINC) Communications Addressing and Reporting System 
(ACARS) data to calculate delay by phase of flight and will in¬ 
clude weather data from the National Oceanic and Atmo¬ 
spheric Administration (NOAA) for analysis purposes. By com¬ 
bining, comparing, and screening the data from these sources, a 
refined data source is created, which can be used for accurate 
delay calculations and model validation. CODAS will not replace 
ATOMS, which will continue to be the official FAA delay report¬ 
ing system. 

1.4.2 Delay by Cause 

Flight delays exceeding 15 or more minutes, as recorded by 
ATOMS, were experienced on 275,759 flights in 1993, a de¬ 
crease of 1.8 percent over 1992. Weather was attributed as the 
primary cause of 72 percent of operations delayed by 15 min¬ 
utes or more in 1993, up from 65 percent in 1992. Terminal air 
traffic volume accounted for 22 percent of delays of 15 or more 
minutes, down from 27 percent in 1992. Table 1-1 details these 
and other factors that caused delays of 15 minutes or more and 
provides a history of this breakdown of delay by primary cause. 
With the exception of the split between terminal and center 
volume delays, the basic distribution of delay by cause has re¬ 
mained fairly consistent over the past seven years. 

More than half of all delays are attributed to adverse 
weather. These delays are largely the result of instrument ap¬ 
proach procedures that are much more restrictive than the vi¬ 
sual procedures in effect during better weather conditions. The 
FAA continues to install new and upgrade existing instrument 
landing systems (iLSs) to support continued operations during 
conditions of reduced visibility. During the past few years, the 
FAA has developed new, capacity-producing approach proce¬ 
dures that take advantage of improving technology while main¬ 
taining the current level of safety. These new procedures, and a 
corresponding estimate of the expected increase in the number 
of operations per hour, are discussed in Chapter 3. 


Chapter 1-12 


1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 1: Introduction 


1.4.3 Delay by Phase of Flight 

Based on ASQP data, Table 1-2 presents the average delay 
in minutes by phase of flight. This table shows, for example, 
that more delays occur during the taxi-out phase than any other 
phase and that airborne delays average 4.1 minutes per aircraft. 
To put this in perspective, there were approximately 6,200,000 
air carrier flights in 1992.^° With an average airborne delay of 
4.1 minutes per aircraft, this means that there was a total of 
over 424,000 hours of airborne delay that year, which, at an es¬ 
timated $1,600 per hour, cost the airlines $678 million. 


Table 1-1. Distribution of Delay Greater Than 15 Minutes by Cause 


; Distribution of Delay Greater than 15 Minutes by Cause 

Cause 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

Weather 

67% 

67% 

70% 






Terminal Volume 

16% 

11% 

9% 






Center Volume 

10% 

13% 

12% 

8% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Closed Runways/Taxiways 

3% 

4% 

5% 

3% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

NAS Equipment 

3% 

4% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

Other 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

3% 

2% 

3% 

2% 

Total Operations 

Delayed (000s) 

418 

356 

338 


393 

298 

281 

:'Mi6|| 

Percent Change from 

Previous Year 

+25% 

-15% 

-5% 


0% 

-24% 


-2% 


10. FAA Aviation Forecast Sy Fiscal Years 1994-2005 y FAA-APO 94-1, March 
1994. 


Chapter 1-13 




















Chapter 1: Introduction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table 1-2. Average Delay by Phase of Flight” 


Average Delay by Phase of Flight 

(minutes per flight) 

>^Pl|asp|iiilllil||||||||l|| 

i9$8 

1989 


1991 

1992 

1993 

Gate-hold 

1.0 

1.0 

mm 

1.1 

1.1 


Taxi-out 

6.8 

7.0 

B 

6.9 


6.9 

Airborne 

4.0 

4.3 

B 

4.1 

IB 

4.1 

Taxi-in 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

2.2 


2.2 

Total 

14.0 

14.6 

14.9 

14.3 


14.2 

Mins./Op. 

7.0 

7.3 



7.1 

7.1 


1.4.4 Identification of Delay-Problem 
Airports 


In CY93, the number of airline 
flight delays of 15 minutes or more 
decreased compared to 1992 at 
31 of the 55 airports. These de¬ 
lays ranged from nearly 88 per 
1,000 operations at Newark to 
0.1 per 1,000 at San Antonio. 


In CY93, the number of airline flight delays of 15 minutes 
or more decreased compared to 1992 at 31 of the 55 airports at 
which the FAA collects air traffic delay statistics. Table 1-3 lists 
the number of operations delayed 15 minutes or more per 
1,000 operations from 1990 to 1993 at 51 of these airports. 
These delays ranged from nearly 88 per 1,000 operations at 
Newark International Airport to 0.1 per 1,000 at San Antonio 
International Airport. Three of the top six airports in delays of 
15 or more minutes were in the New York area. Table A-8 in 
Appendix A lists this same data for 22 of the 55 airports from 
1985 to 1992. 


11. Gate-hold Delay: The difference between the time that departure of an 
aircraft is authorized by ATC and the time that the aircraft would have left 
the gate area in the absence of an ATC gatehold. 

Taxi-out Delay: The difference between the time of lift-off and the time 
that the aircraft departed the gate, minus a standard taxi-out time estab¬ 
lished for a particular type of aircraft and airline at a specific airport. 

Airborne Delay: The difference between the time of lift-off from the origin 
airport and touchdown, minus the computer-generated optimum profile 
flight time for a particular flight, based on atmospheric conditions, aircraft 
loading, etc. 

Taxi-in Delay: The difference between touchdown time and gate arrival 
time, minus a standard taxi-in time for a particular type of aircraft and air¬ 
line at a specific airport. 

Mins/op: Average delay in minutes per operation. 


Chapter 1-14 













1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 1: Introduction 


Table 1-3. Delays of 15 Minutes or More Per 1,000 Operations a the Top 100 Airports 



ID 

1990 


iiilliiii 

iiilliiii 

Newark Int'l. 

EWR 

84.90 

67,30 

83.50 

87.90 

Chicago O’Hare Int'l. 

ORD 

64.60 

47.90 

45.40 

47.50 

Boston Logan Int'l. 

BOS 

32.30 

32.80 

34.60 

39.20 

1 :li W :liork|J||lhariiin^^^^^ 

EGA 

86.80 

61.60 

55.20 

38.30 

Denver Stapleton Inti. 


jfiiispi 

28.40 

26.30 

37.90 

New York Kennedy Int'l. 

TFK 

68.30 

41.70 

41.20 

35.70 

DaUas-Fort Worth Int'l. 

DFW 

32.00 

35.30 

29.80 

33.70 

San Francisco Int'l. 

SFO 

45.80 

58.10 

30.20 

23.80 

Atlanta Hartsfield Inti, . . ' ^ 

ATL 

44.10 

22.10 

29.90 

23.30 

St. Louis Lambert Inti, 

STL 

25.20 

29.90 

15.00 

19.50 

Philadelphia Int'l. 

PHL 

35.40 

16.90 

18.50 

18.80 

Miami Inti. 

MIA 

8.60 

24.00 

9.70 

10.50 

Washington National 

DCA 

9.60 

5.60 

11.00 

9.30 

Los Angeles Inti, 

LAX 

7.10 

14.80 

19.80 

9.20 

Detroit Metropolitan 

DTW 

19.90 

9.30 

11.20 

9.10 

Houston Intercontinental 

lAH 

12.70 

12.60 

7.90 

8.10 

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int'l. 

MSP 

31.90 

7.90 

4.40 

7.20 

Pittsburgh Int'l. 

PIT 

8.60 

5,00 

8.00 

6.90 

Washington Dulles Inti. 

lAD 

7.40 


"7 OA 

/.5U 

6.90 

Seattle-Tacoma Inti. 

SEA 

30.50 

ttilftjS.Sp- 

13.20 

6.80 

Greater Cincinnati Int'l. 

CVG 

11.20 

5.30 

5.90 

6.40 

Orlando Int'l. 

MCO 

7,30 

6.40 

9.00 

4,70 

Baltimore-Washington Int'l. 

BWI 

17.60 

6.00 

5.80 

3.90 

Salt Lake City Inti. 

SLC 

3.20 

3.70 

ililiiSiioi, 

iijiillio;: 

Tampa Inti. 

TPA 

4.80 

llliij:90" 

HiSliiO’!- 


San Diego Int'l. 

SAN 

6.40 

10.20 

3.00 

3.90 

Charlotte/Douglas Int'l. 

CLT 

12.60 

9.70 

6.20 

3.80 

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int'l. 

FLL 

3.00 

2.10 

3.70 

3.80 

Houston William B. Hobby 

HOU 

'lUtlMMM 

iiitMMi 


3.50 

Chicago Midway 

MDW 

:t'li|7i1.0f 

rniiMMI 

2.10 

3.00 

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int'l. 

PHX 

9.90 

6.70 

8.20 

2.90 

Nashville Int'l. 

BNA 

1.70 

3.90 

2.90 

2.70 

Cleveland Hopkins Int'l. 

CLE 

4.70 

2.00 

1.60 

_1 

2.40 

Raleigh-Durham Inti. 

RDU 


2.00 

3.60 

2.00 

Portland Int'l. - 

PDX 

1.30 

1.40 

1.80 

1.90 

Kansas City Int'l. 

MCI 

2.30 

3.00 

0,80 

1.30 

Ontario Int'l. 

ONT 

1.20 

1.60 

1.30 

1.20 

Memphis Int'l. 

MEM 

3.00 

2.40 

1.10 

1.00 

Bradley Int'l. 

BDL 

3.80 

2.40 

2.00 

0.90 

Palm Beach Inti. 

PBI 

1.40 

1.50 

1.00 

0.80 

Anchorage Int'l. 

ANC 

2.00 

1.30 

0.30 

0.70 

Indianapolis Int'l. 

IND 

0.80 

1.00 

2.10 

0.60 

Las Vegas McCarran Int'l. 

LAS 

1.20 

0.40 

0.30 

0.50 

San Jose Inti. 

SJC 

11.10 

4.30 

1.70 

0.40 

Albuquerque Inti. 

ABa 

1.00 

0.70 

0.70 

0.30 

New Orleans Int'l. 

MSY 

2.00 

1.10 

0.60 

0.30 

San Juan Luis Munoz Marin Int'l. 

SJU 

0.40 

0.10 

0.60 

0.30 

Dayton Int'l. 

DAY 

1.50 

1.10 

0.30 

0.30 

Honolulu Int’l. : 

JiJIRiiji 

0.40 

0.40 

0.10 

0.20 

San Antonio int'l. 

:iliSArMf; 

0.80 

0.30 

0.20 

0.10 

Kahului 

OGG 

0.20 

0,10 

0.10 

0.00 


Chapter 1-15 



Chapter 1: Introduction 


1994 ACE Plan 


1.4.5 Identification of Forecast 
Delay-Problem Airports 


Forecasts indicate that, without capacity improvements, de¬ 
lays in the system will continue to grow. In 1993, 23 airports 
each exceeded 20,000 hours of annual aircraft flight delays. As¬ 
suming no improvements in airport capacity are made, 32 air¬ 
ports are forecast to each exceed 20,000 hours of annual aircraft 
flight delays by the year 2003. Table 1-4 lists the airports with 
1993 actual and 2003 forecast air carrier delay hours in excess 
of 20,000 hours. The current forecast for 32 delay-problem air¬ 
ports in 2003 is eight less than the 40 airports predicted in the 
forecast of three years ago. This reflects the overall decline in 
air travel as a result of the recession, and an economic recovery 
that has been slower than expected. 

Figure 1-5 shows the airports exceeding 20,000 hours of 
annual aircraft delay in 1993 and the airports forecast to exceed 
20,000 hours of annual aircraft delay in 2003, assuming there 
are no capacity improvements. 


Chapter 1-16 


1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 1: Introduction 


Table 1-4. 1993 Actual and 2003 Forecast Air Carrier Delay Hours 



Annual Aircraft Delay in Excess of20,000 Hours 

.... 



Atlanta Hartsfield 

ATL 

Atlanta Hartsfield 

ATL 

New York La Guardia 

LGA 

Boston Logan 

BOS 

Nashville 

BNA 

Orlando 

MCO 

Charlotte/Douglas 

CLT 

Boston 

BOS 

Memphis 

MEM 

Washington National 

llipAill 

Baltimore Washington 

BWI 

Miami 

MIA 

Denver Stapleton 

liiiflll 

Charlotte-Douglas 

CLT 

Minneapolis-Saint Paul 

MSP- 

Dallas-Ft. Worth 

DFW 

Cincinnati 

CVG 

Ontario 

ONT 

Detroit 

DTW 

Washington National 

DCA 

Chicago O'Hare 

ORD 

Newark 

EWR 

Dallas-Ft. Worth 

DFW 

Philadelphia 

PHL 

Honolulu 

HNL 

Detroit 

DTW 

Phoenix 

PHX 

Houston Intercont'l 

lAH 

Newark 

EWR 

Pittsburgh 

PIT 

New York John R Kennedy 

JFK 

Honolulu 

HNL 

Raleigh-Durham 

RDU 

Los Angeles 

LAX 

Washington Dulles 

lAD 

San Diego 

SAN 

New York La Guardia 

LGA 

Houston Intercont'l 

lAH 

Seattle-Tacoma 

SEA 

Orlando 

MCO 

New York John R Kennedy 


San Francisco 

SFO 

Miami 

MIA 

Las Vegas 

Was, mi 

Salt;::£alie' tMy | J 

SLC 

Minneapolis-Saint Paul 

MSP 

Los Angeles 

LAX 

St. Louis 

STL 

Chicago O'Hare 

ORD 



Philadelphia 

PHL 



Phoenix 

PHX 



Pittsburgh 

PIT 



Seattle-Tacoma 

SEA 



San Francisco 

SFO 



St. Louis 

STL 





Chapter 1: Introduction 


1994 ACE Plan 



Figure 1-5. Airports Exceeding 20,000 Hours of Annual Delay in 1993 and 
2003, Assuming No Capacity Improvements 

Source: FAA Office of Policy and Plans 


Chapter 1-18 

















1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 1: Introduction 


1.5 The FAA Strategic Plan and the faa 
Operational Concept — 

A Vision for the Year 2010 


A vigorous aviation system is essential for United States 
economic prosperity, and the entire aviation community must 
work together in order to maintain what has become the safest, 
most efficient, and most responsive aviation system in the 
world. To support this effort, the FAA developed the FAA Stra¬ 
tegic Plan and the FAA Operational Concept. The two docu¬ 
ments are a foundation for an iterative process to develop, in 
cooperation with all the users of the national aviation system, a 
common vision of the future from which to set policies, strate¬ 
gies, and operational goals for the year 2010. 

In the year 2010, more people will be flying, more often, to 
more places than ever before. U.S. domestic passenger enplane- 
ments will double, and commuter and regional enplanements 
will triple. U.S. airlines will carry more than one billion passen¬ 
gers annually. Operations by general aviation aircraft will in¬ 
crease by 44 percent to 43 million flight hours annually. World 
revenue passenger miles will increase by 200 percent to reach 
3.2 trillion. Larger aircraft sizes and higher load factors will 
combine to prevent even larger increases. Global air cargo rev¬ 
enue ton miles will grow by 136 percent reaching 130 billion. 
Helicopters and new tiltrotor and tiltwing aircraft will play an 
increasingly important role in providing short-haul and me¬ 
dium-range passenger service. The market for new aircraft over 
the next 20 years will be almost one trillion dollars, more than 
double the market over the past 20 years. The challenge for the 
year 2010 will be to ensure that flights are conducted with un¬ 
precedented levels of safety, security, and efficiency, while con¬ 
serving natural resources and minimizing the effects on the en¬ 
vironment. 


The challenge for the year 2010 
will be to ensure that flights are 
conducted with unprecedented 
levels of safety, security, and effi¬ 
ciency, while conserving natural 
resources and minimizing the ef¬ 
fects on the environment. 


Chapter 1-19 



Chapter 1: Introduction 


1994 ACE Plan 


1.5.1 System Capacity Goals and 
Objectives 


The FAA Strategic Plan identifies 
System Capacity as one of seven 
strategic issue areas. 

The general goal of the system ca¬ 
pacity program is to build aviation 
system capacity that will minimize 
delays and allow fair access for 
all types of aviation. 


The FAA Strategic Plan identifies System Capacity as one 
of seven strategic issue areas. The principal goals for the avia¬ 
tion system capacity program in Volume II of the FAA Strategic 
Plan are to ensure that: 

• Airspace, airport, and airside capacity continue to grow to 
meet user needs cost effectively. 

• Capacity resources are fuUy utilized to meet traffic de¬ 
mand and eliminate capacity-related delays. 

• Airport capacities in instrument meteorological condi¬ 
tions (IMC) equal capacities in visual meteorological con¬ 
ditions (VMC). 


Specific objectives have been developed in the FAA Strate¬ 
gic Plan to support the general goal of the system capacity pro¬ 
gram to build aviation system capacity that will minimize de¬ 
lays and allow fair access for all types of aviation. The FAA Op¬ 
erational Concept, in turn, lays out specific milestones the FAA 
will complete over the next five years to achieve these objec¬ 
tives. 

• System Capacity Measurement — to identify and define, 
in concert with the aviation community, standards of suc¬ 
cess and national capacity indicators that wiU better target 
areas for reducing delay and increasing capacity. 

• Near-Term Capacity Initiatives — to reduce constraints/ 
limitations at the top 40 delay/operationally impacted air¬ 
ports by timely implementation of system enhancements 
and capacity increasing technologies and procedures. 

• ATC Automation — to improve the automated infrastruc¬ 
ture thr ough replacement and enhancements in order to 
provide the platform for capacity-enhancing technologies 
and procedures. 

• Traffic Flow Management — to create the necessary ca¬ 
pabilities that will permit the ATC system to ensure safe 
separation while imposing minimum constraints on sys¬ 
tem users and aircraft movement. 

• Oceanic Control — to change, in concert with the inter¬ 
national aviation community, oceanic air traffic control 
from its current non-radar control to a tactical control en¬ 
vironment much like current domestic radar control. 

• Weather Forecasting, Detection, and Communication — 
to reduce the capacity-impacting consequences of 


Chapter 1-20 


1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 1: Introduction 


weather phenomena by improved weather forecasts and 
increased accuracy, resolution, and dissemination of ob¬ 
servations both on the ground and in the air. 

• Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance (CNS) 
and Satellite Navigation — to implement CNS and satel¬ 
lite navigation capabilities through an aggressive indus¬ 
try/government partnership that achieves user benefits in 
all phases of aviation operations. 

• Communications/Data Link — to provide a cost-effec¬ 
tive communications infrastructure to enhance the safety 
and effectiveness of air traffic management operations. 

• Airport Planning — to improve the national airport plan¬ 
ning process by adding a method for prioritizing projects; 
by linking the national plan to the grant program through 
an Airport Capital Improvement Program; and by devel¬ 
oping the Airport Research, Engineering, and Develop¬ 
ment (RE&D) program. 

• Human Factors — to implement new automation tech¬ 
nologies and associated functional improvements in a 
manner that fully accounts for the proper role of the hu¬ 
man in the system. 


Chapter 1-21 


Chapter 1: Introduction 


1994 ACE Plan 



Chapter 1-22 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 2: Airport Development 


Chapter 2 

Airport Development 


2.1 Delay and the Need for Airport 
Development 

Air traffic delay slipped temporarily from newspaper head¬ 
lines, as a sluggish economy slowed growth in air transporta¬ 
tion. The number of flights exceeding 15 minutes of delay has 
dechned for the last three years, while commercial air carrier 
domestic passenger enplanements increased at an annual rate of 
less than 1 percent. However, air transportation has become a 
vital part of the United States economy. As the economic re¬ 
covery gathers momentum, the demand for air travel will grow, 
and the number of aircraft operations will increase to meet that 
demand. Current forecasts indicate that, without capacity im¬ 
provements, delays would increase substantially over the next 
decade, though at a somewhat slower pace than in the 1980s. 

The FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems 
(NPIAS) shows that, with the new improvements planned, ca¬ 
pacity at the majority of the 29 “large hub” commercial service 
airports in the United States will be adequate to meet the fore¬ 
cast growth in demand. The few problem airports, which are 
predicted to continue to experience significant delay despite 
planned improvements, are primarily the large metropolitan 
area airports on the east and west coasts, principally in the 
Northeast and in California. At these problem airports, 
planned improvements are not adequate to meet the projected 
growth in demand, for a variety of reasons. 

The positive message is that the capacity needed to meet 
future demand will be available at most of the Nation’s busiest 
airports, if the improvements planned for these airports con¬ 
tinue to be funded and built. It is, therefore, essential that the 
aviation community, in both the public and private sector, con¬ 
tinues to work together to ensure that these improvement 
projects are completed in time to meet the growth in demand. 
However, the NPIAS points out that, even though capacity im¬ 
provements are planned at the few delay-problem airports, they 
will not be enough to meet forecast demand at these airports. 
Delays there wiU most likely increase as demand increases. 

From this perspective then, airport capacity improvements 
take on a two-tiered scheme of priorities. For most of the air¬ 
ports in the country, the need for capacity improvement must 


The number of flights exceeding 
15 minutes of delay has declined 
for the last three years. As the eco¬ 
nomic recovery gathers momen¬ 
tum, the demand for air travel will 
grow, and aircraft operations will 
increase to meet demand. Current 
forecasts indicate that delays 
would increase substantially over 
the next decade. 


The need for capacity improve¬ 
ment must continue to be empha¬ 
sized so that projects will continue 
to be planned, funded, and built to 
keep pace with the projected de¬ 
mand. 


Chapter 2-1 



Chapter 2: Airport Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


For the few delay-problem air¬ 
ports, renewed emphasis must be 
given to finding innovative solu¬ 
tions, with a view toward develop¬ 
ing regional airport systems to 
serve the expanding air transpor¬ 
tation needs. 


The largest aviation system capac¬ 
ity gains result from the construc¬ 
tion of new airports. 


continue to be emphasized so that projects will continue to be 
planned, funded, and built to keep pace with the projected de¬ 
mand. This has been the work of the Airport Capacity Design 
Teams, which is described in more detail in this chapter. 

For the few delay-problem airports in the Northeast, in Cali¬ 
fornia, and elsewhere, renewed emphasis must be given to finding 
innovative solutions. New airports, expanded use of existing com¬ 
mercial-service airports, civilian development of former military 
bases, and joint civilian and military use of existing military facili¬ 
ties—these options and more must be explored systematically with 
a view toward developing regional airport systems to serve the ex¬ 
panding air transportation needs of these large metropolitan areas. 

An FAA report to Congress, Long-Term Availability of Ad¬ 
equate Airport System Capacity (DOT/FAA/PP-92-4, June 1992), de¬ 
scribes the probable extent of airport congestion in the future, 
given current trends. The three assessment techniques used in the 
study all point to a persistent shortfall in capacity at some of the 
busiest airports in the country as airport development lags behind 
the growing demand for air travel. The report acknowledges that 
some of the shortfall may be corrected by such things as improve¬ 
ments in technology and demand management. However, a sig¬ 
nificant gap in airport capacity will probably remain, and a major 
increase in the rate of airport development may be needed, to¬ 
gether with measures to maximize the efficient use of existing ca¬ 
pacity, and, in the longer term, to supplement air transportation 
with high-speed ground transportation. High-speed ground trans¬ 
portation will be discussed further in Chapter 6, Marketplace So¬ 
lutions. Development of new airports and options to maximize the 
efficiency of existing airports will be discussed in this and subse¬ 
quent chapters. 

2.2 New Airport Development 

The largest aviation system capacity gains result from the con¬ 
struction of new airports. The new Denver International Airport, 
for example, Avill increase capacity and reduce delays not only in 
the Denver area but also throughout the aviation system. How¬ 
ever, at a cost of over $2.9 billion for a new airport like Denver, it 
wiU remain a challenge to finance and build others. In addition, 
the development of new airports faces environmental, social, and 
political constraints. Scheduled to be operational in 1995, Denver 
International Airport is the only major new airport currently under 
construction. Bergstrom AFB is currently the only major military 
airfield being converted for civilian use, designed to replace Austin 
Robert Mueller Airport. Table 2-1 summarizes other major new 
airports that have been considered in various planning studies by 
state and local government organizations. 


Chapter 2-2 





1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 2: Airport Development 


Table 2-1 Major New Airports — Under Construction and Planning Studies 


Airport 

Purpose 

It :!lli jiltSiiliSMB 

New Denver 

Replacement airport for Denver Stapleton 
(DEN), which will close. 

Under construction. Scheduled to be 
operational in 1995. 

Dallas-Ft. Worth 

Supplemental airport. 

Phase 2 satellite study by North Central Texas 
Council of Governments. 

Minneapolis-St. Paul 

Replacement airport for MSP. Proposal is to 
close existing airport. 

Dual track. Feasibility study for new airport. 

Capacity enhancement study for existing 
airport completed. 

West Virginia 

Regional Airport, 

Feasibility study underway. 

Chicago 

Supplemental airport. 

Master Plan/EA in progress on State of Illinois 
preferred alternative (Peotone). Estimated 
completion 1/96. 

Seattle-Tacoma 

Supplemental airport. 

Feasability study underway by Puget Sound 

Regional Council. 

Boston 

No active plans for a new airport. Emphasis on 
greater use of existing outlying airports. 

Based on new studies, MASPORT decided not 
to landbank a new airport. 

Atlanta 

Supplemental airport. 

Satellite study by Atlanta Regional 

Commission of non-ranked sites completed. 
Feasibility study by State of Georgia underway. 

Northwest Arkansas 

Replacement airport for Fayetteville (FYV), 
which will remain in operation. 

Site selection/AMP/EIS completed. Feasibility 
study completed. Record of Decision signed 

8/16/94. 

Birmingham, 

Alabama 

Replacement airport. Proposal is to close 
existing airport. 

Site selection completed. Ranked sites and 
preferred sites identified by State of Alabama. 

North Carolina 

Cargo/industrial airport. 

An existing airport, Kinston, N.C., was 
selected as the prefered site. EIS process 
underway. 

Eastern Virginia 

Supplemental airport. 

Regional study by three Councils of 

Governments. 

Louisiana 

Intermodal facility. Replacement airport for 

MSY and Baton Rouge (BTR). Existing airports 
will remain in operation. 

New airport feasibility study by State of 

Louisiana. Phase 2 site selection study 
has been completed. 

Austin 

Replace Robert Mueller Airport. 

Conversion of Bergstrom AFB to civil use. 

AIP Grant issued FY94 for demolition of 
existing structures for new airport. 

Phoenix 

Regional airport. 

Feasibility study underway for Phoenix/Tucson 
regional airport. 

St. Louis 

Replacement airport on existing site. 

Master Plan Update and EIS underway. 

San Diego 

Supplemental or replacement airport. 

A series of studies indicated that a new 
airport is needed, but a site has not 
been selected yet. 


Chapter 2-3 


Chapter 2: Airport Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


2.3 Development of Existing Airports — 
Airport Capacity Design Teams 


As environmental, financial, and 
other constraints continue to re¬ 
strict the development of new air¬ 
port facilities, an increased empha¬ 
sis has been placed on the rede¬ 
velopment and expansion of exist¬ 
ing airport facilities. 


As environmental, financial, and other constraints continue 
to restrict the development of new airport facilities in the 
United States, an increased emphasis has been placed on the 
redevelopment and expansion of existing airport facilities. In 
1985, the FAA initiated a renewed program of Airport Capacity 
Design Teams at airports across the country affected by delay. 
Airport operators, airlines, and other aviation industry repre¬ 
sentatives work together with FAA representatives to identify 
and analyze capacity problems at each airport and recommend 
improvements that have the potential for reducing or eliminat¬ 
ing delay. The FAA Technical Center s Aviation Capacity 
Branch (ACD-130), which has been involved in airport capacity 
simulation modeling since 1978, provides a ready source of 
technical expertise. 

Aircraft flight delays are generally attributable to one or 
more conditions, which include weather, traffic volume, re¬ 
stricted runway capability, and NAS equipment limitations. 

Each of these factors can affect individual airports to varying 
degrees, but much delay could be eliminated if the specific 
causes of delay were identified and resources applied to develop 
the necessary improvements to remove or reduce the deficiency. 

Since the renewal of the program in 1985, 34 Airport Ca¬ 
pacity Design Team studies have been completed. Currently, 
three Capacity Team studies are in progress. Table 2-2 provides 
the status of the program at the airports with Airport Capacity 
Design Teams, and Figure 2-1 shows the location of each of 
these airports. 


Chapter 2-4 


1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 2: Airport Development 


Table 2-2. Status of Airport Capacity Design Teams 



Airport Capacity Design Team Status 

Completed 

Ongoing 

Atlanta 

Orlando 

Albuquerque 

Portland 

Boston 

Philadelphia 

Ft. Lauderdale 

Seattle-Tacoma Update 

Charlotte/Douglas 

Phoenix 

Indianapolis 

Atlanta Update 

Chicago 

Pittsburgh 

Houston Intercont. 


Detroit 

Raleigh-Durham 

Minneapolis-St. Paul 


Honolulu 

Salt Lake City 

Port Columbus 


Kansas City 

San Antonio 

Washington-Dulles 


Los Angeles 

San Francisco 

Oakland 


Memphis 

San Jose 

St. Louis 


Miami 

San Juan, PR. 

New Orleans 


Nashville 

Seattle-Tacoma 

Eastern Virginia 


Cleveland 

Las Vegas 

Dallas/Ft. Worth 



As of 10-01-94 


Chapter 2 - S 




Figure 2-1. Airport Capacity Design Teams in the United States 


Chapter 2-6 


Puerto 


















1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 2: Airport Development 


2.3.1 Airport Capacity Design Teams — 
Recommended Improvements 

Airport Capacity Design Teams identify and assess various 
corrective actions that, if implemented, will increase capacity, 
improve operational efficiency and reduce delay at the airports 
under study. These changes may include improvements to the 
airfield (runways, taxiways, etc.), facilities and equipment 
(navigational and guidance aids), and operational procedures. 
The Capacity Teams evaluate each alternative to determine its 
technical merits. Environmental, socioeconomic, and political 
issues are not evaluated here but in the master planning pro¬ 
cess. Alternatives are examined with the assistance of computer 
simulations provided by the FAA Technical Center at Atlantic 
City, New Jersey. In their final report, the Capacity Team rec¬ 
ommends certain proposed projects for implementation. How¬ 
ever, it should be noted that the presence of a recommended 
improvement in a Capacity Team report does not obligate the 
FAA to provide Facilities and Equipment (f8cE) or Airport Im¬ 
provement Program (AIP) funds. Demands for f8cE and AIP 
funds exceed the FAA’s limited resources and individual Capac¬ 
ity Team recommended projects must compete with all other 
projects for these limited funds. 

Table 2-3 summarizes these recommendations according to 
generalized categories of improvements. The Design Teams 
have developed more than 500 recommendations to increase 
airport capacity. Proposals to build a third or a fourth parallel 
runway were recommended by Design Teams at fourteen air¬ 
ports, proposals to build both a third and a fourth parallel run¬ 
way were recommended at seven airports, proposals to build a 
new runway and a new taxiway were recommended at seven 
airports, proposals to build a new taxiway only were recom¬ 
mended at eleven airports, and proposals to build a new taxi¬ 
way and new third and fourth parallel runways were recom¬ 
mended at five airports. Over half the capacity team reports 
have recommended proposed runway extensions, taxiway ex¬ 
tensions, angled/improved exits, or holding pads/improved 
staging areas. 

The only proposed facilities and equipment improvement 
that was recommended in more than half of the airport studies 
was the installation or upgrade of Instrument Landing Systems 
(iLSs) at one or more runways or runway ends, in order to im¬ 
prove runway capacity during IFR operations. 

The proposed operational improvements that were recom¬ 
mended in half or more of the studies include improved IFR 
approach procedures and reduced separation standards for ar- 


Airport Capacity Design Teams 
identify and assess various correc¬ 
tive actions that, if implemented, 
will increase capacity, improve op¬ 
erational efficiency and reduce 
delay at the airports under study. 

Airport Capacity Design Teams 
have developed more than 500 
recommendations to increase air¬ 
port capacity. 


Chapter 2-7 


Chapter 2: Airport Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


Capacity Team recommendations 
demonstrate the FAA's efforts to 
increase aviation system capacity 
by making the most use of current 
airports. 


The typical Capacity Team will 
make 20 to 30 recommendations 
for improvements to reduce delay 
at each airport. In many cases, the 
recommended improvements to 
the airfield represent the biggest 
capacity gains, particularly since 
they frequently incorporate the 
benefits of improved procedures 
and upgraded navigational equip¬ 
ment. 


rivals. One-third of the studies recommended an airspace analysis 
or restructuring of the airspace. Enhancement of the reliever and 
general aviation (GA) airport system was recommended at more 
than half of the airports. 

In general, the Capacity Team recommendations demonstrate 
the FAAs efforts to increase aviation system capacity by making the 
most use of current airports. In the view of the Airport Capacity 
Design Teams, the “choke point” most often is found in the run¬ 
way/taxiway system. Where possible, the construction of a third 
and even a fourth parallel runway has been proposed. Runway and 
taxiway extensions, new taxiways, and improved exits and staging 
areas have been recommended to reduce runway occupancy times 
and increase the efficiency of the existing runways. In addition to 
maximizing use of airport land, airports are making the best use of 
facilities, equipment, and procedures to increase arrival capacity 
during IFR operations. Equipment is being installed to accommo¬ 
date arrivals under lower ceiling and visibility minima, including 
ILSs, RVRs, and improved radar, not to mention new and improved 
arrival procedures and reduced separation standards for arrivals, 
both in-trail and laterally. Finally, in an effort to segregate larger 
jets from smaller/slower aircraft, the FAA is recommending en¬ 
hancement of the reliever and general aviation airport system. 


2.3.2 Airport Capacity Design Teams — 
Potential Savings Benefits 

As can be seen from the summary of Capacity Team recom¬ 
mendations in Table 2-3, the typical Capacity Team will make 20 
to 30 recommendations for improvements to reduce delay at each 
airport. Because of the large number of specific improvements, it is 
virtually impossible to summarize the expected benefits of each of 
these recommendations for all the airports. In many cases, how¬ 
ever, the recommended improvements to the airfield represent the 
biggest capacity gains, particularly since they frequently incorpo¬ 
rate the benefits of improved procedures and upgraded naviga¬ 
tional equipment. Detailed information on specific delay-savings 
benefits can be found in the final reports of the various Airport 
Capacity Design Teams. 

Table 2-4 provides examples of the potential delay savings 
benefits of the airfield improvements recommended by the Capac¬ 
ity Teams. These savings benefits were drawn from the final re¬ 
ports of selected Airport Capacity Design Team studies. Delay 
savings are stated in millions of dollars and thousands of hours of 
delay saved at the highest future demand level considered by the 
Capacity Team. A breakdown of the summarized material and ad¬ 
ditional information is contained in Appendix F of this report. 


Chapter 2-8 


1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 2: Airport Development 


Table 2-3. Summary of Capacity Design Team Recommendations 


i-i 

O 

•n 

vT 

Recommended Improvements 

y y 

» -i- •••>, X 

1 

1 

s 

Construct third parallel runway 

Construct fourth parallel runway 

Relocate runway 

Construct new taxiway 

Runway extension 

Taxi way extension j 

Angled exits/improved exits 

Holding pads/improved staging areas 

Terminal expansion 

; 1 

a 

s 

1 

1 

1 

InstalFupgrade ILSs 

Install/upgrade RVRs 

InstalFupgrade lighting system 

Install/upgrade VOR 

Upgrade terminal approach radar 

Install 

Install PRM 

New air traffic control tower 

Wake vortex advisory system 

: 1 ^ 

1 

1 

Airspace restructure/analysis 

Improve IFR approach procedures 

Improve departure sequencing 

Reduced separations between arrivals 

Intersecting operations with wet runways 

Expand TRACON/Establish TCA 

Segregate traffic 

De-peak airline schedules 

Enhance reliever and GA airport system 

: Richmond-, ; ■ ••v 

lili 







y.. 





V 

4 









y ■ 

iiili 

4 . 





iiilii 







v: 






y 

a- 

ff; 











ff 




ia,;;i: 

f";.ii- 

Newport News 

isiiiiii: 





V 


aI 















ff 


ff 






Washington-Dulles 

' 

V 



V 

V 



V 


He 


ff 

ff 







iili 


ff 


ff 




ff 

ff 



V 



Jl| 



y^ 



iiliii 

ff 





iiil 



a 

Ilii;?®:! 


f 


-ff- 

li I 


iiiiffiii-- 

ly!!! 

iT'" 

, ' Safx^an; Flier to, Rico " 





;v: 


it 

a: 

':4 

a- 

":;b 



ff 

:ff: 





a 





ff 



'll 

■Hi 

.4 

San Jose 






V 


v 

a/ 


% l i : 










lie 



ff 







San Fransisco 


V 

V 



V 


a/ 

a/ 












% 1 li I 



ff 





ff 

ff 

San Antonio 


■£ 




a/ 

li 






ff- 

ff 




:4- 


a. 

t 1 i t 

a: 

iff- 


a 


ill 


ii-iil 

::k. 



4 : 





1! 

4 

a 

w 


a/ 

■ff 

Vi. 



Ilii 

y; 


.'iC 


lilliii 

!i 


a-; 



aill 


Ilf 

St. Louis 


V 






< 

y 



V 


ff 



a/ 



ff 



ff 


ff 




ff 


Raleigh-Durham 


V 

V 

V 




aI 

V 


s- ^ a 

V 

ff 




a/ 



a/ 


ff 

V 


ff 


ff 







V 



i;- 



.. i; 

if: 


1 


iiil!ii 



iiji 

ill 




■fi 




a a- 


i'iiiil 

lilii 

Iiil;! 



V 





Sii 

till 

:.y.: 

w 


ai 


li 

ai 


li 





iiliii 

ff 

I» 

ifi 

III 


■1 

li 

ilii 

Philadelphia 

flij 

V 


V 


V 





S- 'X . 







ff 



ill 

ff 

a/ 

ff 







Orlando 



V 


4 


V 


y 


U i 

V 



Ai 


ff 

ff 




ff 

ff 





ff 


ff 

Oakland 

i« « - 


ilill 


tk 



a 

iff! 


H ■ 









iillt 



lit 



ill 




yf. 

' New Orleans 




iiil 

al 






"H i 




ai 

' ii 



ff 

■if.: 

iiiiii iiiii 

ai 

y 


a 

wiM 



^ i-i' 

If 

Nashville 

ilill 


V 

V 

V 

V 



V 


1 : 

aI 








ff 


ff 

ff 




ff 


ff 

ff 

Minneapolis-Saint Paul 


V 

V 


V 

V 


V 

V 

V 


aI 

a/ 

a/ 

ff 



ff 



■ ^ S ; 

ff 



ff 





ff 

Miami 







III 

a/:: 

V 


iiiiiiii 

1 

ff 

a/ 



ff.- 






ffi 







::ffii 

Memphis 


4 



w 

i- 

Ilii: 

a- 



I ^ 

Af 











ffi. 


a;- 




1:^: 

„!:i,„ 

Los Angeles 

Ac- “ ^ \ 




V 

V 

V 


a/ 

V 


a/ 







ff 


X s 

ff 









Kansas City 

: 

V 

v 




V 

aI 

V 


iliiiiiii 


ff 




ff 






ff 


ff 




ff 




V 

1/' 

14 

4 



1' 

!V: 


{ : / 

ff- 

iff' 

ff 



■a 



Ilii 

"'|||"""TIL 


:iffi 

ilill 

iff: 



■Ir> 


iiSa 

■■ Houston Intercontinental h 


-4 

4 


y 

V 


a. 

a/: 

.4 


ff 











ff 

"ff:i-' 

iH':i 




ff 

If 

Honolulu 

Wmmm 

V 




V 


aI 

V 



ff 

















ff 

ff 

Fort Lauderdale 

Uif 




V 

V 


a/ 

V 

a/ 

HH 

ff 



V 

a/ 


ff 


ff 


V 

ff 


ff 




ff 

ff 

Port Columbus 


4. 

d: 

V 

a:: 

a' 


a^ 

a^ 

a,' 


ff 


^ff- 



:ff- 

'a 

a. 



■ff 

a 


a' 


ii.ii’-;ii"' 


if! 

;ff' 

Cleveland 


-4': 



a 

h/. 

T 

a- 


ffi 

' 

a: 



a:: 


.:.e 

■-ff- 





ff 

ii 

\ 

.ixi:;: 




if 

Chicago O’Hare 





V 

V 



V 



V 











ff 



ff 





Chicago Midway 





V 

V 



a/ 














ff 


ff 






Charlotte-Douglas 


4: 




V 

a 

a' 

4 

iaii 


4 


ff 



ff.. 

:ff' 



' 


a.:.;:: 



ly.:: 

4 . 



ff 

Boston 






y 


I' 

a/ 



4 








a^ 



'i: 

iiiiiii 


y 

If" 




Atlanta 





V 



a/ 

V 

a/ 


ff 

V 

ff 


ff 

a/ 



ff 





ff 




ff 


Albuquerque 

' * 




V 


T 

V 

V 

a/ 


ff 



a 








ff 


ff 





ff 







■I;;- 


















i :;ii:i|i! 




i'i-ii 




_ 













a 

Li 

_i 

-- 


■ini 

■MW 

_ 

*1 

MM 

1 WIW 


»ii 

|i|| 

■iwi 




Chapter 2-9 










Chapter 2: Airport Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table 2-4. Potential Savings Benefits from Airfield Improvements Recommended by 
Airport Capacity Design Teams__ 


Airport Design 
Team 

Major Recommended Improvements 

■ ' 

Demand 

Future 2 Savings | 

Baseline 

Future 2 

Hours 

Dollars (M) 

Fort Lauderdale- 
Hollywood 

Extend runway and improve exits. 

219,000 

350,000 

20,804 

$32.5 

Honolulu 

Extend existing runway, construct new 
parallel runway, and improve exits. 

407,000 

700,000 

457,730 

$891.2 

Houston 

Intercontinental 

Extend existing runway, construct new 
third and fourth parallel runways, and 
improve taxiway and exit system. 

334,000 

650,000 

1,267,000 

$2,221.1 

Los Angeles 

Construct departure pads, construct new 
terminals and gates, and improve exits 
and taxiways. 

641,751 

782,056 

69,451 

$145.8 

Minneapolis- 
Saint Paul 

Construct new runway, construct third 
parallel runway, and improve exits and 
taxiway s. 

420,390 

600,000 

62,675 

$90.7 

Nashville 

Relocate runway, extend existing 
runways, construct new parallel runway, 
and improve taxiways. 

266,000 

534,000 

23,424 

$23.9 

Philadelphia 

Construct new commuter runway and 
relocate and extend existing runways. 

410,000 

565,000 

154,624 

$215.4 

Greater 

Pittsburgh 

Build third and fourth parallel runways. 

471,000 

618,000 

126,000 

$129.0 


Note: The potential annual delay savings in hours and dollars shown in the table 
represent the sum of the estimated savings benefits of the major recom¬ 
mended airfield improvements for each airport s Baseline and Future 2 de¬ 
mand levels. However, the savings benefits of these individual alternatives 
are not necessarily additive. They have been totaled here only to give an 
approximation on a single page of the impact these improvements could 
have in reducing delay at these airports. 

It should also be noted that the particular combination of computer models 
and analytic methods used to calculate the annual delay costs and benefits is 
unique to each airport. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to com¬ 
pare one airport to another. 

See Appendix F for a more detailed breakdown of the material summarized 
in this table. 


Chapter 2-10 










1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 2: Airport Development 


2.4 Construction of New Runways and 
Runway Extensions 

The construction of new runways and extension of existing 
runways are the most direct and significant actions that can be 
taken to improve capacity at existing airports. Large capacity 
increases, under both visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument 
flight rules (IFR), come from the addition of new runways that 
are properly placed to allow additional independent arrival/de- 
parture streams. The resulting increase in capacity is from 33 
percent to 100 percent (depending on whether the baseline air¬ 
port has a single, dual, or triple runway configuration). 

Sixty of the top 100 airports have proposed new runways or 
runway extensions to increase airport capacity.^ Fifteen of the 
23 airports exceeding 20,000 hours of air carrier flight delay in 
19932 are in the process of constructing or planning the con¬ 
struction of new runways or extensions of existing runways. Of 
the 32 airports that are forecast to exceed 20,000 hours of an¬ 
nual air carrier delay in 2003, if no further improvements are 
made, 24 propose to build new runways or runway extensions.^ 

Figure 2-2 shows which of the top 100 airports are plan¬ 
ning new runways or runway extensions. Figure 2-3 shows 
which of the airports forecast to exceed 20,000 hours of annual 
delay in 2003 are planning new runways or runway extensions. 
Table 2-5 summarizes new runways and runway extensions 
that are planned or proposed at the top 100 airports. The “ge¬ 
neric” hourly IFR capacities included in Table 2-5 have been 
developed only to provide a common basis for comparing one 
airport configuration to another. They serve to illustrate the 
size of the capacity increases provided. These generic estimates 
should not be taken as the exact capacity of a particular airport. 
The total anticipated cost of completing these new runways 
and runway extensions exceeds $9.0 billion. 


The construction of new runways 
and extension of existing runways 
are the most direct and significant 
actions that can be taken to im¬ 
prove capacity at existing airports. 

Sixty of the top 100 airports have 
proposed new runways or runway 
extensions to increase airport ca¬ 
pacity. Fifteen of the 23 airports 
exceeding 20,000 hours of air 
carrier flight delay in 1993 are in 
the process of constructing or plan¬ 
ning the construction of new run¬ 
ways or extensions of existing run¬ 
ways. 


1. Airports with runway projects are pictured in Figures 2-2 and 2-3 and sum¬ 
marized in Table 2-5, with the projected IFR capacity benefit, the estimated 
project cost (to the nearest million), and an estimated operational date. The 
single figure of IFR capacity benefit does not reflect all of the many signifi¬ 
cant capacity benefits resulting from this new construction, but it does pro¬ 
vide a common benchmark for comparison. 

2. At a cost of SI,600 in airline operating expenses per hour of airport delay, 
20,000 hours of flight delay translates into $32 million per year. 

3. As reflected in Figure 2-3. 


Chapter 2 ” 11 



Chapter 2: Airport Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


In 1992, Colorado Springs completed construction of a 
new 13,500 foot parallel runway, and Nashville and Washing¬ 
ton Dulles completed runway extensions. In 1993, Detroit 
Metropolitan Wayne County completed construction of a new 
8,500 foot parallel runway, and runway extensions were com¬ 
pleted at Dallas-Fort Worth, San Jose, Kailua-Kono Keahole, 
and Islip Long Island Mac Arthur. In 1993, Salt Lake City 
and Memphis began construction of independent parallel run¬ 
ways, and Louisville Standiford Field began construction of 
two independent parallel runways. In 1994, Jacksonville 
opened the first 6,000 feet of a new parallel runway, and Kansas 
City completed construction of a new 9,500 foot independent 
parallel runway. 


Chapter 2-12 






Figure 2-2. New Runways or Runway Extensions Planned or Proposed 

Among the Top 100 Airports 


Puerto 










Figure 2-3. New Runways or Extensions Planned/Proposed Among the 
Airports Forecast to Exceed 20,000 Hours of Annual Aircraft Delay in 2003 


Chapter 2-14 















1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 2: Airport Development 


Table 2-5. New and Extended Runways Planned or Proposed^ 



Runway 

IFR Capacit 
ilEliiillllM 
Gdnflg. 

y (ARR/Hi 

illliHi 

iliiiiti 

iiiiildst 

lllliiisLi 

lljlllllli 

Date 

Oper. 

Albany (ALB) 

10/28 extension 

29^ 

293 

$5.8 

2005 


1R/19L parallel 

+ + 

292 

$7.5 

2010 

Albuquerque (ABQ) 

3/21 extension 

292 

29 

$20.0 

1996 

Atlanta (ATL) 

E/W parallel 

86^ 

573 

$160;0 

1999 

Austin (BSM) (new airport) 

(Bergstrom AFB) 

571 


$583.0 

1998 

Baltimore (BWI) 

10R/28L parallel 

57“ 

292 

$48.0 

1996 


10/28 extension 

292 

29 

$12.0 

2003 

Boston (bos) 

; 14/32 

5711 

293 

: $5.0 ;; 

1999 

Charlotte (CLT) 

18W/36W parallel 

86 ' 

573’3 

$ 43.0 

1999 


18e/ 36E parallel 

11410 

573’3 



Chicago O’Hare (ORD) 

9/27 parallel 

86 ' 

573 




14/32 parallel 

863 

: : 573 ; ; 




14L extension 

571 

573 



Cincinnati (CVC) 

18R/36L extension 

571,8 

573 

$ 11.0 

1997 


9/27 extension 

57i-« 

573 

$25.0 

1995 

Cleveland-Hopkins (CLE) 

5l/ 23R extension 

293 

293 

$50.0 

1999 


5W/23W parallel 

42^ 

293 

$125.0 

2000 

Port Columbus (CMH) 

10l/ 28R extension 

42^ 

424 

$21.2 

1998 


10S/28S parallel 

57“ 

424 

$108.1 



10N/28N parallel 

571 : :: 

: 424 

; :$49.4 


Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) 

17r/35l extension 

573 

573-3 

$20.0 

1993 


18L/36R extension 

571 

573-3 

$25.0 

1997 


18R/36L extension 

571 

573-3 

$24.0 

1997 


16E/34E 

863 

573-3:;: 

:;:i320.0 :: 

1996 ' 


16W/34W 

11410 

573-3 

$150.0 

2001 

Denver (DEN) 

New airport 

863 

573 

$2,972.0 

1995 

Detroit (DTW) 

4/22 parallel 

716 

573 

$54.5 

1998 

El Paso (ELP) 

8/26 parallel 

; ++^ 

:;293 ;; 

::;$io.7:: ; 

i 

Fort Lauderdale (FLL) 

9R/27L extension 

42'* 

424 

$270.0 

2000 

Fort Myers (RSW) 

6/24 extension 

293 

29 

$20.0 

1994 


6r/ 24L parallel 

571 

29 

$87.0 

2000 


Chapter 2-15 






















Chapter 2: Airport Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table 2-5. New and Extended Runways Planned or Proposed^ 


i , * * 


IFR CapacityXARR/HR)t 
Milliiilillifcrrent 

Est. 

?lCost 

iiist. 

i Date 
|i Oper. 

Grand Rapids (GRR) 

8L/26R extension 

292 

292 

$3.6 

1994 


17/35 replacement 

292 

292 

$40.0 

1998 


8L/26R parallel 

571 

292 



Greensboro (GSO) 

5L/23R parallel 

571 

292 




14/32 extension 

292 

292 

15.7 

1998 

Greer (GSP) 

3R/21L parallel 

571 

292 

$50.0 

2015 


3L/21R extension 

292 

292 

$34.1 

1999 

Houston (IAH) 

14R/32L extension 

,571 

57' : 

$8.0 

1997 


8l/ 26R parallel 

862 

57' 

$44.0 

1999 


9r/ 27L parallel 

11410 

57' 

$44.0 

2002 

Indianapolis (IND) 

5l/ 23R replacement 

571 

42^ 

$37.5 

1995 

Islip(lSP) 

15R/33L extension 

292 

292 

$26.0 

2000 

Jacksonville (JAX) 

7r/25l parallel 

571 

292 

$37.0 

2000 


7l/ 25R extension 

292 

292 

$19.0 

1994 

Kahului (OGG) 

2/20 extension 

292 

292 



Kansas City (MCI) 

1r/19l parallel 

571 

292 

$45.2 

1994 


1L/19R extension 

292 

292 

$7.0 


Las Vegas (LAS) 

7r/25l extension 

292 

292 

$3.2 

1995 


1l/ 19R reconstruction 29^ 

292 


1997 

Little Rock (lit) 

4l/ 22R extension 

572 

57' 

$30.0 

1996 

Louisville (SDF) 

17l/ 35R parallel 

292 

292 

$42.0 

1995 


17r/35l parallel 

571 

292 

$51.0 

1997 

Lubbock(LBB) 

8/26 extension 

292 

292 

$3.8 

2000 

Madison (MSN) 

3/21 Replacement 

29^ 

29^ 

$15.0 

1998 

Memphis (MEM) 

18e/ 36E parallel 

571 

42^ 

$88.8 

1997 


18l/ 36R extension 

42^ 

42^ 

$58.0 

1999 

Miami (MIA) 

9n/ 27N parallel 

+ + 

57' 

$170 

1999 

Midland (MAF) 

10/28 extension 

292 

292 

$5.0 

2005 

Milwaukee (MKE) 

7r/25l parallel 

572 

292 

$150.0 

2003 

Minneapolis (MSP) 

4/22 extension 

42" 

42" 

$12.5 

1995 

Nashville (BNA) 

2E/20E parallel 

+ + 

57' 




2R/20L extension 

571 

57' 

38.6 

2000 


Chapter 2-16 




































1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 2: Airport Development 


Table 2-5. New and Extended Runways Planned or Proposed^ 


Airport 

Runway 

IFR Capacity (arr/hr)^ 
New Current 
Config. Best 

Est. 

Cost 

($M) 

Est. 

Date 

Open 

New Orleans (MSY) 

1L/19R parallel 

57' 

292 

$340.0 

2000 


10/28 parallel 

57' 

292 

$460.0 

2020 

Oklahoma City (OKC) 

17L/35R extension 

57' 

57' 

$8.0 



17r/ 35L extension 

57' 

57' 

$8.0 

2014 


17W/35W parallel 

57' 

57' 

$13.0 

2004 

Orlando (MCO) 

17l/35r 4th parallel 

00 

57' 

$115.0 

2000 

Palm Beach (PBl) 

9L/27R extension 

292 

292 

$4.8 



13/31 extension 

292 

292 

$1.0 

1999 


9r/ 27L extension 

292 

292 

$0.5 

1999 

Philadelphia (PHL) 

8/26 parallel-commuter 57^’^ 

572 

$215.0 

1997 

Phoenix (PHX) 

7/25 3rd parallel 

57' 

42' 

$88.0 

1995 

. * siisi:f * : * 

8L/26R extension 

42^ 

42' 

$7.0 


Pittsburgh (PIT) 

10C/28C extension 

57' 

57' 

$10.0 

1995 


4th parallel 10/28 

7L 

57' 

$150.0 

2000 


5th parallel 10/28 

+ + 

57' 



Raleigh-Durham (RDU) 

Relocate 5 r/23L 

57' 

57" 




5W/23W 

+ + 

57" 




5e/23E 

+ + 

57" 



Reno (RNO) 

16l/ 34R extension 

292 

292 

$22.0 

1994 

Richmond (RIC) 

16/34 extension 

292 

292 

$12.0 

1997 

Rochester (ROC) 

4r/ 22L parallel 

+ + 

292 

$10.0 

2010 


4/22 extension 

292 

292 

$4.0 

2000 


10/28 extension 

292 

292 

$3.2 

2000 

St. Louis (STL) 

14R/32L 

+ + 

292 

$390.0 

1998 

Salt Lake City (SLC) 

16/34 west parallel 

57' 

42' 

$120.0 

1996 

San Antonio (SAT) 

N/S parallel 

+ + 

292 

$300.0 

2005 

Santa Ana (SNA) 

1l/ 19R extension 

292 

292 



Sarasota-Bradenton (SRQ) 

14l/ 32R parallel 

57' 

292 

$9.0 

1998 


14/32 extension 

292 

292 

$4.3 

1996 

Seattle-Tacoma (SEA) 

16W/34W parallel 

42' 

292 

$400.0 

2001 

Spokane (GEG) 

3L/21R 

57' 

292 

$11.0 

2001 

Syracuse (SYR) 

10L/28R 

57' 

292 

$46.0 

2000 


Chapter 2-17 



Chapter 2: Airport Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table 2-5. New and Extended Runways Planned or Proposed^ 


Airport 

Runway 

IFR Capacity (arr/hr)^ 
New Current 
Config. Best 

Est. 

Cost 

($M) 

Est. 

Date 

Oper. 

Tampa (TPA) 

18R/36L 3rd parallel 

7T 

571 

$55.0 

2000 


27 extension 

571 

571 




18L extension 

571 

571 




11R/29L parallel 

29 

29 

$30.0 

2005 

Tulsa (TUL) 

18E/36E parallel 

86' 

571 

$115.0 

2005 

Washington (lAD) 

1L/19R parallel 

86' 

571.7 

$60.0 

2009 


12r/ 30L parallel 

571 

57 ^’^ 

$80.0 

2010 


Total Available Estimated Costs of Construction: $9.3 Billion* 


+ See endnotes 1-11, below, which describe the IFR ar¬ 
rival capacity of the current and potential new configu¬ 
rations. 

++ Information on runway location is unavailable or too 
tentative to determine IFR multiple approach benefit of 
this new construction project. 

* Includes the total costs of the new Denver International 
Airport, S2,972 million, 

t Estimates of generalized hourly IFR arrival capacity in¬ 
creases are included in Table 2-5. These values have 
been updated from those originally reported in a 1987 
report. The new numbers reflect the approval of 2.5 (for 
wet runways inside 10 nm), 3, 4, 5, and 6 nm in-trail 
separations and 1.5 nm diagonal separation for depen¬ 
dent parallel arrivals. The updated IFR arrival capacity 
of any single runway that can be operated indepen¬ 
dently is 29 arrivals per hour (rounded up from 28.5); 
dependent parallel runways, 42 arrivals per hour; and 
independent parallels, 57 arrivals per hour (2 times a 
single runway, 28.5). Other configurations are multiples 
of the above. These values are provided to illustrate the 
approximate magnitude of the capacity increase pro¬ 
vided. They should not be taken as the exact capacity of 
a particular airport, since site-specific conditions (e.g., 
varying aircraft fleet mixes) can result in differences 
from these estimates. 


Endnotes 

1. Independent parallel approaches [57 IFR arrivals per 
hour]. 

2. Single runway approaches [29 IFR arrivals per hour 
[rounded up from 28.5]]. 

3. Triple independent approaches (currently not autho¬ 
rized) [86 IFR arrivals per hour [rounded up from 

85.5}]. 

4. Dependent parallel approaches [42 IFR arrivals per 
hour]. 

5. Triple approaches with parallel and converging pairs 
may permit more than 57 IFR arrivals if procedures are 
developed. 

6. Triple parallel approaches with dependent and indepen¬ 
dent pairs (currently not authorized) [71 IFR arrivals per 
hour [This is a rough estimate, obtained by adding 42 
8c 29 as explained above]]. 

7. Converging IFR approaches to minima higher than Cat¬ 
egory (cat) I ILS [57 IFR arrivals per hour]. 

8. Added capacity during noise abatement operations. 

9. Independent parallel approaches with one short runway. 

10. If independent quadruple approaches are approved [114 
IFR arrivals per hour]. 

11. Independent parallel approaches with PRM (3,400 ft. to 
4,300 ft.) [57 IFR arrivals per hour]. 


Chapter 2-18 





1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 2; Airport Development 


2.5 Airport Tactical Initiatives 


The recommendations by Airport Capacity Design Teams 
have emphasized constructing new runways and taxiways, ex¬ 
tending existing runways, installing enhanced facilities and 
equipment, and modifying operational procedures. These im¬ 
provements are normally implemented through established, 
long-term procedures. The Office of System Capacity and Re¬ 
quirements (ASC) has recently initiated an effort to identify, 
evaluate, and implement capacity improvements that are 
achievable in the near term and will provide more immediate 
relief for chronic delay-problem airports. Tactical Initiative 
Teams, made up of representatives from airport operators, air 
carriers, other airport users, and aviation industry groups to¬ 
gether with FAA representatives, are now being established at 
selected airports to assess near-term, tactical initiatives and 
guide them through implementation. 

The first of these Tactical Initiative Teams completed a 
study at Los Angeles International Airport with a final report 
issued in September 1993. The team evaluated the impact on 
the crossfield taxiway system of proposed new gates on the west 
side of Tom Bradley International Terminal immediately adja¬ 
cent to the taxiway system. The study examined airport delays 
and their causes (with and without the expansion of the west 
side of the terminal) and evaluated the effect of adding addi¬ 
tional crossfield taxiways to mitigate the delays caused by the 
expansion. 

A study was recently initiated at New York’s LaGuardia 
Airport to evaluate the impact of introducing the Boeing 777- 
200 folding-wing aircraft on airfield operations. In addition to 
evaluating the effects of the new aircraft on capacity and effi¬ 
ciency, the study will examine the effects on safety, operating 
minimums, air traffic control procedures, and airway facilities. 

Tentative plans call for a study at Orlando International 
Airport to evaluate the effects of proposed crossfield taxiways 
on airfield operations and a second study at Los Angeles Inter¬ 
national Airport to assess the impact on airfield operations of 
proposed remote commuter aircraft aprons. 


The Office of System Capacity 
and Requirements has recently ini¬ 
tiated an effort to identify, evalu¬ 
ate, and implement capacity im¬ 
provements that are achievable in 
the near term and will provide 
more immediate relief for chronic 
delay-problem airports. 


Chapter 2-19 


Chapter 2: Airport Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


The Office of System Capacity 
and Requirements has been devel¬ 
oping a program of airspace ca¬ 
pacity design team studies of the 
terminal and en route airspace as¬ 
sociated with delay-problem air¬ 
ports across the country. 


Regional Capacity Design Team 
studies will analyze all the major 
airports in a metropolitan or re¬ 
gional system and model them in 
the same terminal airspace envi¬ 
ronment. 


2.6 Terminal Airspace Studies 

When an Airport Capacity Design Team study is com¬ 
pleted, an airport has a recommended plan of action to increase 
its capacity. This plan will do little good, however, if the air¬ 
space in the vicinity of the airport cannot handle the increase in 
traffic. For this reason, the Office of System Capacity and Re¬ 
quirements has been developing a program of airspace capacity 
design team studies of the terminal and en route airspace asso¬ 
ciated with delay-problem airports across the country. Gener¬ 
ally, these studies are intended to follow Airport Capacity De¬ 
sign Team studies. The first of these Terminal Airspace Studies 
was recently completed at San Bernardino International Air¬ 
port (the former Norton Air Force Base). This study evaluated 
the impact of introducing scheduled air carrier service at the 
recently opened San Bernardino International Airport on the 
surrounding airspace, particularly the interaction of operations 
there "with existing operations at Ontario International Airport. 
Additional studies were recently initiated at Philadelphia Inter¬ 
national Airport, Salt Lake City International Airport, and 
Tampa International Airport and are tentatively planned at San 
Antonio International Airport. 

2.7 Regional Capacity Design Teams 

Looking beyond the individual airport and its immediate 
airspace, the Office of System Capacity and Requirements is 
planning a series of Regional Capacity Design Team studies. 
These regional studies will analyze all the major airports in a 
metropolitan or regional system and model them in the same 
terminal airspace environment. This regional perspective will 
show how capacity-producing improvements at one airport will 
affect air traffic operations at the other airports, and within the 
associated airspace. The first of these regional studies is 
planned for the San Francisco Bay area. 


Chapter 2-20 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 2: Airport Development 


2.8 Airport Capacity Design Team Updates 


The present Airport Capacity Design Team effort began in 
1985. Many of the capacity-producing recommendations made 
by these Airport Capacity Design Teams have been imple¬ 
mented or are scheduled for completion, others may need to be 
reevaluated, and still others may no longer be appropriate. For 
some airports, particularly those with studies completed in the 
1980’s, conditions may have changed to a considerable extent, 
and a comprehensive new Airport Capacity Design Team study 
may be needed to bring the airport up to date. For other air¬ 
ports, changes in one or more of the conditions at the airport 
may only require a more limited update. An Airport Capacity 
Design Team Update is underway at Seattle-Tacoma Interna¬ 
tional Airport to evaluate the impact on airport operations of a 
proposed new dependent runway and to examine the interac¬ 
tion of operations on the new runway with existing operations 
at Boeing Field/King County International Airport. A second 
update was recently initiated at Hartsfield Atlanta Interna¬ 
tional Airport. 


For some airports and a compre¬ 
hensive new Airport Capacity De¬ 
sign Team study may be needed 
to bring the airport up to date. 


Chapter 2-21 






1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 


Chapter 3 

New Instrument Approach Procedures 


Although substantial increases in capacity are best achieved 
through the building of new airports and new runways at exist¬ 
ing airports, large projects like these are only completed after a 
long-term process of planning and construction. In an effort to 
meet the increasing demands on the aviation system in the 
near-term, the FAA has initiated improvements in air traffic 
control procedures designed to increase utilization of multiple 
runways and provide additional capacity at existing airports, 
while maintaining or improving the current level of safety in 
aircraft operations. 

In FY93, more than half of all delays were attributed to ad¬ 
verse weather conditions. These delays are in part the result of 
instrument approach procedures that are much more restrictive 
than the visual procedures in effect during better weather con¬ 
ditions. Much of this delay could be eliminated if the approach 
procedures used during instrument meteorological conditions 
(IMC) were closer to those observed during visual meteorologi¬ 
cal conditions (VMC). 

During the past few years, the FAA has been developing 
new capacity-enhancing approach procedures. These are mul¬ 
tiple approach procedures aimed at increasing the number of 
airports and runway combinations that can be used simulta¬ 
neously, either independently or dependently, in less than visual 
approach conditions.^ “Independent” procedures are so called 
because aircraft arriving along one flight path do not affect ar¬ 
rivals along another flight path. “Dependent” procedures place 
restrictions between two arrival streams of aircraft because their 
proximity to each other has the potential for some interference. 
The testing of these new procedures has been thorough, in¬ 
volving various validation methods, including real-time simula¬ 
tions and live demonstrations at selected airports. 


In FY93, more than half of all de¬ 
lays were attributed to adverse 
weather conditions. Much of this 
delay could be eliminated if the 
approach procedures used during 
IMC were closer to those observed 
during VMC. 

During the past few years, the FAA 
has been developing new capac¬ 
ity-enhancing approach proce¬ 
dures aimed at increasing the num¬ 
ber of airports and runway combi¬ 
nations that can be used simulta¬ 
neously in less than visual ap¬ 
proach conditions. 

As a result of these efforts, new 
technologies have been imple¬ 
mented and new national stan¬ 
dards have been published that 
enable the use of these capacity¬ 
enhancing approach procedures. 


1. In general, depending on the airport s aircraft mix, single-runway IFR ap¬ 
proach procedures allow about 29 arrivals per hour. Hence, two simulta¬ 
neous approach streams, when operating independently of each other, 
double arrival capacity to 57 per hour. Three streams would allow 86 hourly 
arrivals, and so on. Such procedures are called independent, because arriv¬ 
ing aircraft in one stream do not interfere with arrivals in the other. Con¬ 
versely, “dependent” procedures place restrictions between the aircraft 
streams, and, as a result, hourly capacity for dual dependent approaches is 
somewhere between 29 and 57 arrivals. In the case of dependent triple 
streams, the arrival capacity is somewhere between 57 and 86, depending 
on airport runway configuration. 


Chapter 3-1 



Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 


1994 ACE Plan 


As a result of these development efforts, new technologies 
have been implemented and new national standards have been 
published that enable the use of these capacity-enhancing ap¬ 
proach procedures. 

• Simultaneous (independent) parallel approaches using the 
Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) to runways separated 
by 3,400 to 4,300 feet — published November 1991.The 
first PRM was commissioned at Raleigh-Durham Interna¬ 
tional Airport in June 1993. 

• Improved dependent parallel approaches to runways sepa¬ 
rated by 2,500 to 4,299 feet that reduce the required di¬ 
agonal separation from 2.0 to 1.5 nm — published June 
1992. 

• Reduced longitudinal separation on wet runways from 3 
to 2.5 nm inside the final approach fix (FAF) — published 
June 1992. 

• Dependent converging instrument approaches using the 
Converging Runway Display Aid (CRDA) — published 
November 1992. The ARTS IIIA CRDA software upgrade 
is available for installation. 

• Use of Flight Management System (FMS) computers to 
transition aircraft from the en route phase of flight to ex¬ 
isting charted visual flight procedures (CVFP) and instru¬ 
ment landing system (ILS) approaches — published De¬ 
cember 1992. 

• Simultaneous ILS and localizer directional aid (LDA) ap¬ 
proaches — procedures implemented at San Francisco 
International Airport. 


The following sections present a brief description of the 
most promising approach concepts currently under develop¬ 
ment, including their estimated benefits, supporting technol¬ 
ogy, and candidate airports that might benefit from the new 
procedures. The busiest 100 airports are listed in Table 3-7 (de¬ 
scribed in Section 3.10), together with the new procedures that 
each can potentially use. Site-specific analysis is needed to de¬ 
termine which procedures are most beneficial to each airport. 


Chapter 3-2 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 3; New Instrument Approach Procedures 


3.1 Independent Parallel 
Approaches Using the 
Precision Runway 
Monitor (prm) 

The FAA has authorized independent (si¬ 
multaneous) instrument approaches to dual par¬ 
allel runways since 1962, doubling the arrival 
capacity of an airport when visual approaches 
cannot be conducted. Initially, the spacing be¬ 
tween the parallel runways was required to be at 
least 5,000 feet, but, in 1974, this was reduced 
to 4,300 feet. More than 15 U.S. airports are 
currently authorized to operate such indepen¬ 
dent parallel instrument approaches. A new na¬ 
tional standard published in November 1991 au¬ 
thorized simultaneous (independent) parallel 
approaches to runways separated by 3,400 to 
4,300 feet when the Precision Runway Monitor 
is in use. 

The PRM system consists of an improved 
monopulse antenna system that provides high 
azimuth and range accuracy and higher data 
rates than the current terminal Airport Surveil¬ 
lance Radar (ASR) systems. The E-SCAN radar 


uses an electronic scanning antenna which is ca¬ 
pable of updating an aircraft’s position every 
half second. This update rate is an order of mag¬ 
nitude greater than the current ASR systems. 

The PRM processing system allows air traffic 
controllers to monitor the parallel approach 
courses on high-resolution color displays and 
generates controller alerts when an aircraft blun¬ 
ders off course. 

Demonstrations of PRM technology were 
conducted at Raleigh-Durham International 
Airport in 1989 and 1990 using the E-SCAN ra¬ 
dar. The first PRM system (E-SCAN) was com¬ 
missioned at Raleigh Durham International 
Airport in June 1993. Additional systems are 
scheduled for delivery starting in the latter part 
of 1994. 

It is anticipated that in 1995 simulations will 
be conducted at the FAA Technical Center to 
determine the minimum runway spacing, down 
to 2,500 feet, for independent parallel ap¬ 
proaches using a PRM. Figure 3-1 illustrates 
these parallel instrument approaches using PRM. 
If successful, the average capacity gains expected 
from the use of these improved approaches 
would be 12-17 arrivals per hour. 


Figure 3-1. Independent Parallel Instrument Approaches 
Using the Precision Runway Monitor (prm) 





s * 

i 




No Transgression Zone (NTZ) 

o 

O 1 

to ' 



(N 

iiiii 



Chapter 3-3 



Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 


1994 ACE Plan 


3.2 Independent Parallel 

Approaches Using the Final 
Monitor Aid (fma) with 
Current Radar Systems 

The Final Monitor Aid is a high resolution 
color display that is equipped with the controller 
alert hardware and software that is used in the 
PRM system. The display includes alert algo¬ 
rithms that provide aircraft track predictors; a 
color change alert when an aircraft penetrates or 
is predicted to penetrate the no transgression 
zone (NTZ); a color change alert if the aircraft 
transponder becomes inoperative; and digital 
mapping. 

Studies revealed that using the FMA with 
current radar systems (4.8 second update rate) 
would improve the ability of controllers to de¬ 
tect blunders, thereby allowing a reduction in 
the minimum centerline spacing for indepen¬ 
dent parallel approaches. Real-time simulations, 


utilizing a larger “miss-distance” of 500 feet to 
allow for the possible effects of wake vortex, 
have been completed at the FAA Technical Cen¬ 
ter for dual and triple parallel runways spaced 
4,300 feet apart. Data from these simulations 
are being analyzed, and, if the results are favor¬ 
able, procedures will be published in 1994. Fur¬ 
ther simulations will be conducted for parallel 
runways spaced 4,000 feet apart. Figure 3-2 il¬ 
lustrates parallel instrument approaches using 
the FMA. Table 3-1 lists airports that have, or 
plan to have, parallel runways separated by 
4,000 feet or more and indicates the average ca¬ 
pacity gains expected from these improved ap¬ 
proaches. 


Table 3-1. Candidate Airports for Inde¬ 
pendent Parallel Approaches 
Using the Final Monitor Aid 
(fma) 


Figure 3-2. Parallel Instrument 

Approaches Using the 
Final Monitor Aid (fma) 


|||||j|j|i||:|j||}||||||i|j^^ 

Denver (DEN)* 

Little Rock 

Orlando 

Detroit 

Memphis 

Phoenix 

Grand Rapids 

Nashville 

Pittsburgh 

* The new Denver International Airport. 




Chapter 3-4 






























1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 


3.3 Independent Parallel 

Approaches to Triple and 
Quadruple Runways Using 
Current Radar Systems 

Several airports, including Dallas-Fort 
Worth, Orlando, and Pittsburgh, are planning 
on building parallel runways that will give them 
the capability to conduct triple and quadruple 
independent parallel approaches. This could re¬ 
sult in as much as a 50 percent increase in arrival 
capacity for triple parallel arrivals and a 100 per¬ 
cent increase for quadruple arrivals. 

Procedures allowing triple independent ap¬ 
proaches to parallel runways separated by 5,000 
feet at airports with field elevations of less than 
1,000 feet with current radar systems were pub¬ 


lished in May 1993. Simulations for develop¬ 
ment of procedures for quadruple approaches 
are tentatively planned for 1995. Figure 3-3 il¬ 
lustrates triple and quadruple parallel ap¬ 
proaches. Additional simulations will be con¬ 
ducted to determine the minimum runway spac¬ 
ing (less than 5,000 feet) for independent paral¬ 
lel approaches to triple and quadruple runways. 
Table 3-2 lists airports that have or plan to have 
parallel runways separated by 2,500 to 4,300 feet 
and indicates the average capacity gains ex¬ 
pected from these improved approaches. 


Table 3-2. Candidate Airports for Inde- Figure 3-3. Triple and Quadruple 
pendent Parallel Approaches Parallel Approaches 

to Triple and Quadruple 

Runways _ 


. Candidates Among Top 100 Airports 

: ^ Average Capacity Gain 30 Arrivals/Hour 


Dallas-Ft. Worth 
Denver (DEN)* 

Orlando 

Pittsburgh 

* The new Denver International Airport. 



Chapter 3-5 









Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 


1994 ACE Plan 


3.4 Simultaneous Operations on 
Wet Intersecting Runways 

Currently, simultaneous operations on inter¬ 
secting runways require that the runways be dry 
Over the past several years, demonstrations have 
been conducted at various airports using simul¬ 
taneous operations on wet runways. Due to the 
success of these demonstrations, the FAA has 
initiated action to establish a national standard 
for allowing simultaneous operations on inter¬ 
secting wet runways. 

Of the top 100 airports, 60 currently con¬ 
duct simultaneous operations on intersecting 
runways. Demonstrations have been ongoing at 
Boston Logan, Greater Pittsburgh, and Chicago 
O’Hare. Demonstrations are planned at New 


Yorks Kennedy, Philadelphia, and Miami Inter¬ 
national Airports. At O’Hare, increases of up to 
25 percent have been experienced during wet 
runway operations. 

An FAA team is in the process of formalizing 
procedures for these types of operations so that 
a national standard for simultaneous operations 
on wet intersecting runways can be established. 
The target date for implementation is the last 
quarter of FY94. Figure 3-4 illustrates simulta¬ 
neous operations on wet intersecting runways. 
Table 3-3 lists airports that are candidates to 
conduct simultaneous operations on wet inter¬ 
secting runways. 


Table 3-3. Candidate Airports for 

Simultaneous Operations on 
Wet Intersecting Runways 


Candidates Among Top 100 Airports , : 

Top 13 Candidate Airports 

Boston Maimi 

Philadelphia 

Charlotte/Douglas Minneapolis-St. Paul 

Pittsburgh 

Chicago O’Hare New York (JFK) 

San Francisco 

Detroit New York (LGA) 

Washington National 

St. Louis 



Figure 3-4. Simultaneous Operations on 
Wet Intersecting Runways 



Chapter 3-6 






1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 


3.5 Improved Operations 
on Parallel Runways 
Separated by Less 
Than 2,500 Feet 

Current procedures consider parallel run- ports that are candidates to conduct improved 

ways separated by less than 2,500 feet as a single operations on parallel runways separated by less 
runway during IFR operations. Simultaneous use than 2,500 feet. 

of these runways for arrivals and departures is PAAs Wake Vortex Program has been 

prohibited. This imposes a significant capacity redefined to focus directly on the safety require- 
penalty at numerous high-density airports. A ments for arrival and departure operations to 

recent analysis determined that airports such as parallel runways separated by less than 2,500 

Boston Logan International and Philadelphia anticipated that, among other things. 

International could achieve delay savings of over program will provide evidence supporting a 

80,000 hours per year if they were able to run reduction in the 2,500 foot requirement under 

dependent parallel arrivals. Table 3-4 lists air- most meteorological conditions. 


Table 3-4. Candidate Airports for Improved Operations on 

Parallel Runways Separated by Less Than 2,500 Feet 


Candidates Among Top 100 Airports 

Atlanta 

Long Beach 

Palm Beach 

Boise 

Los Angeles 

Philadelphia 

Boston 

Memphis 

Phoenix 

Chicago Midway 

Midland 

Pittsburgh 

Cincinnati 

Milwaukee 

Providence 

Cleveland 

Nashville 

Raleigh-Durham 

Dallas-Ft. Worth 

New Orleans 

Reno 

Des Moines 

New York (JFK) 

San Antonio 

Detroit 

Newark 

San Francisco 

El Paso 

Norfolk 

San Jose 

Houston Hobby 

Oakland 

Santa Ana 

Houston Intercontl 

Oklahoma City 

Seattle-Tacoma 

Islip 

Omaha 

St. Louis 

Knoxville 

Ontario 

Tucson 

Las Vegas 

Orlando 

Washington Dulles 


Chapter 3-7 



Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 


1994 ACE Plan 


3.6 Dependent Approaches to 
Three Parallel Runways 

Procedures have been proposed that would 
allow approaches to three parallel runways when 
two may be operated independently of each 
other because of sufficient spacing and the third 
is dependent upon one of the others because of 
insufficient spacing. Currently, procedures allow 
simultaneous approaches to runways with cen¬ 
terlines spaced at least 3,400 feet apart, provided 
a Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) is available. 
However, those airports with spacing from 
2,500 to 3,400 between one set of runways and 


3,400 or 4,300 feet or more between the other 
set are limited to dual runway operations. Real¬ 
time simulations will be scheduled in the near 
future to test proposed procedures that will al¬ 
low triple operations using dependent opera¬ 
tions between one set of parallels and indepen¬ 
dent operations between the other set. Figure 3- 
5 illustrates independent and dependent parallel 
approaches, and Table 3-5 lists airports that are 
candidates for these improved approaches. 


Table 3-5. Candidate Airports for Figure 3-5. Independent and 

Dependent Approaches Dependent Parallel 

to Three Parallel Runways _Approaches_ 



M 

i 

2,500 ft. 

1.5 nm separation 

M 

i 

i 


4,300 ft. 

NTZ 

I 


— 

i 



Candidates Among Top 100 Airports 

Average Capacity Gain 15 Arrivals/Hour" 

Charlotte/Douglas 

Detroit 

Pittsburgh 

Chicago O’Hare 

Houston Intercont’I 

Salt Lake City 

Denver (DEN)’^ 

Orlando 

Washington Dulles 

* The new Denver International Airport. 



Chapter 3-8 








1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 


3.7 Simultaneous (Independent) 
Converging Instrument 
Approaches 

Under VFR, it is common to use converging 
runways for independent streams of arriving air¬ 
craft. In 1986, the FAA established a procedure 
for conducting independent instrument ap¬ 
proaches to converging runways under instru¬ 
ment meteorological conditions (IMC). The pro¬ 
cedure uses non-overlapping Terminal Instru¬ 
ment Procedures (TERPS) obstacle-clearance 
surfaces as a means of separation for aircraft ex¬ 
ecuting simultaneous missed approaches. It as¬ 
sumes that each of the aircraft executing a turn¬ 
ing missed approach can keep its course within 
the limits of its respective TERPS obstacle-free 
surface. The procedure also requires a 3 nm 
separation between the missed approach points 
(MAPs) on each approach. “TERPS+3” (as this 
procedure is often called) requires no depen¬ 
dency between the two aircraft on the converg¬ 
ing approaches. 

However, in order to keep the two MAPs 3 
nm apart and ensure the TERPS surfaces do not 
overlap, the MAPs have to be moved back, away 
from the runway thresholds. This increases the 
separation between the TERPS surfaces and re¬ 
sults in higher decision heights. Many runway 
configurations require decision heights greater 
than 700 feet in order to satisfy the TERPS+3 


criteria. This restricts the application of the pro¬ 
cedure to operations close to the boundary be¬ 
tween VFR and IFR and limits the number of air¬ 
ports that could benefit from the procedure. The 
procedure cannot be used if the converging run¬ 
ways intersect; unless controllers can establish 
visual separation, and the ceiling and visibility 
are at or above 700 feet and 2 statute miles (sm). 

In an effort to refine the independent con¬ 
verging approach procedures, a multi-disci¬ 
plined work group, the Converging Approach 
Standards Technical Working Group 
(CASTWG), has been formed. This working 
group is analyzing various concepts which 
would result in lower approach of minimums. 

Data is being collected using various types of 
flight simulators to establish and/or validate re¬ 
quired TERPS surfaces. Following the data col¬ 
lection and analysis, real-time simulations with 
controller and pilot participation may be con¬ 
ducted using radar laboratory and flight simula¬ 
tor demonstrations for further validation. Pre¬ 
liminary analysis indicates that several high- 
density airports will benefit from this refined in¬ 
dependent converging instrument approach pro¬ 
cedure. Figure 3-6 illustrates triple approaches, 
with dual parallels and one converging. Table 
3-6 lists airports that are candidates to conduct 
these independent converging approaches and 
indicates the average capacity gains expected 
from these improved approaches. 


Table 3-6. Candidate Airports for 

Independent Converging 
Approaches 


Figure 3-6. Triple Approaches: 

Dual Parallels and One 
Converging 


Candidates Among Top 100 Airports 
Average Capacity Gain 30 Arrivals/Hour 


Baltimore 
Boston 
Charlotte 
Chicago Midway 
Chicago O’Hare 
Cincinnati 
Dallas-Ft. Worth 
Dayton 

Denver (DEN)* 

Detroit 

Ft. Lauderdale 

Honolulu 

Houston Hobby 


Houston Intercont’l 

Indianapolis 

Jacksonville 

Kansas City 

Louisville 

Miami 

Milwaukee 

Minneapolis 

Nashville 

New York (JFK) 

New York (LG A) 

New Orleans 

Newark 


Oakland 

Omaha 

Philadlephia 

Pittsburgh 

Portland 

Providence 

Rochester 

San Antonio 

San Francisco 

St Louis 

Washington Dulles 
Windsor Locks 


* The new Denver International Airport. 



Chapter 3-9 







Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 


1994 ACE Plan 


3.8 Dependent Converging 
Instrument Approaches 

Typically, independent converging IFR ap¬ 
proaches using the TERPS+3 criteria are feasible 
only when ceilings are above 700 feet, depend¬ 
ing upon runway geometry. As an alternative 
precision approach procedure, dependent IFR 
operations can be conducted to much lower 
minimums, usually down to Category I, thus ex¬ 
panding the period of time during which the 
runways can be used. However, to conduct these 
dependent operations efficiently, controllers 
need an automated method for ensuring that the 
aircraft on the different approaches remain 
safely separated. Without such a method, the 
separation of aircraft would be so large that little 
capacity would be gained. 

A program was conducted at St. Louis (STL) 
to evaluate dependent operations using a con¬ 
troller automation aid called the Converging 
Runway Display Aid (CRDA) (also called ghost¬ 
ing or mirror imaging) to maintain aircraft stag¬ 


ger on approach. The CRDA displays an aircraft 
at its actual location and simultaneously displays 
its image at another location on the controllers 
scope to assist the controller in assessing the 
relative positions of aircraft that are on different 
approach paths. Results at St. Louis have shown 
an increase in arrival rates from 36 arrivals per 
hour to 48 arrivals per hour. National standards 
for this procedure were published in November 
1992. The CRDA function is implemented in 
version A3.05 of the ARTS IIIA system. 

The CRDA may also have other applications 
(see Section 5.2.1.1). For example, it could be 
used at airports with intersecting runways that 
have insufficient length to allow hold-short op¬ 
erations. Insufficient runway length between the 
threshold and the intersection with another run¬ 
way can be ignored if arrivals are staggered such 
that one is clear of the intersection before the 
other crosses its respective threshold. 


Chapter 3-10 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 


3.9 Traffic Alert and Collision 
Avoidance System (tcas)/ 
Cockpit Display of Traffic 
Information (cdti) for 
Separation Assistance 

The cockpit display of traffic information 
associated with the Traffic Alert and Collision 
Avoidance System can provide the mechanism 
for flight crews to assist air traffic controllers in 
reducing the spacing tolerances that are main¬ 
tained between aircraft for many phases of 
flight. Figure 3-7 illustrates one example of this 
use of TCAS/CDTI. The use of this information 
should result in capacity improvements beyond 
those which are available using radar and voice 
communications only. 

A TCAS/CDTI feasibility study was published 
in April 1991. From that study, efforts are mov¬ 
ing forward to conduct concept and interactive 
simulations that will eventually lead to refined 
ATC procedures. Data and information gather¬ 
ing is underway and preliminary concept simu¬ 
lations are being devised for testing in an inte¬ 


grated laboratory environment. Further, the use 
of full-motion simulators will evaluate the valid¬ 
ity of proposed TCAS/CDTI applications in en¬ 
hancing efficiency and capacity. 

Initial emphasis has been on the use of 
TCAS/CDTI to support oceanic climbs and de¬ 
scents. In this application, the TCAS traffic dis¬ 
play is used to determine a minimum safe dis¬ 
tance when one aircraft wants to climb or de¬ 
scend through the altitude of another aircraft. 
Air traffic control then uses the information 
provided to them by the flight crew to issue an 
appropriate clearance. The inaugural validation 
flight for this procedure occurred in April 1994 
over the Pacific Ocean. Further applications that 
take advantage of the TCAS capabilities are be¬ 
ing explored to improve operational efficiency. 


Figure 3-7. tcas/cdti for Separation Assistance 



Chapter 3-11 






Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 


1994 ACE Plan 


3.10 Approach Procedure 
Applicability at the 
Top 100 Airports 


Table 3-7 shows the applicability of current 
and proposed procedures for the top 100 air¬ 
ports. The first column shows the current best 
hourly arrival capacity and the approach proce¬ 
dure utilized to achieve that capacity. The fol¬ 
lowing columns show which of the proposed 
procedures discussed in the previous sections are 
applicable. It is important to bear in mind that 
this table is based on runway approach dia¬ 
grams; factors such as noise, obstructions, and 
community concerns were not considered. Some 
airports may not be using their ^current best” 
approach procedures. In addition, the actual air¬ 
craft fleet mix at each airport was not used; the 
capacity figures are numbers which are reason¬ 
able approximations of real capacity, used for 
comparison only. The objective of the table is to 
provide initial information on the applicability 
of approach procedures being developed by the 
FAA. 

An asterisk (*) indicates that the proposed 
approach procedure in the column in question is 
applicable at a given airport, however, it also 


means that either the current best procedure, or 
another proposed approach procedure (under 
new rules), provides equal or better arrival ca¬ 
pacity. A “p” indicates that the approach proce¬ 
dure may be applicable if and when proposed 
construction/extension plans actually take place. 
Some of this construction is in progress, and 
some is only at the proposal stage. A blank space 
indicates either that the runways do not support 
the proposed procedure, it is a borderline appli¬ 
cation, or there is not enough information to 
determine applicability. Finally, in order to 
highlight new approach procedures that would 
provide better capacity than any other proce¬ 
dures (current or proposed), an asterisk was re¬ 
placed by a capacity number wherever the new 
procedure can provide higher capacity than any 
other. The number indicates the hourly arrival 
capacity of the procedure in question. It is easy 
to identify the most beneficial improvement by 
looking at the “New Approach Procedure” sec¬ 
tion in each row. 


Chapter 3-12 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 


Table 3-7. Potential Siting of New ifr Approach Procedures and 
Their Associated ifr Arrival Capacity^_ 



iBipbtfys! 

Iliile""'”'" 

. Current Best ifr 
Arrival Capacity 
(App Procedure)* 

New IFR Approach P 

iilliiiiilMBlili 

MiiiiillWipiiW 

Agana (Guam) 

NGM 

29 (S) 






Albany 

ALB 

29 (S) 



34 



Albuquerque 

ABQ_ 

29 (S) 



* 

57 


Anchorage 

ANC 

29 (S) 




57 


Atlanta 

ATL 

57 (IP) 





86p 

Austin (new airport) 

BSM 

57 (IP) 






Baltimore 

BWI 

29 (S) 


57p 

4: 

*P 


Birmingham 

BHM 

29 (S) 



34sh 



Boise 

BOI 

29 (S) 






Boston 

BOS 

29 (S) 

* 


* 

57 


Buffalo 

BUF 

29 (S) 



34sh 



Burbank 

BUR 

29 (S) 






Charleston 

CHS 

29 (S) 



34 



Charlotte 

CLT 

57 (IP) 



* 

* 

86p 

Charlotte Amalie 

STT 

29 (S) 






Chicago 

MDW 




34sh 



Chicago 

ORD 

57 (IP) 




* 

86p 

Cincinnati 

CVG 

57 (IP) 



* 



Cleveland 

CLE 

29 (S) 



* 

57p 


Colorado Springs 

COS 

57 (IP) 



jfi 

SI 


Columbus 

CMH 

42 (DP) 


57p 


*sh 


Dallas 

DAL 

42 (DP) 


57 

* 



Dallas-Fort Worth 

DFW 

57 (IP, IC) 




4= 

86p 

Dane County 

MSN 

29 (S) 



*sh 



Dayton 

DAY 

57 (IP) 



* 



Denver (new airport) 

DEN 

57 (IP) 





86 

Des Moines 

DSM 

29 (S) 



34 



Detroit 

DTW 

57 (IP) 



* 


71p 

El Paso 

ELP 

29 (S) 

*sh 



57 


Fort Lauderdale 

FLL 

42 (DP) 


57 

* 



Fort Myers 

RSW 

29 (S) 


57p 





Chapter 3-13 













Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table 3-7. Potential Siting of New ifr Approach Procedures and 
Their Associated ifr Arrival Capacity^ 



Current Best ifr 


Airport 

Code 


New IFR Approach Procedures 


Arrival Capacity Depen. Indepen. 


Grand Rapids 

GRR 

29 (S) 


57p 

Greensboro 

GSO 

29 (S) 


57p 

Greer 

GSP 

29 (S) 


57p 

Harrisburg 

MDT 

29 (S) 



Hilo 

ITO 

29 (S) 



Honolulu 

HNL 

57 (IP) 



Houston Hobby 

HOU 

29 (S) 



Houston Intercont’l 

lAH 

57 (IP) 



Indianapolis 

IND 

42 (DP) 


57p 

Islip 

ISP 

29 (S) 



Jacksonville 

JAX 

29 (S) 


* 

P 

Kahului 

OGG 

29 (S) 



Kailua-Kona 

KOA 

29 (S) 



Kansas City 

MCI 

29 (S) 


*P 

Knoxville 

TYS 

29 (S) 

42 


liyaS' :||igas| J |i 


29 (S) 



Lihue 

LIH 

29 (S) 



Little Rock 

LIT 

57 (IP) 



Los Angeles 

LAX 

57 (IP) 



Louisville 

SDF 

29 (S) 


57p 

Lubbock 

LBB 

29 (S) 



Memphis 

MEM 

42 (DP) 


* 

Miami 

MIA 

57 (IP) 



Midland 

MAE 

29 (S) 

* 


Milrvaukee 

MKE 

29 (S) 

* 

*P 

Minneapolis-St. Paul 

MSP 

42 (DP) 


57 

Nashville 

BNA 

57 (IP) 



New Orleans 

MSY 

29 (S) 


P 

New York Kennedy 

JFK 

57 (IP) 



New York La Guardia 

LGA 

29 (S) 



Newark 

EWR 

29 (S) 




terps+3 Triples 


Chapter 3-14 









1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 


Table 3-7. Potential Siting of New ifr Approach Procedures and 
Their Associated ifr Arrival Capacity^ 


Airport 

Airport 

Code 

Current Best ifr 
Arrival Capacity 
(App Procedure)* 

New IFR Approach Procedures 

Depen. Indepen. 

Parallel Parallel crda terps+3 Triples 

Norfolk 

ORF 

29 (S) 



34sh 



Oakland 

OAK 

29 (S) 

* 



57 


Oklahoma City 

OKC 

57 (IP) 






Omaha 

OMA 

Tr: ; : 29 (S) 

42sh 


... .- 4, ..■ 



Ontario 

ONT 

29 (S) 






Orlando 

MCO 

57 (IP) 





86 p 

Philadelphia 

PHL 

57 (IC) 


* 

P 


*sh 


Phoenix 

PHX 

42 (DP) 


' 57 




Pittsburgh 

PIT 

57 (IP) 



* 


71p 

Portland, OR 

PDX 

42 (DP) 


57 

* 

* 


Portland, ME 

PWM 

29 (S) 



34sh 



Providence 

PVD 

29 (S) 

•, 42 :: :• 


* 



Raleigh-Durham 

RDU 

42 (DP) 



*sh 


71p 

Reno 

RNO 

29 (S) 



34 



Richmond 

RIC 

29 (S) 



*sh 

57 


Rochester 

ROC 

29 (S) 



"sh 

57sh 


Sacramento 

SMF 

57 (IP) 






Saipan 

GSN 

29 (S) 






Salt Lake City 

SLC 

42 (DP) 


* 


* 

71p 

San Antonio 

SAT 

::;:29:(S)- 



* 

' 57 * 


San Diego 

SAN 

29 (S) 



34sh 



San Francisco 

SFO 

29 (S) 



34 



San Jose 

SJC 

29 (S) 






San Juan 

JllilLjf'':;: 

29 (S) 



LLf ii:’ 

:.r:‘'^57'' 


Santa Ana 

SNA 

29 (S) 






Sarasota-Bradenton 

SRQ. 

29 (S) 



34sh 



Seattle-Tacoma 

SEA 

29 (S) 

42p 





Spokane 

ilflligL'TS 

29 (S) 



* 

: : " P ;< 


St. Louis 

STL 

29 (S) 

* 


* 

57 


Syracuse 

SYR 

29 (S) 


57p 

* 



Tampa 

TPA 

57 (IP) 



* 

* 

71p 


Chapter 3-15 




Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table 3-7. Potential Siting of New ifr Approach Procedures and 
Their Associated ifr Arrival Capacity^_ 


Airport 

Airport 

Code 

Current Best ifr 
Arrival Capacity 
■ (App Procedure)* 

New IFR Approach Procedures 

Depen. Indepen. 

Parallel Parallel CRDA terps+3 Triples 

Tucson 

TUS 

29 (S) 



* 

57 


Tulsa 

TUL 

57 (IP) 



* 


86p 

Washington National 

DCA 

29 (S) 



34 



Washington DuUes 

lAD 

|||:p|||;||||i| 





86p 

West Palm Beach 

FBI 

29 (S) 



34 



Wichita 

ICT 

57 (IP) 



* 

* 


Windsor Locks 

BDL 

29 (S) 



34 




2. Generic (not airport-specific) capacities are used here to provide a basis of comparison only. These 
capacities, derived through the FAA Airfield Capacity Model, use a standard aircraft mix. Generally, 
runways not suitable for commercial operations were not considered. Also, factors such as winds and 
noise constraints are not taken into account. 

3. Current Best Approach Abbreviations: 

DC - Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches 
DP - Dependent Parallel Runways 
IC - Independent Converging Runways 
IP - Independent Parallel Runways 
S - Single Runway 

• An asterisk (*) indicated proposed new approach procedures applicable at the airport in question; 
however, it also means that either the current best procedure, or another proposed approach proce¬ 
dure (under new rules), provides equal or better arrival capacity. 

• A number indicates that the hourly arrival capacity provided by a new approach procedure, when 
such capacity is larger than the one provided by other procedures (current or new), applicable at 
the airport in question. 

• A "p” indicates that the approach procedure will be applicable if and when planned runway con¬ 
struction/extensions take place at the airport in question. 

• An “sh” indicates that the approach procedure is applicable but that one of the runways is short 
(runway length less than 6,000 feet). 


Chapter 3-16 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


Chapter 4 

Airspace Development 


Efforts to expand airport capacity or implement improved 
instrument approach procedures will not be completely effec¬ 
tive unless the terminal and en route airspace can handle the 
increased traffic. Airspace capacity design serves to emphasize 
the “system” nature of the delay problem and the need for an 
integrated approach that coordinates the development of ca¬ 
pacity-producing alternatives. Airport improvements, enhanced 
air traffic control procedures, and improvements in terminal 
and en route airspace are frequently interrelated—changes in 
one require changes in the others before all of the potential ca¬ 
pacity benefits are realized. 

Airspace Capacity Studies are one of several programs un¬ 
derway to improve the efficiency of the airspace system. In a 
joint effort among the Office of System Capacity and Require¬ 
ments, Air Traffic, Regional Headquarters, and a contractor 
that conducts the simulation modeling, 12 Airspace Capacity 
Studies have been completed, and 5 are currently in progress. 
Air Traffic, normally at the Regional level, develops the alter¬ 
natives that will be tested in the simulation runs, and the pro¬ 
posed alternatives are generally examined in an ARTCC-wide 
context. Where possible, these studies reflect community in¬ 
volvement and FAA s responsiveness to community-developed 
alternatives. 

A variety of computer models have been used to analyze a 
broad spectrum of capacity solutions. Since 1986, the Office of 
System Capacity and Requirements has been applying 
SIMMOD, the FAA s Airport and Airspace Simulation Model, to 
large scale airspace redesign issues. The first such project was 
an analysis of the Boston ARTCC in support of the expansion of 
that facility’s airspace. Similar studies were initiated at the Los 
Angeles, Fort Worth, and Chicago ARTCCs, studying issues as 
diverse as resectorization, special use airspace restrictions, new 
routings, complete airspace redesign, and new runway con¬ 
struction. Computer modeling has been used to quantify delay, 
travel time, capacity, sector loading, and aircraft operating cost 
impacts of the proposed solutions. 

Significant solutions to capacity and delay problems have 
been identified through airspace design. At Dallas-Ft. Worth, 
for example, effects of the Metroplex plan were studied both 
with and without new runway construction. Results indicated 


Airspace capacity design serves to 
emphasize the "system" nature of 
the delay problem and the need 
for an integrated approach that 
coordinates the development of 
capacity-producing alternatives. 

Airspace Capacity Studies are a 
joint effort among the Office of 
System Capacity and Require¬ 
ments, Air Traffic, and Regional 
Headquarters. 

12 Airspace Capacity Studies 
have been completed, and 5 are 
currently in progress. 


Chapter 4-1 


Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


an immediate savings from airspace changes alone. The air¬ 
space design projects completed to date have identified tens of 
millions of dollars in delay savings, and the vast majority of the 
airspace improvements identified in these studies either have 
been or are being implemented. 

Table 4-1 summarizes the completed airspace studies by 
listing the generalized categories of the various alternatives 
studied. The majority of the studies considered new arrival and 
departure routes, modifications to ARTCC traffic, and redefini¬ 
tion of TRACON boundaries among their alternatives. Two 
studies, at Denver and Houston-Austin, analyzed a new airport 
with its associated airspace, while three studies, at Kansas City, 
Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Chicago, analyzed new runways at ex¬ 
isting airports. Four of the studies, Houston-Austin, Oakland, 
DaUas-Ft. Worth, and Los Angeles, modeled military traffic, 
restricted airspace, special use airspace, or the interactions of a 
military airfield with the civilian airport. 


Table 4-1. Summary of Airspace Improvement 
Alternatives Analyzed._ 


CO 

c 

O 

•a 

<u 

g- 

Studied Alternatives 

Chicago 

Dallas-Ft. Worth 

Denver 

Expanded East Coast Plan 

Houston-Austin 

Kansas City 

Los Angeles 

Oakland 

New York 

Jacksonville 

Atlanta 

Miami 

Relocating arrival fixes 

V 

V 




V 





4 


New arrival routes 


V 

V 

V 

V 

V 


4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

New departure routes 



V 



4: 

4 

4: 

4 

4 

■4: 

V 

Modifications to ARTCC traffic 


y: 


S: 

V 

'4^ 



4 

4 

4 : 

■ii:;,; 

New airport 



V 


V 








Hub/non-hub alternatives 





V 








Change m metering restrictions 




K: 




4 




4 

Redifining TRACON boundaries 



III 

V 

Wl 


ii 

It 



'4. 


Redifining sector ceilngs 









4 

4 

4 


Resectorization 









4 

4 

4 

4 

Militar}^ traffic considered 


V 


; • ;■■■• 

11 


ill 

iy: 



;1;: ■•■■■■ 


New runways at existing airports 

*1 

V-: 




IP 

lilli 

ill 





Specific modeling of 2 or more 
airports for interactions analysis 


V 




4 



4 

4 

4 

4 


Chapter 4-2 


1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


The FAA plans to institutionalize these airspace modeling 
activities by expanding the capability of its Technical Center in 
Atlantic City, NJ. Under the direction of the Office of System 
Capacity and Requirements (ASC), the Technical Center, and 
soon the National Simulation Capability (see Section 5.5.1), 
will provide the FAA with the resources to conduct studies us¬ 
ing a variety of models. 

What follows are excerpts from the four airspace studies 
that were completed in the last year. The New York and Jack¬ 
sonville Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) include a 
description of the alternatives analyzed and the results of the 
analysis. The final reports for the other two studies, Atlanta 
and Miami ARTCCs, were not available at publication time. 
Only a brief description of the alternatives is included here. 
Studies completed to date are summarized in Appendix G. It 
should be noted that these studies only considered the technical 
and operational feasibility of the proposed alternatives. Envi¬ 
ronmental, socioeconomic, and political issues were outside the 
scope of the studies and need to be addressed in future plan¬ 
ning activities. 


Chapter 4-3 




Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


4.1 New York Airspace Capacity Project 



The objective of the New York Airspace Capacity Project 
was to evaluate the delay and capacity impacts of proposed op¬ 
erational alternatives aimed at increasing capacity, reducing de¬ 
lay, and improving the overall efficiency of air traffic opera¬ 
tions. The operational area of concern included operations 
within the New York Center and portions of Boston, Cleve¬ 
land, and Washington Centers; and at Newark International, 
White PlainsAVestchester County, Islip/Long Island 
MacArthur, John F. Kennedy International, LaGuardia, Phila¬ 
delphia International, Newburgh/Stewart International, and 
Teterboro Airports. 

To meet the objective of the New York Airspace Capacity 
Project, four major simulation analysis tasks were completed. 
The first task involved analyzing the impact of splitting Liberty 
Area’s East Departure position into a high-low operation and 
rerouting certain traffic through the new low sector based on 
aircraft type and/or destination. The second task entailed 
evaluating air traffic operations under the proposed 
resectorization of New York Center Area D. The 
resectorization plan is aimed at relieving complexity and satu¬ 
ration problems associated with operations in New York 
Center’s Sector 75 and involved the reafignment of five en 
route sectors. The third task was an analysis to evaluate traffic 
loading impacts on the Stewart Area sector for three proposed 
ceiling realignment options. The fourth task involved an analy¬ 
sis of proposed new south arrival and south departure routings 
for Newburgh/Stewart International Airport to determine sec¬ 
tor traffic loading impacts for potential fixture traffic growth. 


4.1.1 Liberty East Reconfiguration and 
Rerouting 

The first simulation analysis task involved evaluating the 
impacts of splitting New York TRACON Liberty Area’s East 
Departure position into a high-low operation. The proposed 
operational alternative entails creating a new controller position 
and assigning all Liberty East airspace at or below 9,000 feet to 
the low operation. In addition to the traffic currently operating 
at 9,000 feet and below, additional flights departing to the 
northeast would also be rerouted to the new low sector based 
on destination and/or aircraft type. 

Liberty East sector is situated just northeast of Newark In¬ 
ternational, JFK International, LaGuardia, and Teterboro Air- 


Chapter 4-4 





1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


ports, northwest of Islip/Long Island MacArthur Airport and 
directly above White Plains/ Westchester County Airport. The 
current Liberty East sector encompasses, at its maximum, a 
distance of 35 miles north to south and 45 miles east to west 
and abuts portions of New York and Boston Center en route 
airspace. The base of Liberty East airspace commences at 7,000 
feet and attains its highest altitude at 17,000 feet. Considerable 
shelving exists at the lower altitudes where Liberty East inter¬ 
faces with other New York TRACON sectors. 

Proposed airspace changes to Liberty Area’s East Departure 
sector entailed the splitting off of all existing Liberty East air¬ 
space at or below 9,000 feet. A new Liberty East low sector is 
created from the lower portions of the eastern half of the exist¬ 
ing Liberty East sector. The remaining Liberty East airspace 
(referred to as the new Liberty East high sector) is comprised 
of the Liberty East airspace at and above 10,000 feet. It was as¬ 
sumed that departures which currently transit Liberty East air¬ 
space at or below 9,000 feet would, under the reconfigured air¬ 
space, be routed at the same existing altitudes, and, therefore, 
be worked by the new Liberty East low sector controller. 

Ten operational scenarios were simulated for the Liberty 
East reconfiguration and rerouting analysis. Nine potential al¬ 
ternatives were simulated for comparison to the baseline “do 
nothing” case (Alternative 0). Alternative 1 entailed 
reconfiguration of Liberty East only, without rerouting of any 
traffic. For Liberty East Alternatives 2 through 9, various com¬ 
binations of flights currently using altitudes at or above 10,000 
feet (i.e., in the new Liberty East high sector) were rerouted to 
the new Liberty East low sector. Three distance ranges were 
used in each scenario as criteria for rerouting traffic from new 
Liberty East high sector to new Liberty East low sector. 

Results of the analysis for Alternative 0, or the “do noth¬ 
ing” case, show that traffic is projected to increase 19 percent 
(98 aircraft) by the year 1997 and 34 percent (173 aircraft) for 
the year 2003. With current operational conditions requiring 
potential airspace realignment and rerouting of traffic for Lib¬ 
erty East sector, it is most likely that these future traffic in¬ 
creases projected for Liberty East will result in even greater 
workload problems and issues. 

Alternative 1 considered reconfiguring Liberty East Depar¬ 
ture sector into a high-low operation without rerouting any 
traffic. This alternative provided some degree of relief, but a 
further redistribution of traffic between new Liberty East high 
and new Liberty East low sectors is recommended if a more 
equitable balance between the sectors is to be achieved in both 
the near and future years. The shift in traffic flows between the 


Chapter 4-5 



Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


new sectors under Alternatives 2 and 4 , when compared to Al¬ 
ternative 1 results, tends towards a more balanced distribution 
of traffic between the two new Liberty East sectors throughout 
the day. Liberty East departure flights destined for airports 
within the 126-175 nautical mile range of the New York area 
are pivotal in redistributing traffic from the new Liberty East 
high sector into the new Liberty low sector for purposes of bal¬ 
ancing traffic loading. The remaining alternatives show even 
more improvement in reducing the percentage of time during 
the day that the sectors are saturated (the sector is considered 
saturated during a 15-minute period if the controller is con¬ 
tinuously working the maximum number of aircraft). 

4.1.2 Resectorization of New York 
ARTCC (ZNY) Area D 

The second task evaluated air traffic operations under the 
proposed resectorization of New York Center Area D (see Fig¬ 
ure 4-1). The resectorization plan is aimed at relieving com¬ 
plexity and saturation problems associated with operations in 
ZNY Area D Sector 75. To accomplish the proposed opera¬ 
tional changes, significant resectorization of Sector 75 and four 
other ZNY Area D sectors was necessary (Sectors 74, 91, 92, 
and 93). ZNY Sector 75 is the focal point of the New York 
Center Area D resectorization plan. ZNY Area D Sector 75 is 
located to the north of Sector 73 and directly abuts Cleveland 
Center airspace. Except for a small portion located in the 
northeast corner. Sector 75 commences at FL180 and extends 
up to FL600. The northeast portion of Sector 75 encompasses 
airspace from FL180 up to FL230. Sector 75 lateral airspace 
varies in distance from 40 miles north to south to over 100 
miles east to west. 

Resectorization of Sector 75 will require a slight extension 
of the farthest northwest corner of Sector 75 airspace. The only 
other airspace modification to Sector 75 requires raising the 
floor from FL180 to FL220. Adjacent Sectors 74 and 93 will ac¬ 
quire the airspace between FL180 and FL220. With the realign¬ 
ment of Sector 75, Newark International and LaGuardia arriv¬ 
als will be descended to FL220 earlier for hand off to Sector 
74. In addition, all Baltimore traffic will be removed from Sec¬ 
tor 75 to be worked by Sector 93. Elmira, Binghamton, and 
Utica arrivals will also be removed from Sector 75 along with 
any overflight traffic below FL220. Philadelphia International, 
Alentown, Lancaster, and Harrisburg northbound departures 
wiU be assigned to Sector 74, thus bypassing Sector 75. 


Chapter 4-6 




1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


Results of the analysis show that on the average day, the 
resectorization of ZNY Area D would result in daily delay sav¬ 
ings amounting to 13, 35, and 122 hours per day for the 1991, 
1997, and 2003 demand levels, respectively. These delay sav¬ 
ings equate to an annual aircraft operating cost savings of $7.6 
million, $20.4 million, and $71.2 million, per respective year. 

The primary goal of the resectorization of ZNY Area D is to 
reduce complexity and saturation within Sector 75 by reducing 
the level of traffic worked by the ZNY Sector 75 controllers 
during busy periods. For the baseline (1991) year, there was a 
17 percent decline in Sector 75 daily operations. The reduction 
would be 18 percent in 1997 and 18 percent in 2003. By 
resectorizing ZNY Area D, Sector 75 would realize substantial 
reduction in 15-minute sector occupancy averages throughout 
the majority of the day. These declines in sector occupancy av¬ 
erages result from the traffic rerouted from Sector 75 into Sec¬ 
tors 74 and 93, plus the reduction in the time aircraft are 
worked by Sector 75 due to Sectors 74 and 93 assuming por¬ 
tions of Sector 75 airspace. 



Figure 4-1. Northeast oblique view of radar tracks traversing 
New York Center's Area D in a single day. 


Chapter 4-7 









Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


4.1.3 Stewart Area Airspace Redesign 


The third simulation analysis evaluated air traffic opera¬ 
tions under the proposed raising of the ceiling of the southern 
portion of the New York TRACON Stewart Area. The proposed 
alternatives consist of Stewart Area ceiling altitude changes of 
10,000,14,000, and 17,000 feet. Under these three ceiling op¬ 
tions, traffic loading is evaluated to determine the additional 
traffic which Stewart Area would acquire if the new ceiling al¬ 
titudes were implemented. 

There are eleven airports located in the Stewart Area with 
Newburgh/Stewart International (SWF) and Dutchess County 
(POU) accounting for the majority of traffic. Newburgh/ 
Stewart International Airport is situated 40-50 miles to the 
north of Newark International, John F. Kennedy International, 
and LaGuardia Airports. Stewart Area encompasses, at its 
maximum, a distance of 50 miles north to south and 85 miles 
east to west. Current Stewart Area ceilings range between 
4,000 to 6,000 feet with the northwestern portions of Stewart 
Area overlying areas of high terrain. Stewart Area airspace un¬ 
derlies portions of both New York and Boston Center en route 
airspace. 

By raising the southern portion of the Stewart Area to 
10,000 feet, Stewart Area would acquire 329 additional flights 
over the busiest periods of the day. This increase in traffic is 
over a 200 percent increase above current traffic loading in the 
Stewart Area. A ceiling realignment to 14,000 feet for Stewart 
Area’s southern portion would result in Stewart Area acquiring 
an additional 113 flights above the number attained with the 
ceiling realignment at 10,000 feet. Total traffic for Stewart 
Area with the 14,000 foot ceiling realignment would increase 
to 593 flights during the busiest periods, an increase over the 
current traffic level of nearly 400 percent. A 17,000 foot ceiling 
in the Stewart Area’s southern portion would further increase 
traffic counts for Stewart Area during the busiest periods to a 
total of 630 flights. 


Chapter 4-8 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


4.1.4 Potential Traffic Growth at 

Newburgh/Stewart International 
Airport (swf) 

The fourth task analyzed proposed new arrival and depar¬ 
ture routings to the south of Newburgh/Stewart International 
Airport to determine traffic loading implications for potential 
future traffic growth at SWF. Simulation results were analyzed 
to evaluate the impact that additional Newburgh/Stewart In¬ 
ternational departure flights would have on ZNY Sectors 39 and 
10, and the impact that additional arrival flights to Newburgh/ 
Stewart International Airport would have on the new proposed 
Liberty East high sector. 

For the Liberty East high sector scenario, it was assumed 
that the Liberty East Departure sector is split into a new high- 
low operation and that the Stewart Area southeast ceiling is 
raised to an altitude allowing new Liberty East high sector to 
hand off directly to Stewart Area. For the potential Stewart 
Area Airport growth scenarios, two traffic level increases were 
simulated for Newburgh/Stewart International Airport south 
departures and arrivals. The first traffic level increase (medium 
growth) consisted of 30 additional south arrivals and south de¬ 
partures at Newburgh/Stewart International Airport per day. 
The second traffic level increase (high growth) consisted of 60 
additional south arrivals and departures per day. 

ZNY Sectors 39 and 10 would be impacted by potential 
traffic growth at Newburgh/Stewart International Airport due 
to traffic utilizing a proposed new south departure route from 
SWF. Medium traffic growth could potentially impact early 
morning operations for both Sectors 39 and 10. Under high 
traffic growth levels at SWF, the early morning traffic flow in¬ 
creases become quite substantial and sustained in duration and 
would most likely result in workload issues for both Sectors 39 
and 10. 

The proposed new Liberty East high sector would also be 
impacted by potential traffic growth at Newburgh/Stewart In¬ 
ternational Airport due to traffic utilizing a proposed new 
south arrival route to SWF. The new Liberty East high sector 
would be slightly impacted during the morning period under 
medium traffic growth at SWF. Under the high traffic growth 
scenario, new Liberty East high sector would experience sub¬ 
stantial and sustained increases in early morning as well as af¬ 
ternoon traffic flows, potentially resulting in workload consid¬ 
erations for new Liberty East high sector. 


Chapter 4-9 



Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


4.2 Jacksonville Airspace Capacity Project 



The objective of the Jacksonville Airspace Capacity Project 
'was to evaluate the capacity and delay impacts of proposed op¬ 
erational alternatives aimed at increasing capacity, reducing de¬ 
lay, and improving the overall efficiency of air traffic operations 
at Jacksonville Center (ZJX), Orlando Approach Control, 
Tampa Approach Control, and Orlando International (MCO) 
and Tampa International (TPA) Airports. Measures that could 
increase capacity and reduce delays were considered solely on a 
technical basis. Environmental, economic, social, or political 
issues were beyond the scope of the study. 

Five major simulation analysis tasks were completed. The 
first task involved analyzing the impact on Jacksonville Center 
traffic resulting from a proposed reconfiguration of the Palatka 
MOA Complex. The second task entailed an evaluation of the 
proposed implementation of a jet airway between Charleston 
VORTAC (CHS) and Ormond Beach VORTAC (OMN). The third 
task was an evaluation of the impact of a similar proposed jet 
airway between St. Petersburg VORTAC (PIE) and a point 42 
nautical miles (nm) west of Tallahassee VORTAC (TLH). The 
fourth task involved an analysis of the impact of raising the 
ceiling of Orlando Approach Control in conjunction with 
modifying arrival and departure routings. The fifth task en¬ 
tailed an evaluation of an alternative en route airspace design 
within Jacksonville Center. 


4.2.1 The Proposed Palatka moa/atcaa 
Realignment 

This first task analyzed a proposal to modify the lateral and 
vertical limits of the existing Palatka MOAs and redesignating 
the airspace above the proposed MOA expansion as ATC As¬ 
signed Airspace (ATCAA). In scenarios simulating the proposed 
Palatka MOA/ATCAA Complex, the existing Polatka MOAs were 
reconfigured to reflect airspace structures extending from 1200 
feet AGL (above ground level) up to and including FL430. A 
substantial expansion of the lateral boundaries of the existing 
airspace was also required. 

The proposed Palatka MOA/ATCAA Complex would require 
Jacksonville Center to release large portions of several low, 
high, and ultra-high sectors for special use operations during 
the hours of activation. 

The impact of rerouting Jacksonville Center traffic cur¬ 
rently overflying the proposed Palatka MOA/ATCAA results in 


Chapter 4-10 






1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


delay and travel time penalties. Delay time increases account 
for the majority of the total time penalty realized for the traffic 
demand schedules evaluated. In the baseline (1991) case, a total 
daily flight time penalty of 4.1 hours per day is realized with 
the annual cost penalty equating to $2.4 million. Annual cost 
penalties increase to $11.0 million and $120.6 million for the 
1997 and 2003 traffic demand levels. This proposed alternative 
would substantially reduce airspace previously available for the 
vectoring of traffic to relieve congestion. Requiring traffic to be 
rerouted around the expanded Palatka MOA Complex, signifi¬ 
cantly reduces the flexibility of controllers to utilize vectors 
and/or direct routes to expedite traffic movement. Controllers 
currently use portions of the airspace to be included in the pro¬ 
posed Palatka MOA expansion for sequencing of Orlando Ap¬ 
proach Control arrival and departure traffic and vectoring/di- 
rect routing of Jacksonville Center overflight traffic. 


4.2.2 Rainbow Area Airway 

The objective of the Rainbow Area Airway analysis was to 
evaluate the potential benefits that may be realized by estab¬ 
lishing a jet airway between Charleston VORTAC (CHS) and 
Ormond Beach VORTAC (OMN). The proposed airway would 
traverse airspace currently designated as special use airspace 
(SUA), impacting the area commonly known as the “Rainbow 
Area.” In addition to acquiring portions of the Rainbow Area, 
other requirements necessary to establish the proposed airway 
would include; releasing all altitudes for the jet airway from 
special use; incorporating any remaining special use airspace 
FL180 and above west of the proposed airway boundary and 
J79; and releasing special use airspace below FLlSO located just 
north of OMN to accommodate the descent and vectoring of 
arrival traffic into the Orlando terminal area. The proposed air¬ 
way would require no change to the physical boundaries of any 
existing Jacksonville Center sector structures, but the usable 
airspace available for traffic movement within the impacted 
sectors would be increased. Rerouting of traffic through any 
new or additional sectors would not be required. 

The implementation of a proposed jet airway between 
Charleston VORTAC (CHS) and Ormond Beach VORTAC 
(OMN) would reduce flight time and increase available airspace 
for improved flexibility and efficiency in the movement of air 
traffic. During Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC), the 
proposed jet airway would result in daily travel time and delay 
savings totaling 1.7, 2.4, and 4.4 hours for the years 1991, 

1997, and 2003, respectively. This delay savings would provide 


Chapter 4-11 



Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


$1.0 million, 11.4 million, and $2.6 million in cost savings per 
traffic demand year. Additional operating cost savings can be 
realized with the proposed airway during periods when thun¬ 
derstorms preclude or reduce the availability of current routes. 
In a year where thunderstorm activity was to occur a total of 60 
times, lasting an average duration of two hours, the aircraft op¬ 
erating cost savings realized by having the proposed airway 
available would total $13.8 million, $23.8 million, and $56.7 
million in years 1991,1997, and 2003, respectively. 

4.2.3 Proposed acmi/ 

Thunder Area Airway 


The objective of the ACMi/Thunder Area Airway impact 
analysis was to evaluate the potential benefits that may be real¬ 
ized by establishing an airway between St. Petersburg VORTAC 
(pie) and a point 42 nm west of Tallahassee VORTAC (TLH). 
The proposed airway would traverse portions of the special use 
airspace designated as the ACMi/Thunder Area. The analysis 
involves an evaluation of the potential benefits derived by over¬ 
flight traffic from the implementation of the proposed airway. 

The proposed airway would require no change to the physi¬ 
cal boundaries of any existing Jacksonville Center sector struc¬ 
tures, but the usable airspace available for traffic movement 
within the sectors with the proposed airway would be in¬ 
creased. Rerouting of traffic through any new or additional sec¬ 
tors would not be required. 

The implementation of a jet airway between St. Petersburg 
VORTAC (pie) and a point 42 nm west of Tallahassee VORTAC 
(TLH) would also increase the available airspace for improved 
movement of traffic within Jacksonville Center. During VMC, 
the proposed jet airway would result in daily travel time and 
delay savings totaling 1.6, 2.0, and 6.4 hours for the years 1991, 
1997, and 2003, respectively. The delay savings would provide 
$1.0 million, $1.2 million, and $3.7 million in cost savings per 
traffic demand year. 

The availability of the proposed jet airway (between PIE 
and a point 42 nm west of TLH) to traffic during periods of 
thunderstorm activity would also result in significant operating 
cost savings. For example, if yearly thunderstorm activity were 
to occur a total of 60 times, lasting an average duration of two 
hours, the aircraft operating cost savings realized by having the 
proposed airway available would total $2.1 million, $7.9 mil¬ 
lion, and $25.1 million in years 1991,1997, and 2003, respec¬ 
tively. 


Chapter 4-12 






1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


4.2.4 Orlando Approach Control Airspace 
Modification 

The fourth task was to analyze the impact of raising the 
ceiling of the current Orlando Approach Control airspace, in 
conjunction with modifying arrival and departure routings. 

This scenario was conducted to evaluate possible improvement 
of the traffic flow within Jacksonville Center. The proposed 
Orlando Approach Control reconfiguration raises the existing 
ceiling of the approach control from 12,000 to 14,000 feet, ex¬ 
panding terminal airspace in order to provide Jacksonville Cen¬ 
ter the capability to establish dual jet arrival routes and segre¬ 
gated jet and turboprop departure routes. 

Orlando Approach Control currently provides air traffic 
services in the airspace up to 12,000 feet and out to distances of 
50 nm from Orlando International Airport. Orlando Approach 
Control airspace is located in central Florida and is situated be¬ 
neath the common boundary between Jacksonville and Miami 
Centers. The primary airports serviced by Orlando Approach 
Control include Orlando International (MCO), Orlando Ex¬ 
ecutive (ORL), and Sanford/Central Florida Regional (SFB) 
Airports. 

To raise the ceiling of Orlando Approach Control from 
12,000 to 14,000 feet, airspace would have to be acquired from 
the Jacksonville Center low altitude sectors directly above the 
current approach control airspace. In conjunction with raising 
the ceiling, arrival and departure routes within Orlando Ap¬ 
proach Control would also have to be modified. 

The Orlando Approach Control Airspace modification op¬ 
tion realized savings in daily delay and flight time during all 
three traffic demand levels. The improved efficiency of the en 
route system results from traffic entering and departing Or¬ 
lando Approach Control airspace in a less restricted manner, 
and the utilization of the reduced separation standards available 
in the expanded terminal environment. Raising the Orlando 
Approach Control ceiling from 12,000 to 14,000 feet expands 
terminal airspace, providing the capability for Jacksonville Cen¬ 
ter to establish both, dual jet arrival routes and segregated jet 
and turboprop departure routes. The capability to use dual ar¬ 
rival and segregated departure routes under the proposed Or¬ 
lando Approach Control airspace realignment would result in 
daily en route delay and travel time savings amounting to 3.5, 
4.7, and 22.2 hours per day for the 1991,1997, and 2003 traffic 
demand levels, respectively. The combined savings equate to an 
annual aircraft operating cost savings of $2.0 million, $2.7 mil¬ 
lion, and $13.0 million, per respective traffic demand year. 


Chapter 4-13 


Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


4.2.5 Jacksonville Center Proposed 
Airspace Redesign Alternative 

The final analysis objective of the Jacksonville Airspace Ca¬ 
pacity project was to assess the impact and potential benefits of 
a proposal to modify the floors and ceilings of special sectors 
within Jacksonville Center. The analysis of the Jacksonville 
Center Airspace Redesign alternative involved simulating en 
route airspace operations for existing and proposed sector con¬ 
figurations. Traffic demand levels for the baseline year (1991) 
and future projected traffic levels for years 1997 and 2003 were 
simulated. 

The Jacksonville Center Airspace Redesign alternative 
would require airspace realignment for 27 of the 38 en route 
sectors. The majority of these airspace changes would involve 
floor and/or ceiling realignments. Four Jacksonville Center low 
altitude sectors would also require lateral boundary expansions 
in order to acquire airspace above adjacent approach controls. 
The proposed realignment of the designated Jacksonville Cen¬ 
ter sectors would have the effect of redistributing some existing 
traffic flows from one airspace structure to another. No rerout¬ 
ing of existing traffic flows was proposed. 

Results from the simulation indicate that the benefits that 
may be gained by the realignment of the floors and/or ceilings 
of sectors within Jacksonville Center include a more balanced 
traffic distribution, improved intra-facility coordination, added 
flexibility for the handling of traffic during demand peaks, and 
improved efficiency in merging traffic. 


Chapter 4-14 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


4.3 Atlanta Center Airspace Capacity 
Project 

The objective of the Atlanta Center Airspace Capacity 
Project was to evaluate the capacity and delay impacts of pro¬ 
posed operational alternatives aimed at increasing capacity, re¬ 
ducing delay, and improving the overall efficiency of air traffic 
operations within Atlanta Center and at Charlotte (CLT), Ra- 
leigh-Durham (RDU), and Birmingham (BHM) Approach Con¬ 
trols, and Atlanta, Charlotte/Douglas, and Raleigh-Durham 
International ^Airports and Birmingham Airport. 

Seven analysis tasks were studied to meet the objectives of 
the Atlanta Center Airspace Capacity Project. The final report 
for this project was not available at publication time. However, 
the analysis tasks are briefly described below. 

The first task involved raising the ceiling at Raleigh Ap¬ 
proach Control airspace from 10,000 to 12,000 feet. Potential 
benefits associated with realigning Raleigh Approach Control 
would be a more efficient traffic merging with Washington 
Center, a reduction in intra- and inter-facility coordination, an 
expansion of approach control airspace for more flexible han¬ 
dling of arrival and departure traffic, and relaxation of depar¬ 
ture restrictions. Rerouting of existing traffic flows was not re¬ 
quired under the Raleigh Approach Control ceiling realign¬ 
ment option. However, certain miles-in-trail and speed restric¬ 
tions currently in effect were relaxed. 

The second task involved raising the ceiling at Charlotte 
Approach Control from 12,000 to 14,000 feet, at Raleigh Ap¬ 
proach Control from 10,000 to 14,000 feet, and those at 
Greensboro and Fayetteville Approach Controls from 10,000 
to 12,000 feet. En route corridors were maintained from 
11,000 feet and above across Fayetteville and Greensboro Ap¬ 
proach Controls for BUZZY and MAJIC arrivals respectively. Re¬ 
routing of existing traffic flows was not required under the four 
ceilings realignment option. However, certain miles-in-trail 
and speed restrictions currently in effect were relaxed. 

The third task analyzed the impact of moving the boundary 
of Washington Center to the west to assume full control of Ra¬ 
leigh Approach Control and portions of low, high, and ultra- 
high altitude sectors in Atlanta Center. Extensive routing and 
terminal airspace changes were also proposed to accommodate 
rotation of the Bedposts/Cornerposts within Raleigh Approach 
Control airspace. A second departure gate for Charlotte Inter¬ 
national Airport southbound jet traffic was also developed. 
Other related scenarios within the alternative evaluated several 
approach control ceiling realignments. 



Chapter 4-15 






Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


The fourth task involved analyzing the impact of moving 
the boundary of Adanta Center to the east along a line crossing 
approximately over SBV, RDU, and FAY with Atlanta Center ac¬ 
quiring possibly the equivalent of three low altitude sectors 
from Washington Center. In this analysis, there was a redefini¬ 
tion of several en route sectors, establishment of new en route 
sectors, and extensive routing and terminal airspace changes to 
accommodate rotation of the Bedposts/Cornerposts within Ra¬ 
leigh Approach Control airspace. A second departure gate for 
Charlotte International Airport southbound jet traffic was also 
developed. Other related scenarios within this alternative 
evaluated several approach control ceiling realignments. 

The fifth task analyzed the impact of extending the existing 
Jet Airway 209 and rerouting certain flights currently entering 
Atlanta Center Airspace between the Meridian (MAW) and 
Crestview (CEW) VORTACs. The proposed lengthening of J209 
required adding a segment to the current airway beginning at 
Greenwood VORTAC (GRD) and extending southwest to the 
Columbus VORTAC (CSC). Traffic with specific destinations 
would be rerouted onto the proposed segment, at a point south 
of where current J209 traffic flow is merged. To facilitate the 
airway extension, a proposed modification to the current 
sectorization within the Atlanta Center high altitude structure, 
south of Atlanta VORTAC (ATL), was required. 

The sixth task analyzed the impact of eliminating Atlanta 
Centers Birmingham Sector (12) by expanding Rome (01), 
West Departure (04), and Maxwell (14) sectors’ boundaries to 
encompass airspace and associated traffic within the existing 
Birmingham Sector (12). The objective of this task was to de¬ 
termine the additional traffic which Rome (01), West Depar¬ 
ture (04), and Maxwell (14) sectors would acquire under cur¬ 
rent and future traffic demand levels if Birmingham Sector (12) 
was eliminated. 

The seventh task evaluated the impact of raising the ceiling 
of Birmingham Approach Control from 10,000 to 12,000 feet 
and modifying arrival and departure routings in order to estab¬ 
lish Arrival and Departure Transition Areas (ATAs/DTAs). 


Chapter 4-16 



4.4 Miami Center Airspace Capacity Project 


The objective of the Miami Airspace Capacity Project was 
to evaluate the capacity and delay impacts of proposed opera¬ 
tional alternatives aimed at increasing capacity, reducing delay, 
and improving the overall efficiency of air traffic operations 
within Miami Center, at Miami, Orlando, and Tampa Ap¬ 
proach Controls, and Miami, Orlando, and Tampa Interna¬ 
tional Airports. 

Four analysis tasks were studied to meet the objectives of 
the Miami Center Airspace Capacity Project. The final report 
for this project was not available at publication time. However, 
the analysis tasks for this project will be briefly described below. 

The first analysis task evaluated the impact of a proposed 
realignment of Miami Center Vero Beach (R3) and Melbourne 
(r4) Sectors to accommodate projected near term traffic 
groAvth at Fort Pierce/St. Lucie County International Airport 
(FPR). Currently, Vero Beach and Melbourne Sectors are split 
horizontally. The proposed realignment laterally realigns the 
existing airspace comprising R3/R4, thus establishing new Vero 
Beach (R3) and Melbourne (R4) Sectors and segregates VRB/ 
FPR arrivals from VRB/FPR departures. 

The second analysis task analyzed the impact of parallel 
airways through the Orlando corridor. The proposed westside 
airway would accommodate traffic flying over and west of IRQ. 
(Colliers), whereas the eastside airway would accommodate the 
remaining j53 air traffic operating at or above FL330. The es- 
tabhshment of parallel airways would allow relaxation of cur¬ 
rent in-trail restrictions currently placed on Miami Center de¬ 
partures northbound to Jacksonville Center over ORL VORTAC. 

The third analysis task evaluated a proposal to establish a 
new Miami Center Sector r59 by realigning current Miami 
Center Bimini High (R40) and Georgetown (r60) sectors. No 
rerouting of air traffic was required. The proposed Sector R59 
would primarily accommodate overflight traffic at altitude op¬ 
erating between the mainland U.S. north of Miami Center, 
and the Caribbean or South America. The new realigned 
Bimini (R40) sector would still accommodate some north/south 
overflights as well as the majority of flights that comprise the 
traffic to and from the Bahamas and south Florida. The new 
realigned Georgetown (R60) would continue to handle north/ 
south overflights with traffic between south Florida and the 
Caribbean or South America comprising the majority of the 
traffic. 





























Chapter 4: Airspace Development 


1994 ACE Plan 


The fourth analysis task analyzed the effect of establishing 
a new airway west of A509/A301 for southbound Miami Cen¬ 
ter traffic bound for Cuban airspace. Currently, northbound 
and southbound traffic are required to share a509/A301. The 
proposed new airway would provide separate routes for Miami 
area arrivals and departures to and from Cuban airspace. 


4.5 Studies in Progress 

Currently, the FAA Office of System Capacity and Require¬ 
ments has the following airspace projects underway: the Los 
Angeles Regulatory Airspace Simplification Project. 

The Los Angeles regulatory airspace simplification project 
does not, as currently envisioned, involve the use of SIMMOD. 

It will be a three-dimensional depiction of the regulatory and 
control airspace with the underlying geography and the actual 
radar track data interfaced. The objective is to determine 
whether there is regulated airspace that is not used by a signifi¬ 
cant number of IFR aircraft. If so, that airspace could then be 
released to allow less restricted VFR flights through the Los 
Angeles area. This project is being coordinated through the 
Western Pacific Region with the Southern California Airspace 
Users Group (SCAG). Any follow-on modeling analysis re¬ 
quired will also be accommodated. 


Chapter 4-18 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


Chapter 5 

Technology for Capacity Improvement 


There are many technological initiatives underway which 
promise to improve the capacity of an airport, its surrounding 
terminal airspace, and the en route airspace. When considered 
individually, the primary focus of a large number of technolo¬ 
gies and projects might be other than capacity enhancement, 
even so, these technologies are significant steps in the right di¬ 
rection. The impact of each initiative will be enhanced by an 
integrated approach to capacity improvement that results in ef¬ 
fective coordination of the various programs. At a national 
level, this integration will be accomplished through the activi¬ 
ties of the National Simulation Capability described in Section 
5.5.1. 

Section 5.1 covers technologies applicable to airport surface 
operations. Section 5.2 discusses programs that apply to the 
adjacent terminal airspace and directly support the approach 
procedure improvements discussed in Chapter 3. Section 5.3 
discusses technologies applicable to the en route airspace, in¬ 
cluding oceanic airspace. Section 5.4 addresses capabilities that 
will support traffic flow managers, both national and local, in 
maintaining a planned, systematic flow of air traffic. Section 
5.5 covers technologies and programs that support planning 
and integration of the above programs, as well as technologies 
that will make changes and improvements to the National Air¬ 
space System (NAS) easier and more efficient to implement. 

The summaries included in this chapter are meant to be 
general descriptions of technologies and projects, currently un¬ 
derway or under development, which promise to increase sys¬ 
tem capacity. For a more detailed description of these and other 
technologies and projects, refer to Appendix H. Many of those 
projects are also listed in the FAA’s R,E&D Plan. 


There are many technological ini¬ 
tiatives underway that promise to 
improve the capacity of an airport, 
its surrounding terminal airspace, 
and the en route airspace. 

The impact of each initiative will 
be enhanced by an integrated ap¬ 
proach to capacity improvement 
that results in effective coordina¬ 
tion of the various programs. This 
integration will be accomplished 
through the activities of the Na¬ 
tional Simulation Capability. 


Chapter 5-1 




Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


1994 ACE Plan 


To increase aviation safety by re¬ 
ducing runway incursions and sur¬ 
face collisions in the airport move¬ 
ment area and to provide control¬ 
lers with automated aids to reduce 
delays and improve the efficiency 
of surface movement. 


5.1 Airport Surface Capacity Technology 

Taxiway interference, separation at intersections, departure 
sequencing, and the like, all contribute to surface-related flight 
delays. The Airport Surface Traffic Automation System (ASTA) 
will provide automation designed to make ground operations 
safer and more efficient. 

5.1.1 Airport Surface Traffic Automation 
Program 

The purpose of the ASTA program is to increase aviation 
safety by reducing runway incursions and surface collisions in 
the airport movement area and to provide controllers with au¬ 
tomated aids to reduce delays and improve the efficiency of 
surface movement. 

The ASTA program comprises five elements: a runway sta¬ 
tus light system, a surveillance data link, aural and visual warn¬ 
ings, data tags, and a traffic planner. The program will develop 
an enhanced surface safety system using the Airport Surface 
Detection Equipment (ASDE-3) primary ground sensor radar. 
Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS), Differential (cor¬ 
rected) Global Positioning System (DGPS), Airport Movement 
Area Safety System (AMASS), and other technologies. ASTA 
will provide controllers with automatically generated alerts and 
cautions as well as data tags to identify all aircraft and special 
vehicles on the airport movement area in all-weather condi¬ 
tions. ASTA will also include a traffic planner that will improve 
the routing of aircraft on the taxiways and reduce taxi delay 
times. Future enhancements will include the Cockpit Display 
of Traffic Information (CDTl) for traffic on the surface. This is 
expected to be integrated with a CDTI capability for airborne 
traffic. The ASTA program examines the roles and responsibili¬ 
ties of controllers, pilots, and ground vehicle operators when 
operating on the airport. 

The AMASS is an automation enhancement to the ASDE-3 
primary ground sensor radar that provides an initial safety ca¬ 
pability on runways and connecting taxiways. After determin¬ 
ing that a group of ASDE-3 radar returns make up a target, the 
AMASS then analyzes that target’s position and motions with 
respect to other targets and the defined airport operational con¬ 
figuration to determine if there are any conflicts among targets 
or with defined operations. If there are conflicts, a verbal and 
graphic alert is given to the controllers in the tower cab. The 
AMASS also has an interface with the Automated Radar Termi- 


Chapter 5-2 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


nal System (ARTS) in order to include airborne aircraft on final 
approach in the check for conflicting target operations on the 
airport surface. All airports slated to receive ASDE-3/AMASS 
equipment will also receive ASTA. 

The ASTA program will share information with the Termi¬ 
nal Air Traffic Control Automation (TATCA) program to create 
an interrelated runway incursion prevention and surface traffic 
management system. When completed, the ASTA program will 
provide an all-weather, automated capability that allows for 
safer, higher capacity airport operations. 


5.2 Terminal Airspace Capacity Technology 

There are a number of programs that will improve the ca¬ 
pacity of an airport’s surrounding terminal airspace. The Preci¬ 
sion Runway Monitor was discussed in Chapter 3 in connec¬ 
tion with procedures for improved landing capabilities at air¬ 
ports with multiple runways. The Differential Global Position¬ 
ing System (DGPS) and the Microwave Landing System (MLS) 
will make precision approach procedures available at more run¬ 
ways at more airports' by significantly reducing the siting and 
frequency congestion problems associated with ILS. 

The Center-TRACON Automation System will complement 
the above systems by aiding the controller in merging traffic as 
it flows into the terminal area. It will also support enhanced air 
traffic throughput and avoid undesirable bunching and gaps in 
the traffic flow on the final approach path. This system and the 
Converging Runway Display Aid have been combined into the 
Terminal ATC Automation Program. Finally, the Traffic Alert 
and Collision Avoidance System has the potential to expand 
beyond its current role of providing airborne collision avoid¬ 
ance as an independent system. It has the potential to reduce 
aircraft spacing in a variety of situations, leading to increased 
capacity. 

5.2.1 Terminal atc Automation (tatca) 

The purpose of the Terminal ATC Automation Program 
(tatca) is to develop automation aids to assist air traffic con¬ 
trollers and supervisors in enhancing the terminal area air traf¬ 
fic management process and to facilitate the early implementa¬ 
tion of these aids at busy airports. The TATCA program consists 
of two projects: the Converging Runway Display Aid (CRDA)/ 
Controller Automated Spacing Aid (CASA) and the Center- 
TRACON Automation System (CTAS). Longer-term TATCA ac- 


Chapter 5-3 



Chapter 5; Technology for Capacity Improvement 


1994 ACE Plan 


tivities include the integration of terminal automation tech¬ 
niques with other air traffic control and cockpit automation ca¬ 
pabilities. 


Actual operations have shown that 
CRDA is effective in increasing ca¬ 
pacity by allowing multiple run¬ 
ways to be used simultaneously 
under IFR. 

The Controller Automated Spacing 
Aid (CASA) project is developing 
new applications to support the 
synchronizing of aircraft in sepa¬ 
rate streams of traffic. 


5.2.1.1 Converging Runway Display Aid/ 
Controller Automated Spacing Aid 

The CRDA displays an aircraft at its actual location and si¬ 
multaneously displays its image at another location on the 
controller’s scope to assist the controller in assessing the relative 
positions of aircraft that are on different approach paths. The 
CRDA function is now implemented in version A3.05 of the 
ARTS IIIA system. 

Actual operations have shown that CRDA is effective in in¬ 
creasing capacity by allowing multiple runways to be used si¬ 
multaneously under IFR. At St. Louis, the FAA has conducted a 
demonstration of this tool to measure its effect on dependent 
precision converging approaches in near Category I minimums. 
Results from field testing at St. Louis have shown an increase 
in arrival rates from 36 arrivals per hour to 48 arrivals per hour, 
an increase of 33 percent. National standards for CRDA were 
published in November 1992. Other airports such as Philadel¬ 
phia International, Boston Logan International, Washington 
Dulles International, and Greater Cincinnati International are 
using or developing a use for CRDA. 

While the original purpose of CRDA was to support specific 
procedures for converging approaches, other procedures can be 
supported by CRDA automation or a variant of that technology. 
The Controller Automated Spacing Aid (CASA) project is de¬ 
veloping these other applications. In general, these new appli¬ 
cations support the synchronizing of aircraft in separate 
streams of traffic. The applications range from support for 
more effective merging of aircraft in the terminal area prior to 
the approach phase to support for taking full advantage of 
available runway geometry with asymmetrical staggered ap¬ 
proaches. 


5.2.1.2 Center-TRACON Automation System 

Approaches to major terminal areas represent one of the 
most complex and high-density environments for air traffic 
control. Arrivals approach from as many as eight directions, 
with jet arrivals descending from high altitudes while other 
traffic enters from low altitudes. It is difficult for controllers to 
foresee how traffic from one approach path will ultimately in- 


Chapter 5-4 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


teract with traffic from other approach paths. This results in 
traffic arriving either in bunches, which leads to higher control¬ 
ler workload and increased fuel burn to maintain separation, or 
with significant gaps, which in turn reduces airport capacity. 
Speed and space restrictions in the terminal area add to the dif¬ 
ficulty of maintaining an orderly flow to the runway. Visibility 
and wind shifts, variations in aircraft mix, wake vortex consid¬ 
erations, missed approaches, runway changes or closings, all 
add to the difficulty of controlling traffic efficiently and safely 
in the terminal airspace. 

CTAS is designed to improve system performance (e.g., effi¬ 
ciency, capacity, controller workload), while maintaining at 
least the same level of safety present in today’s system, by help¬ 
ing the controller smooth out and coordinate traffic flow effi¬ 
ciently. The earliest CTAS product is the Traffic Management 
Advisor (TMA), with one TMA specifically designed for the 
Center environment (CTMA) and one for the TRACON (TTMA). 
The TMA determines the optimum sequence and schedule for 
arrival traffic, and coordination between air traffic control fa¬ 
cilities such as a Center and a TRACON is managed via the 
TMAs for the respective facility. Other CTAS products are the 
Final Approach Spacing Tool (FAST) for the TRACON and a 
Descent Advisor (DA) for the ARTCC. FAST aids TRACON con¬ 
trollers in merging arrival traffic into an efficient flow to the 
final approach path and also supports controllers in efficiently 
merging missed approach and pop-up traffic into the final ap¬ 
proach stream. DA assists Center controllers in meeting arrival 
times efficiently while maintaining separation. 

A CTAS functionality under concept exploration is Expedite 
Departure Path (EDP). EDP is intended to accurately model air¬ 
craft ascent up to cruise altitude. Ultimately this knowledge can 
be used in the terminal and en route environments to interleave 
departing aircraft into the existing flow of en route aircraft. 

Each of the major components of CTAS, TMA (both CTMA 
and TTMA), DA, and FAST will be assessed in an operational 
environment at one or more sites prior to development and 
limited national deployment. Operational assessment of TMA 
began in 1993 and will continue in 1994. Operational assess¬ 
ments of FAST and DA will begin in 1994 and continue through 
1995. Longer-term CTAS activities focus on integration of ter¬ 
minal automation with other ATC automation and cockpit au¬ 
tomation activities. 


CTAS is designed to improve sys¬ 
tem capacity while maintaining at 
least the same level of safety 
present in today's system, by help¬ 
ing the controller smooth out and 
coordinate traffic flow efficiently. 


Chapter 5-5 


Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


1994 ACE Plan 


5.2.2 Precision Runway Monitor (prm) 


The PRM consists of on improved 
antenna system that provides high 
azimuth and range accuracy and 
higher update rates, a processing 
system that monitors all ap¬ 
proaches and generates controller 
alerts, and a high resolution dis¬ 
play system. 


Significant capacity gains can be achieved at airports with 
closely-spaced parallel runways if the allowable runway spacing 
for conducting independent parallel instrument approaches can 
be reduced. (The benefits associated with reduced spacing are 
discussed in Section 3.1.) Current criteria allow independent 
approaches to parallel runways separated by 4,300 feet or more. 
This standard was established based in part on the surveillance 
update rate and accuracy of the airport surveillance radars 
(ASRs) and the terminal Automated Radar Terminal System 
(arts) capabilities. Analysis and demonstrations have indi¬ 
cated that the separation between parallel runways could be re¬ 
duced if the surveillance update rate and the radar display accu¬ 
racy were improved, and special software was developed to pro¬ 
vide the monitor controller with alerts. Conventional airport 
surveillance radars update the target position every 4.8 seconds. 

The FAA fielded engineering models of the PRM system to 
investigate the reduction in separation associated with these 
improvements. The PRM consists of an improved antenna sys¬ 
tem that provides high azimuth and range accuracy and higher 
update rates than the current terminal ASR, a processing system 
that monitors all approaches and generates controller alerts 
when an aircraft appears to be entering the “no transgression 
zone” (NTZ) between the runways, and a high resolution dis¬ 
play system. The E-SCAN PRM uses an electronically scanned 
antenna that is capable of updating aircraft positions every half 
a second. 

Procedures to allow independent parallel operations for 
runways as close as 3,400 feet apart were published in 1991. 
Further research and development, including ATC simulations 
at the FAA Technical Center, are planned to determine the re¬ 
quirements for conducting independent parallel approaches to 
runways as close as 3,000 feet apart. 

A contract was let in the spring of 1992 for procurement of 
five electronically scanned (E-SCAN) PRM antenna systems, 
with delivery planned for 1994. 


5.2.3 Precision Approach and Landing 
Systems 

The Instrument Landing System (ILS) has provided de¬ 
pendable precision approach service for many years. However, 
inherent characteristics of the ILS cause difficulties in congested 
terminal areas. Of particular concern from an air traffic per- 


Chapter 5-6 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


spective is the long straight-in flight path required by ILS. Al¬ 
though not a major concern for isolated airports without ob¬ 
struction problems, for closely spaced airports, ILS flnals often 
create conflicts because flight paths may cross in ways that pre¬ 
clude separation by altitude. In these configurations, the air¬ 
ports become interdependent (i.e., preferred operations cannot 
be conducted simultaneously at the affected airports), causing 
delays and constraining capacity. In areas such as New York, 
the curved approach capability provided by either the Micro- 
wave Landing System (MLS) or the Differential Global Posi¬ 
tioning System (DGPS) will provide a solution to the interde¬ 
pendency of proximate airports. 

MLS was designed to solve ILS difficulties in the terminal 
area. In the meantime, various implementations of DGPS have 
shown promise as precision approach and landing systems in 
initial research and development flight tests. A DGPS system 
would be based on the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) Glo¬ 
bal Positioning System (GPS) augmented with ground reference 
stations and possible additional satellites to provide the accu¬ 
racy, integrity, continuity, and availability of service required of 
a precision landing system. It is expected that DGPS will pro¬ 
vide many of the same capabilities as MLS at a lower cost. To 
help determine the future precision approach and landing sys¬ 
tem for the National Airspace System (NAS), the FAA has initi¬ 
ated the National Airspace System Precision Approach and 
Landing System (NASPALS) study. 

In general, the remote area navigation (RNAV) capability 
with wide-area coverage provided by MLS and DGPS will result 
in more flexibility in the terminal airspace. RNAV will permit 
the design of instrument approach procedures that more closely 
approximate traffic patterns used during VMC. Typically these 
result in shorter flight paths, segregation of aircraft by type, re¬ 
duction of arrival and departure gaps, and avoidance of noise- 
sensitive areas. 

MLS and DGPS will also enable the FAA to provide precision 
approach capability for runways at which an ILS could not be 
used due to ILS localizer frequency-band congestion or FM ra¬ 
dio transmitter interference. For example, it is already difficult 
to add ILS facilities in congested areas such as Chicago and 
New York. 

It may be possible to achieve lower minimums with MLS 
and DGPS than can be achieved with ILS at some sites. More¬ 
over, both MLS and DGPS will relieve surface congestion result¬ 
ing from restrictions caused by ILS critical area sensitivity to re¬ 
flecting surfaces such as taxiing and departing aircraft. 


Chapter 5-7 



Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


1994 ACE Plan 


TCAS is an airborne system that 
operates independently of ground- 
based ATC to provide the pilot with 
advisories concerning nearby tran¬ 
sponder-equipped aircraft. The 
TCAS II system provides relative 
position information and, when 
necessary, advisories for vertical 
maneuvers to avoid collisions. This 
system is now fully implemented 
on transport category aircraft. 


Use of MLS or DGPS back azimuth for missed approach 
guidance may help support development of approach proce¬ 
dures for converging runways and triple runway configurations. 
Use of MLS or DGPS back azimuth for departure guidance will 
help ease airspace limitations and restrictions on aircraft opera¬ 
tions due to noise abatement requirements. 

Both MLS and DGPS will provide for more flexible ground 
siting of equipment to compensate for terrain irregularities that 
do not permit a centerline siting. Additionally, MLS and DGPS 
do not require as extensive a site preparation as the ILS glide 
slope, since they do not form guidance signals through ground 
reflection. One form of DGPS, known as the Wide Area Aug¬ 
mentation System (WAAS), could potentially provide a preci¬ 
sion approach service at all runway ends. This technology 
would require equipment at a relatively few sites to establish 
the system. No site preparations would be required at indi¬ 
vidual airports. 

The NASPALS study will be completed in late 1994. The 
recommendations provided by the study will be used in formu¬ 
lating the U.S. position on precision approach and landing sys¬ 
tems for the International Civil Aviation Organization (iCAO) 
meeting scheduled for early 1995. At this meeting, ICAO mem¬ 
bers will reexamine the currently planned transition from ILS to 
MLS. 

5.2.4 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance 
System (tcas) Applications 

TCAS is an airborne system that operates independently of 
ground-based ATC to provide the pilot with advisories concern¬ 
ing nearby transponder-equipped aircraft. The TCAS II system, 
mandated for use in transport category aircraft, provides rela¬ 
tive position information and, when necessary, advisories for 
vertical maneuvers to avoid collisions. This system is now fully 
implemented on transport category aircraft. A new version of 
the collision avoidance logic, which was developed to address 
operational issues that arose during its phased implementation, 
has been mandated for installation by December 31,1994. Be¬ 
cause of the situational information provided by TCAS and its 
widespread equipage, it has been identified as having the po¬ 
tential to increase ATC capacity and efficiency and reduce con¬ 
troller workload. 

A program began in FY94 to investigate the use of TCAS to 
enable in-trail climb maneuvers through the altitude of another 
TCAS-equipped aircraft in the oceanic airspace. Air carrier ser- 


Chapter 5 ~ 8 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 5; Technology for Capacity Improvement 


vice trials of this procedure are slated to begin in late summer 
1994. Later, it is anticipated that other programs will investi¬ 
gate the use of TCAS to extend visual approach procedures to 
lower minimums, support reduced spacing on final approach, 
reduce the stagger requirement for dependent converging ap¬ 
proaches using the CRDA, allow departures at reduced spacing, 
and monitor separation between aircraft on independent ap¬ 
proaches. Should these applications prove successful, additional 
development will be pursued in the areas of TCAS-based paral¬ 
lel approach monitoring, TCAS-based self-spacing, and other 
more advanced applications. 


5.2.5 Wake Vortex Program 

A better understanding of wake-vortex strength, duration, 
and movement could result in the reduction of aircraft separa¬ 
tion criteria. Revised wake-vortex separation criteria may in¬ 
crease airport capacity by 12 to 15 percent in instrument me¬ 
teorological conditions (IMC), thereby enhancing airspace use 
and decreasing delays. 

Several vortex detection and measurement systems will be 
deployed at selected airports to monitor wake-vortex strength, 
transport characteristics, and decay. Wake vortex data obtained 
from these airports wiU be combined with data from tower fly¬ 
by tests already completed to provide a basis for reviewing ex¬ 
isting separation standards and recommending modifications to 
those standards. 

Plans include cockpit simulations to determine if separation 
standards for heavy aircraft operating behind heavy aircraft can 
be reduced from four miles in trail to three miles. This will be 
followed by examining the separation for large-behind-large 
and issues relating to closely spaced runways, departure delays, 
and departure sequencing which would interconnect with ter¬ 
minal automation. 

5.2.6 Terminal Area Surveillance System 

Although air traffic incidents may occur during any phase 
of flight, the largest percentage occur during takeoff and land¬ 
ing. Currently, there are many airports without surveillance ra¬ 
dars, and the airport surveillance radar being procured by the 
FAA, the Airport Surface Detection Equipment-3 (ASDE-3), 
will not be available at all airports due to cost considerations. It 
is important, therefore, to develop affordable sensors to provide 


Chapter 5-9 



Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


1994 ACE Plan 


a reliable surveillance source for terminal operations and to 
support automation development and airport capacity initia¬ 
tives. 

Requirements for a new terminal area surveillance radar 
have been identified and include modular, cost-effective pri¬ 
mary and secondary radar systems with application for flexible, 
high capacity data links, improved surveillance accuracy, im¬ 
proved runway monitoring, improved wind shear detection and 
dissemination, and improved wake vortex tracking. Efforts will 
focus on adapting commercial technology in order to develop a 
radar that meets the validated requirements in a cost-effective 
manner. 


53 En Route Airspace Capacity Technology 


En route airspace congestion is 
being identified increasingly as a 
factor in restricting the flow of traf¬ 
fic at certain airports. Initiatives 
designed to reduce delays, match 
traffic flow to demand, and in¬ 
crease users' freedom to fly user- 
preferred routes are underway. 


En route airspace congestion is being identified increasingly 
as a factor in restricting the flow of traffic at certain airports. 
One cause of en route airspace congestion is that ATC system 
users want to travel directly from one airport to another at the 
best altitude for their aircraft, and hundreds of aircraft have 
similar performance characteristics. Therefore, some portions 
of airspace are in very high demand, while others are used very 
little. This non-uniform demand for airspace translates into the 
need to devise equitable en route airspace management strate¬ 
gies for distributing the traffic when demand exceeds capacity. 
Initiatives designed to reduce delays, match traffic flow to de¬ 
mand, and increase users^ freedom to fly user-preferred routes 
are underway. 

Automated En Route Air Traffic Control (AERA) is a long¬ 
term evolutionary program that will increasingly allow aircraft 
to fly their preferred routes safely with a minimum of air traffic 
control intervention. The Advanced Traffic Management Sys¬ 
tem (ATMs) will allow air traffic managers to identify in ad¬ 
vance when en route or terminal weather or other factors re¬ 
quire intervention to expedite and balance the flow of traffic. 

The need for increased efficiency in oceanic airspace is also 
being addressed. Initiatives that improve the control of this air¬ 
space, particularly the more accurate and frequent position re¬ 
porting resulting from Automatic Dependent Surveillance 
(ads) using satellite technology, will make it possible to effect 
significant reductions in oceanic en route spacing. 

Other means of improving en route airspace capacity in¬ 
clude reducing the vertical separation requirements at altitudes 
above FL290 to allow more turbojet aircraft to operate along a 
given route near their preferred altitudes and reducing the 
minimum in-trail spacing to increase the flow rate on airways. 


Chapter 5-10 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


5.3.1 Automated En Route Air Traffic 
Control (aera) 

AERA is a collection of automation capabilities that will 
support ATC personnel in the detection and resolution of prob¬ 
lems along an aircraft’s flight path in coordination with traffic 
flow management. AERA will help increase airspace capacity by 
improving the ATC system’s ability to manage more densely 
populated airspace. AERA will also improve the ability of the 
ATC system to accommodate user preferences. When the most 
desirable routes are unavailable because of congestion or 
weather conditions, AERA will assist the controller in finding 
the open route closest to the preferred one. 

Laboratory facilities for the AERA program were estahhshed 
in 1987. This laboratory has been used for prototyping and 
analyzing systems and concepts to develop operational and 
specification requirements, as well as supporting technical 
documentation. Initial algorithmic and performance specifica¬ 
tions were completed in 1991. These specifications were up¬ 
dated in 1992 to reflect the transition strategy adopted to 
implement AERA capabilities. This strategy will minimize dis¬ 
ruption of on-going operations and encourage effective assimi¬ 
lation of AERA capabilities by the controller work force. 

In 1993, AERA was integrated into the En Route Automa¬ 
tion Strategic Plan, which describes how en route automation 
programs will be incorporated into the National Airspace Sys¬ 
tem over the next 7 to 10 years. Detailed implementation plans 
are being prepared to bring an initial AERA operational test ca¬ 
pability to the field in late 1995 and to implement initial con¬ 
troller use of the AERA capabilities in late 1997. Full AERA ca¬ 
pabilities are planned for initial use in the year 2000. 

AERA concepts are being introduced in project planning 
and development for oceanic system automation, traffic flow 
management, and integration of en route and terminal ATC. In 
more advanced AERA applications, the integration of ground- 
based ATC and cockpit automation will be investigated to fully 
exploit the potential for computer-aided interactive flight plan¬ 
ning between controller and pilot. 


AERA will help increase airspace 
capacity by improving the ATC 
system's ability to manage more 
densely populated airspace. AERA 
will also improve the ability of the 
ATC system to accommodate user 
preferences. When the most desir¬ 
able routes are unavailable be¬ 
cause of congestion or weather 
conditions, AERA will assist the con¬ 
troller in finding the open route 
closest to the preferred one. 


Chapter 5-11 



Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


1994 ACE Plan 


ADS will be a part of an Oceanic 
ATC System to support transoce¬ 
anic flights over millions of square 
miles of Pacific and Atlantic air¬ 
space. This Oceanic ATC system 
will provide an automation infra¬ 
structure including oceanic flight 
data processing, a computer-gen¬ 
erated situation display, and a 
strategic conflict probe for alerting 
controllers to potential conflicts 
hours before they would occur. 


5.3.2 Automatic Dependent Surveillance 
(ads) and Oceanic atc 

In the ADS System, the information generated by an 
aircraft’s onboard navigation system is automatically relayed 
from the aircraft, via a satellite data link, to air traffic control 
facilities. The automatic position reports will be displayed to 
the air traffic controller in nearly real time. This concept will 
revolutionize ATC in the oceanic areas that are beyond the 
range of radar coverage. Currently oceanic ATC is largely 
manual and procedural and operates with very little, and often 
delayed, information. It depends upon hourly reports transmit¬ 
ted via High Frequency (HF) voice radio, which is subject to 
interference. Because of the uncertainty and infrequency of the 
position reports, large separations are maintained to assure 
safety. These large separations effectively restrict available air¬ 
space, and cause aircraft to operate on less than optimal routes. 

ADS will be a part of an Oceanic ATC System to support 
transoceanic flights over millions of square miles of Pacific and 
Atlantic airspace. This Oceanic ATC system will provide an au¬ 
tomation infrastructure including oceanic flight data process¬ 
ing, a computer-generated situation display, and a strategic 
conflict probe for alerting controllers to potential conflicts 
hours before they would occur. The Oceanic Display and Plan¬ 
ning System (ODAPS), became operational in the Oakland Air 
Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) in 1989 and in the New 
York ARTCC in 1992. Real-time position reporting via ADS and 
a limited set of direct pilot-controller data link messages will be 
added to the system in 1996, and a complete set of pilot-con¬ 
troller data link messages will be available. 

The new Oceanic ATC System will provide benefits to air¬ 
space users in efficiency and capacity. The improved position 
reporting will allow better use of the existing separation stan¬ 
dards. Air traffic management will be able to begin the process 
of reducing those standards, thereby increasing the manageable 
number of aircraft per route. Using the strategic conflict probe, 
controllers will be able to evaluate traffic situations hours into 
the future. Ultimately, controllers will be able to grant more 
fuel-efficient flexible routes, which will have a significant im¬ 
pact on fuel costs and delays. The final decision to reduce sepa¬ 
ration standards in oceanic airspace is a joint decision shared by 
Air Traffic and Flight Standards. The Technical Programs Di¬ 
vision (AFS-400) and the Procedures Division (ATP- 100) are 
working together to develop the criteria and programs leading 
to the reduction of separation standards based on the introduc¬ 
tion of Oceanic Datalink (ODS), GPS, and ADS. 


Chapter 5-12 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


5.3.3. Communications and Satellite 
Navigation 


New technology enhancements in communications, naviga¬ 
tion, and surveillance provide the basis for dramatic improve¬ 
ments in aviation system performance, including improved 
safety, reduced delay, increased capacity, and greater efficiency. 
These three functional areas represent key elements of the air 
traffic management infrastructure. 


5.3.3.1 Aeronautical Data Link 
Communications 


Data link services should relieve congestion on voice com¬ 
munications channels and provide controllers with an ability to 
handle more traffic during peak periods while providing pilots 
with unambiguous information and clearances. This benefit has 
been demonstrated by the delivery of pre-departure clearances 
via data link. 

Data link applications are being developed based on inputs 
from the air traffic and aviation user communities. These appli¬ 
cations include weather products, en route, terminal, and tower 
ATC communications, and other aeronautical services. The 
Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN) allows use of 
many data link sub-networks (e.g., satellite. Mode S, VHF, etc.) 
in a way that is transparent to the users. 

Domestic standards are being developed with RTCA, and 
the international standards, with ICAO. The en route, terminal, 
and tower ATC services are being developed and evaluated by a 
team of air traffic controllers. The operational aspects and ben¬ 
efits of data link applications will be verified using contractor 
and FAA Technical Center test beds. Pilot inputs will be gath¬ 
ered by connecting cockpit simulators and live aircraft to the 
test beds during evaluations. 


5.3.3.2 Satellite Navigation 

Efforts are underway to augment the Department of 
Defense s Global Positioning System (GPS) to support civil 
aviation navigation requirements. Procedures and standards are 
being developed for oceanic and domestic en route, terminal, 
non-precision approach, precision approach, and airport sur¬ 
face navigation. Satellite ranging signals currently provide 
three-dimensional position, time, and velocity information that 


Data link applications are being 
developed based on inputs from 
the air traffic and aviation user 
communities. These applications 
include weather products, en 
route, terminal and tower ATC com¬ 
munications, and other aeronauti¬ 
cal services. 


Efforts are underway to augment 
the Department of Defense's Glo¬ 
bal Positioning System (GPS) to 
support civil aviation navigation 
requirements. Procedures and stan¬ 
dards are being developed for 
oceanic and domestic en route, 
terminal, non-precision approach, 
precision approach, and airport 
surface navigation. 


Chapter 5-13 




Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


1994 ACE Plan 


Weather is the single most impor¬ 
tant factor in delays and a major 
factor in aircraft accidents and in¬ 
cidents. Improved weather infor¬ 
mation can not only increase sys¬ 
tem capacity, but also enhance 
flight safety, improve flight effi¬ 
ciency, reduce ATC and pilot 
workload, improve flight planning, 
and result in fuel and cost savings. 


can be used as a supplemental means of navigation for civil us¬ 
ers down to non-precision approach. This technology, supple¬ 
mented to improve system accuracy, availability, and integrity, 
will eventually provide aircraft the ability to fly direct paths in¬ 
stead of being confined to specific routes, thus providing for 
more efficient use of airspace. GPS will also allow for increased 
capacity through reduced separation minimums and provide an 
accurate position reporting system without separate surveil¬ 
lance systems. 

With the declaration of GPS initial operational capability 
(lOC) in December 1993, the DOD agreed to sustain levels of 
signal availability and accuracy such that basic federal radio 
navigation requirements are met. Furthermore, the Joint DOD/ 
Department ofTransportation (DOT) Task Force Report, re¬ 
leased in December 1993, gave the FAA authority to implement 
a wide-area integrity and availability enhancement to support 
expanded civil navigation operations. With demonstrated im¬ 
provements in position accuracy, GPS may prove capable of pro¬ 
viding an all-weather landing service by the turn of the century. 

The satellite navigation program is working with the com¬ 
munications, navigation, surveillance (CNS)/satellite system 
manager and systems engineering to transition to the future 
National Airspace System Precision Approach and Landing 
System (NASPALS). Candidate system architectures being de¬ 
veloped and evaluated are hybrids of space and terrestrial-based 
systems, including GPS. The goal of the program is to compare 
the performance, cost, operational capability, and risk of each 
architecture and select the best candidate as the U.S. position 
for international standardization. 

5.3.4 Aviation Weather 

Weather is the single most important factor in delays and a 
major factor in aircraft accidents and incidents. Improved 
weather forecasts offer the potential for increasing system ca¬ 
pacity more cost effectively than many other alternatives. Im¬ 
proved weather information can not only increase system ca¬ 
pacity, but also enhance flight safety, improve flight efficiency, 
reduce ATC and pilot workload, improve flight planning, and 
result in fuel and cost savings. 

Efforts are underway to enhance our understanding and 
ability to predict a range of aviation weather phenomena: icing, 
en route and transition turbulence; ceiling and visibility; thun¬ 
derstorms and microbursts; en route and terminal wind; and 
oceanic weather of all kinds. Models and algorithms are being 


Chapter 5-14 


1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 5; Technology for Capacity Improvement 


developed for understanding weather and generating short¬ 
term forecasts. 

To help in the understanding of weather, airborne meteoro¬ 
logical sensors are being developed to measure humidity and 
turbulence. These sensors will be carried aboard aircraft to pro¬ 
vide near-real and real-time three-dimensional weather data 
that is currently not available. 

Wind shear is a major cause of weather-related fatalities in 
the air carrier community. Research is underway to develop ad¬ 
vanced wind shear warning systems and flight crew decision 
aids. The technology will be transferred to manufacturers and 
operators to accelerate the development of these systems. Once 
developed, flight tests will be conducted to evaluate onboard 
airborne wind shear sensor performance by flying the test air¬ 
craft into wind shear. Also, a wind shear training program will 
be developed for air taxis, commuter operators, and general 
aviation. 


5.4 Traffic Flow Management 

The development of improved capabilities to support na¬ 
tional and local traffic flow managers has received increasing 
attention in recent years, and a number of efforts are underway 
to aid in fielding effective and well designed enhancements to 
the Traffic Flow Management (TFM) System. Two of the most 
prominent such efforts are the Advanced Traffic Flow Manage¬ 
ment System (ATMS) and the Operational Traffic Flow Plan¬ 
ning (OTFP) Program. Both of these efforts will focus on for¬ 
mulating and developing improvements for the TFM system in 
consultation with aviation system users, including both the au¬ 
tomation infrastructure and the associated air traffic procedures 
necessary to implement the operational capability. 


Chapter 5-15 


Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


1994 ACE Plan 


5.4.1 Advanced Traffic Management 
System (aims) 

The purpose of the ATMS effort is to research automation 
tools to minimize the effects of NAS overload on user prefer¬ 
ences without compromising safety. This is accomplished by: 

• Monitoring the demand on and capacity of ATC re¬ 
sources. 

• Developing alternative strategies to balance demand and 
capacity to prevent critical entities from being overloaded. 

• Coordinating and implementing strategies to assure 
maximum use of critical resources when a demand/capac- 
ity imbalance is predicted or detected. 


The Aircraft Situation Display 
(ASD) was the first capability de¬ 
veloped by ATMS. 

The ASD has helped increase sys¬ 
tem capacity in several ways. It 
allows traffic management special¬ 
ists to observe approaching traffic 
across ARTCC boundaries. This has 
allowed the reduction or elimina¬ 
tion of many fixed miles-in-trail re¬ 
strictions. It assists traffic manage¬ 
ment specialists in planning arrival 
flows for airports that are close to 
ARTCC boundaries. It allows traffic 
management specialists to detect 
and effect solutions to certain con¬ 
gestion problems. 


Automation tools shown to be beneficial through the ATMS 
research and development program will be implemented and 
fielded for operational use in the Enhanced Traffic Manage¬ 
ment System (ETMS). 

The Aircraft Situation Display (ASD) was the first capabil¬ 
ity developed by ATMS. The ASD generates a graphic display 
that shows current traffic and flight plans for the entire NAS. 
The ASD is currently deployed at the Air Traffic Control Sys¬ 
tem Command Center (ATCSCC) and all ARTCCs and at se¬ 
lected TRACONs and Canadian locations. The ASD data has 
also been provided to commercial air carriers and air taxi opera¬ 
tors, and they are using these data to aid in their operations 
management and planning. 

The ASD has helped increase system capacity in several 
ways. It allows traffic management specialists to observe ap¬ 
proaching traffic across ARTCC boundaries. This has allowed 
the reduction or elimination of many fixed miles-in-trail re¬ 
strictions (and the resultant delay of aircraft) that were in effect 
prior to the deployment of ASD. It assists traffic management 
specialists in planning arrival flows for airports that are close to 
ARTCC boundaries, resulting in smoother arrival flows and bet¬ 
ter airport utilization. It allows traffic management specialists 
to detect and effect solutions to certain congestion problems, 
such as merging traffic flows, well in advance of problem occur¬ 
rence and even before the aircraft enter the ARTCC where the 
congestion problem will occur. Small adjustments to traffic 
flows made early can avoid large delays associated with last- 
minute solutions. 

The second capability developed by ATMS was the Monitor 
Alert, which predicts traffic activity several hours in advance. It 


Chapter 5-16 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


compares the predicted traffic level to the threshold alert level 
for air traffic control sectors, fixes, and airports, and highlights 
predicted problems. It will aid in detecting congestion prob¬ 
lems further in advance, enabling solutions to be implemented 
earlier. The Monitor Alert has recently been implemented at 
the ATCSCC, all ARTCCs, and several TRACONs. 

Four future capabilities that are being developed through 
ATMS are Automated Demand Resolution, Dynamic Special 
Use Airspace, Strategy Evaluation, and Automated Execution. 
Automated Demand Resolution will examine problems pre¬ 
dicted by Monitor Alert and suggest several alternative prob¬ 
lem resolutions. The suggested resolutions are planned to re¬ 
spond to each problem without creating conflicts or additional 
problems. Dynamic Special Use Airspace will provide automa¬ 
tion to allow consideration of actual and scheduled military op¬ 
erations in the national flow management decision making pro¬ 
cess. Strategy Evaluation will provide a tool to evaluate alterna¬ 
tive flow management strategies. Automated Execution will 
generate and distribute facility and aircraft-specific directives to 
implement selected strategies. 

In addition to domestic flow management capabilities, re¬ 
search is being conducted for oceanic flow management capa¬ 
bilities. Track Generation wiU deflne a set of tracks for a pre¬ 
scribed region of airspace. Track Advisory will advise oceanic 
traffic managers of the most efficient tracks available to indi¬ 
vidual aircraft approaching the track system. Oceanic Traffic 
Display will assist the oceanic traffic manager in routing air¬ 
craft. Further development will concentrate on the integration 
of domestic and oceanic capabilities. 

5.4.2 Operational Traffic Flow 
Planning (otfp) 


Increasing congestion, delays, and fuel costs require that 
the FAA take immediate steps to improve airspace use, decrease 
flight times and controller workload, and increase fuel effi¬ 
ciency. To achieve these objectives the FAA Operational Traffic 
Flow Planning program will develop near-term, operational 
traffic planning models and tools. The program will provide 
software tools to plan daily air traffic flow, predict traffic prob¬ 
lems and probable delay locations, assist in joint FAA-user plan¬ 
ning and decision-making, and generate routes and corre¬ 
sponding traffic flow strategies which minimize time and fuel 
for scheduled air traffic. Benefits include improved aviation 
safety, airspace use, system throughput, and route flexibility. 


The second capability developed 
by ATMS was the Monitor Alert, 
which predicts traffic activity sev¬ 
eral hours in advance. 

It will aid in detecting congestion 
problems further in advance, en¬ 
abling solutions to be implemented 
earlier. The Monitor Alert has re¬ 
cently been implemented at the 
ATCSCC, all ARTCCs, and several 
TRACONs. 


The FAA Operational Traffic Flow 
Planning program will develop 
near-term, operational traffic plan¬ 
ning models and tools. The pro¬ 
gram will provide software tools to 
plan daily air traffic flow, predict 
traffic problems and probable de¬ 
lay locations, assist in joint FAA- 
user planning and decision-mak¬ 
ing, and generate routes and cor¬ 
responding traffic flow strategies 
which minimize time and fuel for 
scheduled air traffic. 


Chapter 5-17 



Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


1994 ACE Plan 


The NSC is a unique capability 
that will exploit the latest simula¬ 
tion technology. Horizontal inte¬ 
gration brings together diverse sys¬ 
tem components such as terminal 
automation, en route automation, 
oceanic air traffic control, aircraft 
flight management systems, and 
mixes of aircraft types and perfor¬ 
mance in a flexible, interchange¬ 
able, and dynamic simulation envi¬ 
ronment. 


Working directly with commercial aviation interests and other 
FAA facilities, the Air Traffic Control System Command Cen¬ 
ter (ATCSCC) can predict problem areas before they occur and 
generate alternative reroutings and flow procedures. Overall 
system capacity will be increased over that of the present fixed 
route and rigid preferred route systems, and increased fuel effi¬ 
ciency, shorter travel times, and reduced delays will result. 
Controller workloads will decrease from users’ participation in 
a planned, systematic flow of traffic. 

5.5 System Planning, Integration, and 
Control Technology 

The following sections describe technologies that support 
planning to integrate various improvements into the NAS. Both 
operational improvements and new technologies need to be 
evaluated so that they can be developed and implemented ef¬ 
fectively, ensuring the interoperabihty of the elements of the 
NAS. A large number of models and other technologies will 
support this integration effort. The National Simulation Capa¬ 
bility (NSC), for example, will horizontally integrate many of 
these new technologies in a laboratory environment. The Na¬ 
tional Airspace System Performance Analysis Capability 
(NASPAC) will help in the identification of demand/capacity 
imbalances in the NAS and provide a basis for evaluation of 
proposed solutions to such imbalances. Computer-graphics 
tools, such as the Sector Design Analysis Tool and the Termi¬ 
nal Airspace Visualization Tool, will allow airspace designers to 
quickly and effectively develop alternative airspace sectors and 
procedures. They will also reduce the time and effort required 
to implement these alternatives. 

5.5.1 National Simulation 
Capability (nsc) 

The NSC aids and supports the RE&D and systems engi¬ 
neering missions of the FAA by horizontally integrating the 
various RE&D program elements across the National Airspace 
System (NAS) environment. The capabiflty to integrate emerg¬ 
ing ATC subsystems during the conceptual stage of each project 
allows early validation of requirements, identification of prob¬ 
lems, development of solutions to those problems, and demon¬ 
stration of system capabilities. It also permits early injection of 
human factors and system user inputs into the concept formu¬ 
lation process. The net result is a reduction of risk in the devel- 


Chapter 5-18 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


opment of products for the NAS, faster infusion of new tech¬ 
nology, earher acceptance of new NAS concepts by system users, 
and greater efficiency in performing the RE&D and systems en¬ 
gineering missions. The ASTA, CTAS, TCAS, AERA, ATMS, 

OTFP, Aeronautical Data Link Communications, Terminal 
Area Surveillance System, and Aviation Weather programs are 
all actively involved in horizontal system simulations in the 
NSC. 

The NSC is a unique capability that will exploit the latest 
simulation technology. Horizontal integration brings together 
diverse system components such as terminal automation, en 
route automation, oceanic air traffic control, aircraft flight 
management systems, and mixes of aircraft types and perfor¬ 
mance in a flexible, interchangeable, and dynamic simulation 
environment. It provides an ability to assess the suitability and 
capability of emerging ATC system components before produc¬ 
tion investment decisions are made. The NSC permits the 
evaluation of new operational concepts, human interfaces, and 
failure modes in a realistic, real-time, interactive ATC environ¬ 
ment capable of simulating new or modified systems at forecast 
traffic levels. Simulation capabilities will be expanded through 
an interface with various remote research centers that possess 
nationally unique facilities and expertise. 

5.5.2 Analysis Tools 

A large and growing repertoire of analytical, simulation, 
and graphical tools and models are being developed and used to 
help understand and improve the NAS. Some of the more 
prominent of these are briefly described in the following sec¬ 
tions. 

The principal objectives of computer simulation models 
currently in use and under development are to identify current 
and future problems in the NAS caused by demand/capacity im¬ 
balances and to construct and evaluate potential solutions. All 
of the models rely on a substantial amount of operational data 
to produce accurate results. The principal models that are being 
developed and are in use today are described below. 


Chapter 5-19 



Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


1994 ACE Plan 


5.5.2.1 Airport Network Simulation Model 

(airnet) 

AIRNET is a PC-based tool that is designed to assess the im¬ 
pact of changes in airport facilities, operations, and demand. It 
is a planning tool that can assess the effects of those changes on 
passenger costs, noise contours, airports, airlines, and aircraft. 

It addresses macro trends and interactions for use in policy 
planning and economic analysis. 

5.5.2.2 Airport and Airspace Simulation 
Model (siMMOD) 

SIMMOD simulates both airports and airspace in a selected 
geographic area. It aids in the study of en route air traffic, ter¬ 
minal air traffic, and ground operations. It is capable of calcu¬ 
lating capacity and delay impacts of a variety of operating alter¬ 
natives, including runway configurations, airspace routes, 
sectorization, and separation standards. It is a planning tool for 
evaluating operational alternatives involving the coordination 
of air port configurations with airspace configurations. SIMMOD 
has been used in airspace design studies around major airports. 
Improvements to SIMMOD include better output displays, au¬ 
tomated data-acquisition capability, and a workstation version 
of the model. 


5 . 5.23 Airfield Delay Simulation Model 
(adsim) and Runway Delay 
Simulation Model (rdsim) 

The Airfield Delay Simulation Model (ADSIM) calculates 
travel time, delay, and flow rate data to analyze components of 
an airport, airport operations, and operations in the adjacent 
airspace. It traces the movement of individual aircraft through 
gates, taxiways, and runways. The Runway Delay Simulation 
Model (rdsim) is a sub-model of ADSIM. RDSIM limits its 
scope to the final approach, runway, and runway exit. 


Chapter 5-20 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


5.5.2.4 The Airport Machine 

The Airport Machine is a PC-based interactive model with 
graphics that is used to evaluate proposed changes to airfield 
and terminal configurations, schedules, and aircraft movement 
patterns. This model has been licensed for use within the FAA 
and has been used in studies of a number of major airports. Its 
primary output is extensive data on delays to aircraft move¬ 
ment. 


5.5.2.5 National Airspace System 

Performance Analysis Capability 

(NASPAC) 

The NASPAC Project provides a long-term analysis capabil¬ 
ity to assist the FAA in developing, designing, and managing 
the Nation’s airspace on a system-wide level through the appli¬ 
cation of operations research methods and computer modeling. 
The focal point of the NASPAC Project is the NASPAC Simula¬ 
tion Modeling System (SMS).The NASPAC SMS is a simulation 
of the entire NAS used to estimate flight delays by modeling the 
progress of individual aircraft as they move through the nation¬ 
wide network of airports, en route sectors, routes, navigation 
fixes, and flow control restrictions. The model has been used to 
study the current and projected performance of the NAS and to 
study system improvements such as new airports, new runways, 
and airspace changes, as well as projected demand changes such 
as the creation of new air carrier hubs and the introduction of 
civil tiltrotor flights in the Northeast Corridor. 


5.5.2.6 Sector Design Analysis Tool (sdat) 

The SDAT is an automated tool to be used by airspace de¬ 
signers at the 20 Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) 
to evaluate proposed changes in the design of airspace. This 
computer model allows the user to input either the current de¬ 
sign or the proposed replacement. It also allows the user to in¬ 
teractively make changes to the design shown graphically on 
the computer screen. 

The model allows the user to play recorded traffic data 
against either the actual design or the proposed replacement. It 
also allows the user to modify traffic data interactively in order 
to evaluate alternative designs under postulated future traffic 
loading. The model computes measures of workload and con- 


Chapter 5-21 



Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


1994 ACE Plan 


flict potential for the specified sector or group of sectors. This 
will allow designers to obtain a better balance in workload be¬ 
tween sectors, reducing controller workload and increasing air¬ 
space capacity. The model will also be useful for facility traffic 
flow managers, for it will display cumulative traffic flows under 
either historic or anticipated future traffic loading. 

The development of the SDAT has been underway for ap¬ 
proximately three years. Procedures for extracting and display¬ 
ing (in 2d and 3d) all the requisite data from available FAA 
data files and computing the expected demand for separation 
assurance actions have been developed. The development of a 
fully capable controller workload model is underway. SDAT was 
field tested at two selected sites in FY93, with expanded testing 
planned for FY94. 

A procedure for using the SDAT as an airspace model (as¬ 
suming that controller workload is the limiting factor) is under 
development. This will be combined with an on-line Critical 
Sector Detector for traffic flow management. In addition, a 
version for terminal area design is under development. 


5.5.2J Terminal Airspace Visualization 
Tool (tavt) 


Terminal airspace differs from en route airspace in that it 
tends to have a more varied mix of aircraft and user types, more 
complicated air traffic rules and procedures, and wider variation 
in flight paths. A major redesign of terminal airspace currently 
requires extensive coordination and the effort of a task force 
lasting many months or even years. The purpose of the TAVT 
prototype is to explore the potential for computer-based assis¬ 
tance to such a task force that will support a more rapid evalua¬ 
tion of alternatives. 

The TAVT prototype displays a three-dimensional represen¬ 
tation of the airspace on a large computer screen to allow the 
user/operator to view the airspace from any perspective. It also 
provides an easy-to-use interface that permits the user to 
modify the airspace according to permissible alternatives. The 
results of this effort are being evaluated for incorporation into 
the specifications of a follow-on terminal airspace design tool 
based on SDAT. 


Chapter 5-22 




1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


5.5.2.S Graphical Airspace Design 
Environment (grade) 


GRADE is a computer graphics tool for displaying, analyz¬ 
ing, and manipulating airspace design and other aviation re¬ 
lated data. Radar data (from both ARTS and SAR) are stripped 
from their recording media and loaded into GRADES underly¬ 
ing relational database along with the appropriate airspace ge¬ 
ometries, terrain maps. National Airspace System (NAS) data, 
descriptions of routes, and any other data required in the analy¬ 
sis. GRADE can then be used to test proposed terminal instru¬ 
ment procedures (TERPS), standard terminal arrival routes 
(STARs) and standard instrument departures (SIDs), airspace 
design changes, and instrument approach procedures. 

GRADE can display radar data in three dimensions, along 
with the attendant flight plan information, for any given time 
slice. GRADE also includes a set of algorithms designed to mea¬ 
sure interactions between the radar data and any other elements 
of the database. These measurements can then be displayed as 
histograms and compared. GRADE provides a high quality, 
three-dimensional presentation, is relatively easy to use, and 
can be quickly modified to facilitate the comparison of existing 
and proposed airspace designs and procedures. 

GRADE is currently limited to airspace design applications, 
but could easily be adapted to other applications, such as noise 
analysis, interaction with existing airport and airspace com¬ 
puter simulation models, accident/incident investigation (par¬ 
ticularly for aircraft without flight data recorders), and training 
in lessons learned and alternate air traffic control techniques. 


5.6 Vertical Flight Program 


The Vertical Flight Program will 
help improve the safety and effi¬ 
ciency of vertical flight operations 
and increase the capacity of the 
NAS through research, engineer¬ 
ing, and development into air traf¬ 
fic rules and operational proce¬ 
dures, heliport/vertiport design 
and planning, and aircraft/aircrew 
certification and training. 


The Vertical Flight Program will help improve the safety 
and efficiency of vertical flight operations and increase the ca¬ 
pacity of the NAS through research, engineering, and develop¬ 
ment into air traffic rules and operational procedures, heliport/ 
vertiport design and planning, and aircraft/aircrew certification 
and training. 

The term vertical flight (VF) includes conventional rotor- 
craft (helicopters) as well as advanced technology designs for 
aircraft with the ability to hover and take off and land verti¬ 
cally. The Rotorcraft Master Plan (RMP) envisions advanced VF 
technologies providing scheduled short-haul passenger and 
cargo service for up to 10 percent of projected domestic air 
transportation needs. Recognizing the potential for advanced 


Chapter 5-23 



Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 


1994 ACE Plan 


VF aircraft to provide passenger service, Public Law 102-581 
requested that a Civil Tiltrotor (CTR) Development Advisory 
Committee be established to evaluate the technical feasibility 
and economic viability of developing CTR aircraft and infra¬ 
structure to support the incorporation of tiltrotor technology 
into the national transportation system. 

Air infrastructure research will focus on the ability to con¬ 
duct all-weather and IFR operations at heliports and vertiports 
in terminal airspace without interfering with fixed-wing traffic 
flow. Much of the initial work relating to emerging technolo¬ 
gies will be done through simulation and validated with actual 
flight test data as the aircraft become available. 

Ground infrastructure research will provide RE&D into he¬ 
liport and vertiport design and planning issues, including the 
terminal area facilities and ground-based support systems that 
will he needed to implement safe, all-weather, 24-hour flight 
operations. Developing obstacle avoidance capabilities is a 
critical design-related effort. Research will include applying 
lessons learned from detailed accident and rotorcraft operations 
analyses. Simulation will be used to collect data, analyze sce¬ 
narios, and provide training to facilitate safe operations. 

Aircraft/aircrew research will develop minimum perfor¬ 
mance criteria for visual scenes and motion-based simulators; 
evaluate state-of-the-art flight performance for cockpit design 
technology; develop improved training techniques employing 
expert decision making, and develop crew and aircraft perfor¬ 
mance standards for display and control integration require¬ 
ments. Research will also be conducted to develop certification 
standards for both conventional and advanced technology VF 
aircraft. 


Chapter 5-24 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 6 

Marketplace Solutions 


Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


Marketplace solutions to aviation system capacity problems 
rely primarily on competitive, free-market influences. They in¬ 
volve the interests not only of the airlines and airport authori¬ 
ties but also of other aviation industry groups, local govern¬ 
ment organizations, and local communities. This diversity of 
special interests makes predicting, managing, and integrating 
marketplace solutions inherently difficult. To add to the diffi¬ 
culty, the major air carriers today continue to face the uncer¬ 
tainty of increasing costs and decreasing revenues. However, 
operating losses were less widespread in 1993 than in 1992, and 
over half of the major carriers made an operating profit. In fact, 
the airline industry seems to be undergoing an evolutionary 
step that includes an increase in the importance of lower-cost 
regional/commuter airlines and a relative decline in the impor¬ 
tance of hubs. 

6.1 Regional/Commuter Carriers 

The growth of the regional/commuter airlines, i.e., air car¬ 
riers that provide regularly scheduled passenger service and 
whose fleets are composed predominantly of aircraft having 60 
seats or less, continues to outpace the growth of the larger air 
carriers.^ Total revenue passenger enplanements for the re¬ 
gional/commuter airlines increased by 10 percent in 1993. The 
major air carriers have been dropping short-haul routes on 
which they are losing money, and these markets are being 
served profitably by regional/commuter carriers. Small- and 
medium-market routes, without enough traffic to support the 
larger jets of the major air carriers, can support small jets and 
turboprops. In addition, these smaller aircraft can meet de¬ 
mands for high-frequency service. Frequent flights attract busi¬ 
ness as well as leisure travelers. The introduction of new state- 
of-the-art aircraft is also expected to contribute to greater pub¬ 
lic acceptance and stimulate higher growth. 


The growth of the regional/com- 
muter airlines continues to outpace 
the growth of the larger air carri¬ 
ers. Small- and medium-market 
routes, without enough traffic to 
support the larger jets of the major 
air carriers, can support small jets 
and turboprops. 


1. Based on FAA Aviation Forecasts, Fiscal Years 1994-2005, FAA-APO 94-1, 
March 1994. 


Chapter 6-1 



Chapter 6; Marketplace Solutions 


1994 ACE Plan 


The emerging technology of 
tiltrotor aircraft could absorb much 
of the demand for short-haul flights 
of 500 miles or less. 

VSTOL aircraft have the potential to 
reduce runway usage since they 
are not runway dependent. 

To integrate tiltrotor and other 
VSTOL aircraft into the aviation sys¬ 
tem, an infrastructure must be de¬ 
veloped that addresses the special 
needs of vertical flight. 


Regional/commuter airlines have been marked by an in¬ 
creased integration of operations with the operations of the 
large air carriers through code-sharing agreements and acquisi¬ 
tion of regional/commuter carriers by the large air carriers. 
Many of the regional/commuter airlines are owned, totally or 
in part, by their larger code-sharing partners, and still others 
are owned by other regional/commuter airlines. In addition, 
the industry has become more and more concentrated, and, 
with the decline in the number of carriers, the largest regional/ 
commuter airlines account for most of the passenger enplane- 
ments. 

The smaller regional/commuter carriers often bypass hub 
airports and provide direct, point-to-point service between cit¬ 
ies that were previously connected only through a hub. This 
frees slots at the often overcrowded hub airports, thus increas¬ 
ing capacity and easing congestion and delay. 

The larger regional/commuter carriers generally provide 
high-frequency flights directly to hub airports to feed passen¬ 
gers to the major carriers. Their flights are timed to connect 
with the flights of the major carriers they feed. The increasing 
number of these regional/commuter carrier flights uses up ca¬ 
pacity at the hub airport. The mix of smaller, slower aircraft 
with the large jets of the major air carriers can also complicate 
air traffic control procedures, adding further to the congestion 
and delay at the airport. At hub airports with well-established 
networks of regional feeder airlines, like Seattle-Tacoma Inter¬ 
national in the Pacific Northwest and Boston Logan Interna¬ 
tional in northern New England, air taxi/commuter aircraft ac¬ 
count for about 40 percent of total operations. 

6.2 Civil Tiltrotor 

The emerging technology of tiltrotor aircraft could absorb 
much of the demand for short-haul flights of 500 miles or less. 
Tiltrotor is still considered by many to be an unknown and 
costly technology. Tiltrotor aircraft have yet to be proven tech¬ 
nically feasible and economically competitive in the commercial 
market. However, the expected higher operating costs of the 
tiltrotor may be partially offset by the delay-cost savings that 
would result from reduced airport congestion and the conve¬ 
nience and other economic benefits that would accrue to pas¬ 
sengers and other users. 

These vertical- or short-take-off-and-landing (VSTOL) air¬ 
craft have the potential to reduce runway usage since they are 
not runway dependent. Vertiports at hub airports would free 
runway slots and provide additional airfield capacity for con- 


Chapter 6 “ 2 





1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


ventional, fixed-wing aircraft. Vertiports in cities would provide 
service from city center to city center, bypassing airports alto¬ 
gether. If successful, tiltrotor aircraft may eventually replace 
conventional regional/commuter aircraft on the short-haul 
routes that link airports near smaller cities and towns with large 
hub airports and major city centers. Vertiports promise to be 
less disruptive to local communities than wholesale airport run¬ 
way expansions. 

To integrate tiltrotor and other VSTOL aircraft into the 
aviation system and take advantage of their capability to land 
on other than a runway, an infrastructure must be developed 
that addresses the special needs of vertical flight. Vertiports and 
separate air traffic control procedures for instrument flight rules 
(IFR) must be developed that do not significantly affect conven¬ 
tional aircraft operations. 

6.3 The Next Generation of Aircraft 

The effects of next-generation aircraft need to be consid¬ 
ered in the long-range planning for airport expansion. For ex¬ 
ample, the world’s major aircraft manufacturers are developing 
plans for a 500- to 800-seat superjumbo jet intended for the 
very high density inter-city and long-range intercontinental 
routes that could support such a large aircraft. These new 
superjumbo jets would be double-deck aircraft weighing 1.2 
million pounds or more, with a wingspan of at least 260 feet, 
and a length of 260 or more feet. Compare this to a Boeing 
747-400, with a maximum takeoff weight of about 830,000 
pounds, a wingspan of 213 feet, and a length of 232 feet. 

And, it is not just the largest intercontinental airports that 
would be affected by new, larger aircraft. The Boeing 777 will 
be a widebody twin jet capable of carrying about 400 passen¬ 
gers for distances of up to 4,200 nautical miles (nm). The B- 
777 aircraft will have a wingspan of nearly 200 feet, and 
Boeing is considering an optional folding-wing design that 
would reduce the aircraft’s wingspan on the ground and permit 
the aircraft to operate at tight-geometry airports hke 
LaGuardia. In addition, the new aircraft will have a maximum 
gross takeoff weight of about 590,000 pounds, and later, 
stretched versions of the aircraft may have a maximum gross 
takeoff weight as high as 650,000 pounds. 

These new aircraft, then, will result in major new demands 
on airports. Their larger size, significantly greater weight, and 
large number of passengers would require redesigned terminals 
and gate areas, new ground support facilities, increased pave¬ 
ment strengths for runways, taxiways, and aprons, and wider 


Larger aircraft capable of carrying 
more passengers bring the econo¬ 
mies of scale that would enable 
airlines to cut costs and contend 
with congested airports that are 
limited in size and unable other¬ 
wise to expand their capacity. 


Chapter 6-3 




Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


1994 ACE Plan 


Marketplace solutions to airport 
capacity problems include the de¬ 
velopment of new hub airports, the 
expanded use of existing commer¬ 
cial service airports, the expanded 
use of reliever airports, the joint 
civilian and military use of existing 
military airfields, and the conver¬ 
sion of former military airfields to 
civilian use. 


taxiway separations. Larger aircraft capable of carrying more 
passengers bring the economies of scale that would enable air¬ 
lines to cut costs and contend with congested airports that are 
limited in size and unable otherwise to expand their capacity. 

6.4 Airport Expansion and the Local 
Community 

A community’s overall acceptance of airport expansion and 
increased airport activity is often predicated on the perception 
of aircraft noise, rather than actual noise levels. In order to 
generate community support for capacity increases, it is essen¬ 
tial that airport operators are seen by their communities as 
working to control noise levels and mitigate noise impacts. 
Curfews and other noise restrictions can be inconvenient for 
passenger carriers, but they create particular problems for air- 
cargo firms that must fly at night to provide morning delivery 
of packages and freight. In addition, cargo carriers tend to rely 
on older passenger aircraft that have been remodeled to handle 
cargo, and these aircraft often produce more noise than newer 
jets. Older Stage II aircraft are to be phased out and completely 
replaced by the much quieter Stage III aircraft by the year 2000. 
This will greatly reduce the area around an airport affected by 
aircraft noise and is likely to reduce local opposition to airport 
development. 

Airport development can generate additional jobs and air¬ 
port revenues, encourage land development, and otherwise 
stimulate economic growth. Information on this economic im¬ 
pact has proven useful in generating public support for pro¬ 
posed airport improvements, and airports must focus on their 
overall effect on the local economies. An economic impact 
analysis can provide an estimate of the economic significance of 
an airport to the surrounding area. Direct impact is related to 
specific projects, services, and facilities at an airport. Indirect 
impact is linked to the economic activities of off-site enter¬ 
prises serving airport users, such as hotels. 

Airlines and other airport users will seek solutions for a de- 
lay-problem airport when the delays there are no longer toler¬ 
able. But before such a decision is made, the solution must 
make operational and economic sense. Airlines conduct mar¬ 
keting surveys and feasibility studies to verify such things as the 
adequacy of the origin and destination market and the eco¬ 
nomic viability of their proposed investment. Airport authori¬ 
ties, local communities, and other interested members of the 
aviation industry can facilitate an airline’s decision process by 
conducting their own surveys and studies. But, in addition. 


Chapter 6-4 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


they must advertise and market within the industry not only 
the characteristics of their airport that make it a good choice 
for the airlines, but also the willingness of the local community 
to absorb the increased traffic. 

Examples of marketplace solutions to airport capacity prob¬ 
lems include the development of new hub airports, the ex¬ 
panded use of existing commercial service airports, the ex¬ 
panded use of reliever airports, the joint civilian and military 
use of existing military airfields, and the conversion of former 
military airfields to civilian use. 


6.4.1 New Hubs at Existing Airports 


As one solution to the growth in flight delays at traditional 
connecting hub airports, airlines may develop new hubs at ex¬ 
isting airports. A new connecting hub could produce delay sav¬ 
ings by diverting some of the growth that would otherwise oc¬ 
cur at nearby primary hub airports. Hub airports developed 
since airline deregulation have exhibited the following charac¬ 
teristics: 

• strong origin and destination market, 

• good geographic location, 

• expandable airport facilities, 

• multiple IFR approach capabilities, 

• strong local economy and availability of balanced work 
force, and 

• ability to accommodate existing/planned service. 


More than two dozen potential 
new hub airports have been identi¬ 
fied in the vicinity of airports with 
forecast delay problems. Each has 
the potential to permit multiple ap¬ 
proach streams under IFR. 


More than two dozen potential new hub airports have been 
identified that are located more than 50 miles from airports 
with forecast delay problems and have the potential runway ca¬ 
pacity to accommodate significantly increased airport opera¬ 
tions. Each has the potential to permit multiple approach 
streams under IFR. Hence, they meet the first, second, and 
fourth characteristics. Other airports may meet the third and 
fourth characteristics through appropriate capital investment. 
Additional analysis would be required to determine which air¬ 
ports have viable economies, both from the local and airline 
perspective, as well as the local support needed for expansion 
into a hub airport. Appendix I provides an example of the type 
of analysis that may be performed to determine the potential 
consequences of establishing a new hub airport. The example is 
based on A Case Study of Potential New Connecting Hub Air¬ 
ports, Report to Congress and looks at four airports, Huntsville 


Chapter 6-5 



Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


1994 ACE Plan 


International Airport, Port Columbus International Airport, 
Sacramento Metropolitan Airport, and Oklahoma City Will 
Rogers World Airport. 


6.4.2 Expanded Use of Existing 

Commercial Service Airports 


Expanded use of nearby airports 
that already have commercial ser¬ 
vice can ease congestion in a par¬ 
ticular market. 

This offers an ideal strategy for air¬ 
lines providing short-haul, regional 
service, particularly for an airline 
emphasizing point-to-point service. 


Expanded use of nearby airports that already have commer¬ 
cial service can ease capacity problems at primary hub airports 
by spreading commercial aircraft operations among additional 
airports near the primary airport. In contrast to new hubs, the 
expanded use of existing commercial service airports is prima¬ 
rily intended to relieve congestion in a particular market, not to 
constitute a market of its own. 

This offers an ideal strategy for airlines providing short- 
haul, regional service, particularly for an airline emphasizing 
point-to-point service rather than feeding passengers to the 
major carriers at the hub airports. The regional carrier can 
move into a nearby underutilized airport, where they can oper¬ 
ate at lower cost, avoid the congestion and costly delays caused 
by overcrowding, and avoid direct competition with the major 
carriers. 

For each of the 23 current delay-problem airports, a pre¬ 
liminary list of airports located in the vicinity and served by 
commercial air traffic, was compiled. This is shown in Table 6- 
1. A number of military airports and airports not currently 
served by commercial air traffic have been added to the list. As 
congestion becomes greater at the delay-problem airports, pas¬ 
sengers may choose to travel to the alternative airports. This 
traffic diversion would tend to decrease delays at the delay- 
problem airport. 


Chapter 6-6 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


Table 6-1. Preliminary List of Airports Located Near the 23 Delay-Problem Airports 


Delay-problem Supplemental 


Airport^ 


Airport 

Atlanta 

ATL 

Athens 

Hartsfield 


Macon 

Columbus (100 mi) 
Chattanooga, TN (100 mi) 

Boston 

BOS 

Manchester, NH 

Portland, ME 

Portsmouth, NH 

Providence, RI 

Worcester, MA 

Bedford, MA 

Ashville (100 mi) 

Charlotte 

CLT 

Hickory 

Greensboro (90 mi) 

Greer, SC (90 mi) 
Winston-Salem (60 mi) 
Columbia, S.C. (100 mi) 

Chicago 

ORD 

Aurora 

O’Hare 


Chicago Midway 

Meigs Field 

Rockford 

Waukegan 

West Chicago (Du Page) 
Wheeling 

Gary, IN 

NAS Glenview 

D alias- 

DFW 

NAS Fort Worth, Joint Reserve 

Ft. Worth 


Base (formerly Carswell AFB) 
Dallas-Love Field 

Denton 

Fort Worth Alliance 

Fort Worth Meacham 
McKinney 

Mesquite 

Waco (80 mi) 

Denver 

DEN 

Colorado Springs (80 mi) 

Detroit 

DTW 

Detroit City 

Flint 

Pontiac 

Lansing (80 mi) 

Toledo, OH (60 mi) 

Selfridge ANG 

Willow Run 

Windsor, Ontario, Canada 

Honolulu 

HNL 

Kailua 

Houston 

lAH 

Corpus Christ! 

Ellington 

Galveston 

Houston Hobby 

Los Angeles 

LAX 

Burbank 

Long Beach 

Ontario 

Oxnard 

Palmdale 

San Bernardino 

Santa Ana 

Miami 

MIA 

Ft. Lauderdale 

West Palm Beach 


Delay-problem Supplemental 


Airport^ 


Airport 

Minneapolis 

MSP 

St. Paul (Downtown) 

Mankato (60 mi) 

Rochester (77 mi) 

Eau Claire, WI (85 mi) 

St. Cloud (70 mi) 

New York 

JFK 

Farmingdale 

Islip/Long Island 
Stewart/Newburgh (60 mi) 
White Plains 

Newark 

EWR 

Trenton 

Stewart/Newburgh, NY (60 mi) 
White Plains, NY 

Atlantic City, NJ 

Morristown 

Essex County 

Teterboro 

Orlando 

MCO 

Daytona Beach 

Ft. Pierce (100 mi) 

Gainsville (100 mi) 

Melbourne (60 mi) 

Tampa (70 mi) 

Vero Beach (90 mi) 

Philadelphia 

PHL 

Allentown 

Lancaster (70 mi) 

Reading (60 mi) 

Willow Grove NAS 

Trenton, NJ 

Atlantic City, NJ 

Wilmington, DE 

Phoenix 

PHX 

Prescott (80 mi) 

Williams Gateway 

Tucson (110 mi) 

Pittsburgh 

PIT 

Johnstown 

Latrobe 

Morgantown, WV (60 mi) 

San Francisco 

SFO 

Concord 

Oakland 

San Jose 

Santa Rosa 

Moffett Field NAS 

Hamilton Field 

St. Louis 

STL 

Scott AFB 

Seattle 

SEA 

Everett/Paine Field 

McChord AFB 

Washington 

DCA 

Baltimore, MD 

Hagerstown, MD (60 mi) 
Charlottesville, VA (100 mi) 
Richmond, VA (100 mi) 
Andrews AFB 

Washington 

lAD 

Baltimore, MD 

Hagerstown, MD (60 mi) 
Charlottesville, VA (100 mi) 
Richmond, VA (100 mi) 
Andrews AFB 


t Airports having greater than 20,000 hours of delay for 
1993 as reported by FAA Office of Policy and Plans. 


Chapter 6-7 


Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


1994 ACE Plan 


6.4.3 Enhance Reliever and General 
Aviation (ga) Airport System 


The segregation of aircraft opera¬ 
tions by size and approach speed 
increases effective capacity at 
each airport type because re¬ 
quired time and distance separa¬ 
tions are reduced between planes 
of similar size. 


General Aviation (GA) provides access to more than 17,000 
facilities in the Nation’s air transportation system. By providing 
on-demand direct transportation to all of these locations, GA 
enhances overall system capacity in our NAS and extends access 
to millions of customers. 

In FY95, a group consisting of FAA and industry representa¬ 
tives will convene to review the current FAA airspace capacity 
plan and policies in determining whether general aviation 
should be recognized within those FAA documents as a system 
wide capacity “enhancer.” This effort will necessitate an inclu¬ 
sion of contemporary discussions of the “Free Flight” concept 
and its potential to enhance capacity in the national airspace 
system. The group will also explore the possibility of creating a 
national airports policy that seeks to maintain or increase the 
number of public access airports available to general aviation 
and to create a practical and viable system of reliever airports. 

Reliever and GA airports ease capacity problems at primary 
airports by attracting smaller/ slower aircraft away from delay- 
problem airports. The segregation of aircraft operations by size 
and approach speed increases effective capacity at each airport 
type because required time and distance separations are reduced 
between planes of similar size. 

The FAA provides assistance for construction and improve¬ 
ments at reliever airports under the Airport Improvement Pro¬ 
gram. The objective of this assistance is to increase utilization 
of reliever airports by building new relievers, improving the fa¬ 
cilities and navigational aids at existing relievers, and reducing 
the environmental impact on neighboring communities. Be¬ 
cause they serve primarily general aviation aircraft, reliever air¬ 
ports can be effective with significantly less extensive facilities 
than commercial service airports. 

Reliever airports can be expected to play significant roles in 
reducing congestion and delay at delay-problem airports, espe¬ 
cially those where small/slow aircraft constitute a significant 
portion of operations. Of the 32 airports forecast to exceed 
20,000 hours of annual aircraft delay in 2003 without further 
improvements, 14 have 15 percent or more GA operations and 
five of these have 25 percent or more GA operations.^ 


2. Based on Terminal Area Forecasts FY 1993-2005, FAA-APO-93-9, July 
1993, operations data for 1991. 


Chapter 6-8 


1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


6.4.4 Conversion of Closing Military 

Airfields and joint Use of Military 
Airfields 

As one part of its overall strategy to enhance aviation sys¬ 
tem capacity the FAA is pursuing a series of initiatives with the 
Department of Defense and state and local governments for 
the implementation of joint civilian and military use of existing 
military airfields and the conversion of closing military facilities 
to civilian use. 

Commercial service airports, particularly in large metro¬ 
politan areas, are experiencing congestion and delays on the 
airfield, in the terminals, and in ground access to the airport 
itself. In many cases, airport sponsors are unable to expand to 
develop the additional facilities needed to continue to provide 
quality service to air travelers and the airlines. Without addi¬ 
tional capacity, the increasing aircraft operations and passenger 
growth forecast for the future will result in greater delays, more 
costly operations, and less efficient passenger service. In addi¬ 
tion, airfield pavement designs will require capacity improve¬ 
ments and strengthening to accommodate the increasing num¬ 
ber of larger, heavier aircraft in the air carrier and general avia¬ 
tion fleet. System planning studies have been conducted by 
many metropolitan areas and state planning organizations in 
attempts to identify new sites for the construction of new air¬ 
ports or for capacity development at existing airports. 

Historically, the development of new airports and the con¬ 
struction of new runways and runway extensions at existing air¬ 
ports has offered the greatest potential for increasing aviation 
system capacity. These options for achieving major capacity in¬ 
creases are becoming more difficult due to surrounding com¬ 
munity development, environmental concerns, shortage of 
available adjacent property and funding required, lack of public 
support, rival commercial and residential interests, and other 
competing requirements. 

Within the past ten years, airport system planning and lo¬ 
cal governmental efforts have been successful in leading to the 
construction of only one major new commercial service airport, 
the new Denver International Airport. Other studies, in San 
Diego, Orange County south of Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, 
New York, Boston, and Miami, for example, have not resulted 
in identifying new airport sites or, very often, in developing 
support for major expansion of the existing air carrier airports. 

Recent changes in the world s political and military situa¬ 
tion, combined with efforts to reduce the Nations deficit, have 


As one part of its overall strategy 
to enhance aviation system capac¬ 
ity, the FAA is pursuing a series of 
initiatives with the Department of 
Defense and state and local gov¬ 
ernments for the implementation of 
joint civilian and military use of ex¬ 
isting military airfields and the con¬ 
version of closing military facilities 
to civilian use. 


Chapter 6-9 


Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


1994 ACE Plan 


resulted in plans to close a number of military airfields and pro¬ 
vided a one-time opportunity for State and local governments. 
Conversion of these military airfields into civil airports would 
provide significant aviation capacity gains with relatively small 
additional investments by the State and local governments. 
Most of these military airfields are designed to accommodate 
heavy wide-body aircraft and already have the 8,000 to 13,000 
foot runway lengths necessary to support long-haul operations. 

Currently, 36 major military airfields have become available 
for use as civil airports as a result of the Department of De¬ 
fense (DOD) 1988, 1991, and 1993 military base closures. In 
addition, several large parcels of military property adjacent to 
other civil airports have become available for expansion of these 
airports. If the airfield or other portions of the bases are not 
conveyed for public use, the military proposes to sell these areas 
and use the proceeds to assist them in the realignment and clo¬ 
sure of other facilities. Table 6-2 provides a listing of the po¬ 
tential civil role of closing military airfields, and Figure 6-1 
shows the location of these closing military airfields. 

Many of these airfields are conveniently located in the vi¬ 
cinity of congested metropolitan areas where the search for ma¬ 
jor new airports has been underway for years. Examples in¬ 
clude: the Miami area where Homestead Air Force Base (AFB) 
has become available; Orange County, California, in which El 
Toro Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) is located; Bergstrom 
AFB near Austin Texas, where the City had previously been 
planning to replace the Robert Mueller Municipal Airport with 
a new airport; Williams AFB near Phoenix; Pease AFB located 
60 miles north of Boston Logan, where it could provide service 
to the metropolitan area north of Boston; and Norton AFB near 
San Bernardino in the Los Angeles area. Some of the smaller 
military airfields available for conversion are ideal for use as re¬ 
liever airports relieving smalFslow aircraft operations from the 
nearby commercial airports serving scheduled air carrier opera¬ 
tions. 

It is anticipated that about two thirds of the 36 airfields 
have the potential to become general aviation reliever airports 
initially, and, in the longer term, about one-half of these air¬ 
ports will continue to develop and become commercial service 
airports. Many of the remaining airfields will become general 
aviation airports, with several of the more rural airfields con¬ 
verted to other than airport purposes. 

In addition to military airfield conversions to civil airports, 
there are about 21 military airfields now in operation accom¬ 
modating joint civil and military use. For the most part, these 
joint-use airfields provide primary service to the communities 


Chapter 6-10 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


and have a modest impact on system capacity. For example, in 
South Carolina, Charleston AFB provides primary commercial 
service for Charleston. Similarly, Myrtle Beach AFB, which is 
currently being transitioned to the Myrtle Beach Jetport, previ¬ 
ously provided primary commercial air service through joint 
use to a community that might not otherwise have had air car¬ 
rier access to the commercial system. Also, Dillingham Army 
Airfield (AAF), Hawaii, and Rickenbacker Air National Guard 
(ANG) Base, Columbus, Ohio, provide congestion relief to the 
airports at Honolulu International and Port Columbus Interna¬ 
tional Airports respectively. 


Chapter 6-11 



Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table 6-2. 

Potential Civil Role of Closing Military Airfields 


State 

Airfield 

Airfieid 

ID* 

Closure Closure 
List Date 

Community 

Near-Term Role** 

Alaska 

Adak NAS 

NUW 

93 

Aug 94 

Adak Island 

GA 

Arizona 

Williams AFB 

IWA 

91 

30 Sep 93 

Phoenix 

RL 

Arkansas 

Eaker AFB 

BYH 

91 

15 Dec 92 

Blytheville 

GA 

California 

Alameda NAS 

NGZ 

93 

Sep 97 

Oakland 

RL 


Castle AFB 

MER 

91 

30 Sep 95 

Merced 

GA 


El Toro MCAS 

NZJ 

93 

Sep 97 

Orange County 

RL/CM 


Fritzsche AAF 

OAR 

91 

Sep 95 

Monterey 

RL 


George AFB 

vcv 

88 

15 Dec 92 

Victorville 

GA/CM 


Hamilton AAF 

SRF 

88 

Apr 93 

San Francisco 

RL 


March AFB 

RIV 

93 

31 Mar 96 

Riverside 

RL 


Mather AFB 

MHR 

88 

30 Sep 93 

Sacramento 

RL 


Moffett NAS 

NUCL 

91 

Jul 94 

San Jose 

(nasa/usn) 


Norton AFB f 

SBD 

91 

31 Mar 94 

San Bernardino 

RL/CM 


Tustin MCAS 

NTK 

91 

Jul 97 

Orange County 

RL 

Florida 

Cecil Field NAS 

NZC 

93 

Oct 96 

Jacksonville 

rl/ga 


Homestead AFB 

HST 

93 

31 Mar 94 

Miami 

RL/GA 


MacDill AFB 

MCF 

91 

31 Mar 94 

Tampa 

(noaa/usaf) 

Guam 

Agana NAS f 

NGM 

93 

Apr 98 

Guam 

Guam Inti 

Hawaii 

Barbers Point NAS 

NAX 

93 

Sep 97 

Honolulu 

RL 

Illinois 

Chanute AFB 


88 

30 Sep 93 

Rantoul 

RL/GA 


Glenview NAS 

NBU 

93 

Sep 95 

Chicago 

GA 


O’Hare AF Reserve ORD 

93 

30 Sep 97 

Chicago 

O’Hare Int’l 

Indiana 

Grissom AFB 

GUS 

91 

30 Sep 94 

Peru 

GA 

Louisiana 

England AFB 

AEX 

91 

15 Dec 92 

Alexandria 

GA/PR 

Maine 

Loring AFB 

LIZ 

91 

30 Sep 94 

Limestone 


Maryland 

Tipton AAF 

FME 

88 

Apr 95 

Baltimore/D.C. 

RL 

Massachusetts 

Moore AAF 

AYE 

91 

Sep 95 

Boston 

RL/CM/PR 

Michigan 

Detroit NAF 

MTC 

93 

Sep 94 

Detroit 

(Selfridge AF Reserve) 


K.L Sawyer AFB 

SAW 

93 

30 Sep 95 

Marquette 

GA/CM 


Wurtsmith AFB 

osc 

91 

30 Jun 93 

Oscoda 

GA 

Midway Island 

Midway NAF 

NQM 

93 

Oct 93 

Midway Island 


Missouri 

Richards-Gebaur 

GVW 

91 

30 Sep 94 

Kansas City 

RL 

New Hampshire Pease AFB f 

PSM 

88 

31 Mar 91 

Portsmouth/Boston Pease Inti Trade Port 

New York 

Griffiss AFB 

RME 

93 

30 Sep 95 

Rome 

GA 


Plattsburgh AFB 

PBG 

93 

30 Sep 95 

Plattsburgh 

GA 

Ohio 

Rickenbacker ANG 

LCK 

91 

30 Sep 94 

Columbus 

RL 

Pennsylvania 

Warminster NADC 

NJP 

91 

Mar 96 

Philadelphia 

RL 

South Carolina 

Myrtle Beach AFB t MYR 

91 

31 Mar 93 

Myrtle Beach 

Myrtle Beach Jetport 

Tennessee 

Memphis NAS 

NQA 

93 

Oct 95 

Memphis 

RL 

Texas 

Bergstrom AFB 

BSM 

91 

30 Sep 93 

Austin 

PR 


Dallas NAS 

NBE 

93 

Oct 95 

Dallas 

GA 


Carswell AFB 

FWH 

91 

30 Sep 93 

Fort Worth 

(USN/AF Reserve) 


Chase NAS 

NIR 

91 

30 Sep 92 

Corpus Christ! 

GA 


* The airfield identifiers have been used in Figure 6—1 to indicate the location of these airfields. 

** Airport roles: PR = Primary CM = Commercial RL = Reliever GA = General Aviation 

t Military Airport Program (MAP) recipient 


Chapter 6-12 




Figure 6-1. Location of Closing Military Airfields in Relation to 
Airports Forecast to Exceed 20,000 Hours of Delay in 2003 


Chapter 6-13 


Puerto 














Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


1994 ACE Plan 


The most important first step in 
converting a closing military air¬ 
field or setting up a joint-use facil¬ 
ity is to establish the State or local 
government sponsorship for the 
proposed civil aviation operation. 


To assist in transitioning military airfields to civilian air¬ 
ports, the Military Airport Program (MAP), established as a 
funding set aside under the Airport Improvement Program 
(AIP), provides grant funding of airport master planning and 
capital development. The MAP allows the Secretary of Trans¬ 
portation to designate current or former military airfields for 
participation in the program. To participate, eligible airport 
sponsors apply to the FAA. In determining whether or not to 
designate a facility, the FAA will consider: (1) proximity to ma¬ 
jor metropolitan air carrier airports with current or projected 
high levels of delay; (2) capacity of existing airspace and traffic 
flow patterns in the metropolitan area; (3) the availability of lo¬ 
cal sponsors for civil development; (4) existing levels of opera¬ 
tion; (5) existing facilities; and (6) any other appropriate fac¬ 
tors. 

Twelve current or former military airports have been desig¬ 
nated thus far to participate in the MAP. These are: Stewart In¬ 
ternational Airport near Newburgh, New York; Ellington Field 
at Houston, Texas; Albuquerque International Airport, New 
Mexico; Scott Air Force Base, in Illinois; Myrtle Beach Air 
Force Base, in South Carolina; Agana International Airport, 
Guam; Manchester Municipal Airport, New Hampshire; Lin¬ 
coln Municipal Airport, Nebraska; Lardo International Air¬ 
port, Texas; Smyrna Airport, Tennessee; San Bernardino Inter¬ 
national Airport, California; and Pease International Trade 
Port, New Hampshire. Under the MAP, airports will receive 
funding for airport capital development, including rehabilitat¬ 
ing airport pavements, terminals, lighting systems, improving 
access roads, automobile parking facilities, airport master plan 
studies, and other eligible projects necessary to convert a mili¬ 
tary airfield to an active civil airport. 

The most important first step in converting a closing mili¬ 
tary airfield or setting up a joint-use facility is to establish the 
State or local government sponsorship for the proposed civil 
aviation operation. The conversion or joint use of military air¬ 
fields is not a panacea for aviation system capacity problems, 
but it is an important component in the strategy of the State 
and local governments and the FAA to maximize the safe utili¬ 
zation of the Nations aviation system. 


Chapter 6-14 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


6.4.5 Developing a Regional Airport 
System 


The ultimate challenge for many delay-problem airports in 
the country in their efforts to implement capacity-enhancing 
improvements is the availability and expense of additional land. 
With no room to build independent parallel runways or new 
taxiways, commercial cargo and maintenance facilities, access 
roads, or parking facilities, an airport is faced with steadily in¬ 
creasing delays and severe constraints on growth in air traffic. 
Taking into account the characteristics of the market involved, 
airport authorities with delay-problem airports may need to 
look to development of a regional airport system. 

In a regional airport system, various airports are identified 
to serve different roles and functions within the region. For ex¬ 
ample, one airport in the region may handle all or most of the 
international and long-haul traffic, while other airports handle 
the domestic and short-haul demand. 

There are variations of a regional airport system in use in 
many of the major metropolitan areas, including New York, 
Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Los Angeles, San 
Francisco, and Washington, D.C. This same concept has also 
been suggested in Boston and Seattle, with each proposing to 
introduce limited air carrier or commuter service at another air¬ 
port in the area, Laurence G. Hanscom Field in Bedford, MA, 
and Snohomish County Paine Field in Everett, WA. 

One study in Massachusetts demonstrated that develop¬ 
ment of scheduled air carrier service at the existing Hanscom 
Airport could be almost as effective as building a new airport in 
terms of relieving Boston-Logan. However, there is strong lo¬ 
cal opposition to this initiative, and consequently, there are no 
current proposals to develop scheduled, air carrier service at 
Hanscom. Current efforts are focusing instead on measures to 
enhance the role of existing air carrier airports servicing the 
outlying portions of the Logan market. Since the State has 
abandoned efforts to land bank a site for a new air carrier air¬ 
port, creating a more effective regional airport system is critical 
to meeting the future forecasted need for air travel in the 
greater Boston market area. 


Chapter 6-15 




Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


1994 ACE Plan 


The anticipated outcome of peak- 
hour pricing is an increase in the 
average number of passengers 
per flight through the use of larger 
aircraft and a decrease in general 
aviation and small commuter air¬ 
craft operations when demand is 
highest. 

Slot allocations will only be able 
to reduce delay by effectively 
"capping" the total number of op¬ 
erations at the airport. 


6.5 Demand Management 

Generally, demand management attempts to make more 
efficient use of existing airport capacity by increasing the aver¬ 
age number of passengers per aircraft operation and by making 
better use of under-utilized capacity in off-peak periods. Two 
methods of demand management are peak-hour pricing and 
slot allocation. 

Peak-hour pricing attempts to operate through market 
forces by increasing the price of using an airport when demand 
is highest. Peak-hour pricing is not meant to encourage the 
transfer of air carrier passenger flights to off-peak hours (the 
price differential required to induce a plane load of passengers 
to travel off peak would be tremendous), but rather to provide 
an economic disincentive for smaller aircraft (without creating 
any outright restriction) to using air carrier runways during 
critical peak hours. The anticipated outcome of peak-hour 
pricing is an increase in the average number of passengers per 
flight through the use of larger aircraft and a decrease in gen¬ 
eral aviation and small commuter aircraft operations when de¬ 
mand is highest. 

To redistribute air carrier passenger flights, it is generally 
more practical to use slot allocations rather than pricing 
mechanisms. However, as operations increase, there may not be 
enough extra capacity in the traditional off-peak time periods 
to accommodate additional operations without significant de¬ 
lays. At this point, slot allocations will only be able to reduce 
delay by effectively “capping” the total number of operations at 
the airport. This program can be cumbersome to execute both 
equitably and efficiently. Its use within this country has been 
restricted to the four high density traffic airports, Washington 
National, Chicago O’Hare, New York LaGuardia, and New 
York Kennedy, where delays have historically affected the per¬ 
formance of the National Airspace System (NAS). 

While programs to redistribute demand may be less expen¬ 
sive to the airport owner than physical improvements, any ac¬ 
tions that significantly raise the cost of air travel or limit the 
ability of the airlines to offer air service in response to passen¬ 
ger demand can have far-reaching imphcations on the region’s 
economy. Air travel is not an economic product in itself, but a 
utility used for other purposes, e.g., business or pleasure. When 
the cost of this utility increases, or its efficiency diminishes, 
those economic activities that depend on air travel will be nega¬ 
tively affected. Therefore, any analysis of demand management 
strategies has to carefully consider these impacts prior to its 
implementation. 


Chapter 6-16 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


Proponents of demand management cite concern for the 
economic inequities imposed by congested facilities. During 
periods of congestion, each additional flight creates delays in all 
other competing flights that far exceed the delay cost experi¬ 
enced by the passengers and airline from that one additional 
flight. Due to these “externalities,” the rational behavior of each 
airline in scheduling additional flights is in conflict with the 
collective interests of all users. Under these circumstances, de¬ 
mand management is viewed as necessary to maintain reason¬ 
able levels of cost and service at an airport. Demand manage¬ 
ment initiatives can also provide relief in a more timely manner 
than physical facility improvements. In that regard, they may 
be a useful “bridge” if, in the future, air travel demand increases 
at a rate that overwhelms the airport’s ability to provide the 
requisite facihties. 

The critical question is whether the premium prices that 
result directly or indirectly from demand management are suffl- 
ciently offset by savings in the costs associated with delay and 
congestion. The answer to this deceivingly simple question is 
usually quite complex and further complicated by the issue of 
who pays and who benefits. 


6.6 Intermodaiism 


Aviation is a part of the national transportation system. 
Each mode of transportation within the system has specific 
strengths and weaknesses. The transportation system cannot 
work effectively if critical segments are not connected. No mat¬ 
ter how good the individual parts of the system may be, the ef¬ 
fectiveness of the overall system depends on the connections a 
passenger or consignment of cargo can make in getting from 
origin to destination. 

Intermodaiism is a goal fostered under National Transpor¬ 
tation Policy and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi¬ 
ciency Act enacted in 1991. Its purpose is to improve the 
speed, reliability, and cost effectiveness of the country’s overall 
transportation system. One initial objective should be to devise 
an integrated transportation strategy to promote intermodal 
exchanges among highway, railway, waterway, and air transpor¬ 
tation. Intermodaiism is not intended to bypass the airports but 
to bring passengers to and from the airport and their point of 
origin and destination. 

In the past, the emphasis at most airports has been on 
ground access for passengers via roads and highways. Airport 
planning studies should begin to investigate the feasibility of 
subway or train stations on the airport with easy access to pas- 


The effectiveness of the overall 
transportation system depends on 
the connections a passenger or 
consignment of cargo can make in 
getting from origin to destination. 


Chapter 6-17 



Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


1994 ACE Plan 


High-speed rail is ideally suited for 
short-haul intercity trips and as a 
feeder for major hub airports, es¬ 
pecially in the future when new 
airports may have to be built in 
outlying locations. These high¬ 
speed trains could replace many 
of the short-haul and feeder flights 
that add to the congestion and de¬ 
lay at the major hub airports. 


senger terminals and of cargo-handling facilities that enable 
quick, easy transfer among trucks, trains, and airplanes. 

6.7 High-Speed Rail 

High-speed passenger trains, which will reach speeds of 
150 to 200 miles per hour, have been recommended or are be¬ 
ing studied for use in several densely populated intercity trans¬ 
portation corridors, for example, Washington-Philadelphia- 
New York-Boston in the Northeast; Portland-Seattle- 
Vancouver in the Pacific Northwest; and Dallas-Fort Worth- 
Houston-San Antonio in Texas. Figure 6-2 illustrates these 
and several other examples of high-speed rail corridors that 
have been tentatively proposed. High-speed rail appears to be a 
reasonable transportation alternative, especially for densely 
populated urban corridors and distances of less than 450 miles, 
that would serve to reduce airport congestion at many delay- 
problem airports. 

On the one hand, high-speed rail represents another com¬ 
petitive force for short-haul air traffic and can be seen as a 
threat to air carrier markets for trips shorter than 500 miles. 
Commercial air already provides a rapid intercity mass trans¬ 
portation system. On the other hand, high-speed rail is ideally 
suited for short-haul intercity trips and as a feeder for major 
hub airports, especially in the future when new airports may 
have to be built in oudying locations. These high-speed trains 
could replace many of the short-haul and feeder flights that 
add to the congestion and delay at the major hub airports. In 
fact, the airlines themselves may be partners in operating such 
trains, much like in Europe. Intercity high-speed rail systems 
would be designed for immediate access to the airport, with rail 
stations “inside” passenger terminals. In large metropolitan ar¬ 
eas, high-speed rail could also provide the connection among 
multiple airports serving the region, carrying passengers during 
the peak-hours of the day and perhaps carrying cargo to and 
from the airports during the off-peak hours at night. 


Chapter 6-18 



Figure 6-2. Intercity Corridors Tentatively Proposed for High-Speed Rail 


Chapter 6-19 










































Chapter 6: Marketplace Solutions 


1994 ACE Plan 


6.8 Telecommunications 


Recent advances in telecommuni¬ 
cations are often promoted as al¬ 
ternatives to business travel. 

These new technologies may also 
indirectly stimulate additional de¬ 
mand for business travel. 


Recent advances in telecommunications are often promoted 
as alternatives to business travel that can save money, facilitate 
rapid response, improve customer service, increase productivity, 
and be as effective, or nearly as effective, as being there in per¬ 
son. Video teleconferencing, facsimile, electronic data inter¬ 
change, high-speed networks, and other developments in tele¬ 
communications could affect the demand for passenger, over¬ 
night package, and cargo air transportation services, particu¬ 
larly as these new technologies mature, improve in quality, and 
become more cost-effective. 

According to a recent report,^ most of the studies that have 
analyzed the effects of these recent innovations in telecommu¬ 
nications have examined only the direct, negative impact the 
new technologies may have in substituting for certain types of 
business travel. The report points out that, although difficult to 
quantify now, it is reasonable to suggest that these new tech¬ 
nologies may also indirectly stimulate additional demand for 
business travel. As workers become more productive and com¬ 
panies more efficient, “cost savings and productivity gains will 
enable a significantly higher number of companies to sell their 
products and services in areas not targeted before due to higher 
operating costs.” 


3. making connections: how telecommunications technologies will affect business and 
leisure air travel^ prepared for the Federal Aviation Administration, Office 
of Aviation Policy, Plans, and Management Analysis, by Apogee Research, 
Inc., February 1994. 


Chapter 6-20 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 7: Summary 


Chapter 7 

Summary 


The Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan is intended to 
be a comprehensive “ground-up” view of aviation system re¬ 
quirements and development, starting at the airport level and 
extending to terminal airspace, en route airspace, and airspace 
and traffic flow management. The first step in this problem¬ 
solving exercise is problem definition. 

This plan defines the capacity problem in terms of flight 
delays, rather than dealing with a more abstract “definition of 
capacity.” While it is relatively simple to compute an airport’s 
hourly throughput capacity (the number of flight operations 
which can be handled under IFR or VFR for a given runway op¬ 
erating configuration), that throughput can change each hour 
as weather, aircraft fleet mix, and runway configurations 
change. Annualizing airport capacity is thus a difficult task. 

In 1993, 23 of the top 100 airports each exceeded 20,000 
hours of airline flight delays. If no improvements in capacity 
are made, the number of airports which could exceed 20,000 
hours of annual aircraft delay in the year 2003 is projected to 
grow from 23 to 32. 

While it is common for demand to exceed hourly capacity 
at some airports, there are ways of accommodating that de¬ 
mand. For example, air traffic management can regulate depar¬ 
tures and slow down en route traffic, so flights are shifted into 
times of less congestion. However, this is only a temporary so¬ 
lution, because, as traffic increases at a given airport, there will 
be fewer off-peak hours into which flights might be shifted. 

There are several techniques under investigation to manage 
demand at delay-problem airports. One is to improve the re¬ 
liever and general aviation (GA) airport system so that small 
aircraft prefer to use them. There could be significant reduction 
in flight delays if a percentage of small/slow aircraft operations 
shifted to reliever airports. However, some of the forecast de¬ 
lay-problem airports have a low percentage of small aircraft op¬ 
erations. Those airports are largely “relieved,” and a further re¬ 
duction in the operations of smaU/slow aircraft would be of 
marginal significance in the reduction of flight delays. 

Having first identified forecast delay-problem airports, this 
plan next attempts to document planned or technologically fea¬ 
sible capacity development at those airports. The FAA co-spon- 
sors airport capacity design team studies at major airports to 


Chapter 7-1 




Chapter 7: Summary 


1994 ACE Plan 


assess how airport development and new technology could “op¬ 
timize” capacity on a site-specific basis. Airport capacity design 
team studies have been completed at Albuquerque, Atlanta, 
Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, 
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Honolulu, Houston Interconti¬ 
nental, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Memphis, Mi¬ 
ami, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Nashville, New Orleans, New¬ 
port NewsAViUiamsburg, Norfolk, Oakland, Orlando, Phila¬ 
delphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Raleigh-Durham, Richmond, St. 
Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Francisco, San Jose, 
San Juan, Seattle-Tacoma, and Washington Dulles. 

Moving from “the ground up,” this plan identifies new ter¬ 
minal airspace procedures which will increase capacity for exist¬ 
ing or new runway configurations. Of the top 100 airports, 9 
could benefit from independent parallel approaches using the 
Final Monitor Aid (FMA) with current radar systems, 4 could 
benefit from independent parallel approaches to triple and qua¬ 
druple runways using current radar systems, 13 could benefit 
from simultaneous operations on wet intersecting runways, 45 
could benefit from improved operations on parallel runways 
separated by less than 2,500 feet, 9 could benefit from depen¬ 
dent approaches to three parallel runways, and 38 could benefit 
from independent converging approaches . Demonstration pro¬ 
grams have been completed or are underway for these new ap¬ 
proach procedures. 

Some of the new approach procedures and airport capacity 
projects require new technology and new systems and equip¬ 
ment. This plan outlines the progress of FAA RE&D and F&E 
programs currently under way to provide that new technology. 

Many of the technology programs are designed to reduce 
the capacity differential between IFR and VER operations. De¬ 
lays attributable to weather (resulting in large part from the dif¬ 
ference in VER and IFR separation standards) accounted for 72 
percent of all flights delayed 15 minutes or more in 1993. Sig¬ 
nificant gains in capacity may be achieved with the use of new 
electronic guidance and control equipment if two or three flight 
arrival streams can be maintained in IFR, rather than being re¬ 
duced to one or two arrival streams. These programs are the 
Precision Runway Monitor (PRM), Converging Runway Dis¬ 
play Aid (CRDA), Triple and Quadruple Instrument Ap¬ 
proaches, and Global Positioning System (GPS). 

Some of the new technology programs are designed to pro¬ 
vide more information to air traffic controllers, such as the 
Center-TRACON Automation System (CTAS), or to pilots, such 
as the Traffic Alert Collision and Avoidance System (TCAS), 
with improved visual displays and non-voice communications. 


Chapter 7-2 



1994 ACE Plan 


Chapter 7: Summary 


Those programs may not show as large an increase in capacity 
as those programs providing multiple flight arrival and depar¬ 
ture streams, but they are significant nonetheless. 

Some of the technology programs are designed to improve 
the efficiency of aircraft movement on the airport surface. The 
Airport Surface Traffic Automation (ASTA) program, for ex¬ 
ample, will expedite surface movement while reducing the 
number of runway incursions. 

Some of the technology programs are computer simulation 
tools to help in airfield and airspace analysis. For example, the 
Airport and Airspace Simulation Model (SIMMOD), National 
Airspace Performance Analysis Capability (NASPAC), Sector 
Design Analysis Tool (SDAT), and Terminal Airspace Visual¬ 
ization Tool (TAVT) will help in the evaluation of various alter¬ 
natives. Some technology programs are designed to “optimize” 
the aviation system through better planning and improved pre¬ 
diction capabihty in a laboratory environment such as the Na¬ 
tional Simulation Capability (NSC). 

The “ground up” view encompasses en route airspace. This 
plan outlines programs designed to increase en route airspace 
capacity, including Automated En Route Air Traffic Control 
(AERA), Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS), Auto¬ 
matic Dependent Surveillance (ADS), and Oceanic Display and 
Planning System (ODAPS). 

Airspace capacity design team projects have been estab¬ 
lished to analyze and optimize airspace procedures. Projects 
have been accomplished in Los Angeles, Dallas-Ft. Worth, 
Chicago, Kansas City, Houston/Austin, Oakland, New York, 
Jacksonville, Miami, and Atlanta. Results summaries are in¬ 
cluded in this plan. 

From a “ground up” view, after optimizing existing airport 
capacity, terminal airspace procedures, and en route airspace ca¬ 
pacity using new technology, the next level is adding “reliever” 
airports and “supplemental” airports for additional aviation sys¬ 
tem capacity. “Supplemental” airports are existing commercial 
service airports that could act as reliever airports for delay- 
problem airports. The FAA is also pursuing initiatives for the 
joint civilian and military use of current military airfields and 
the conversion of former military air bases to civilian use for 
capacity enhancement to the overall aviation system. 

The largest capacity gains come from building new airports 
and new or extended runways at existing airports. One such 
project is the construction of a new international airport at 
Denver. Construction began in late 1989. The initial phase will 
consist of five runways, and is scheduled to open in 1995. In 
1992, Colorado Springs completed construction of a new par- 


Chapter 7-3 



Chapter 7: Summary 


1994 ACE Plan 


allel runway, and Nashville and Washington Dulles completed 
runway extensions. In 1993, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne 
County completed construction of a new parallel runway, and 
runway extensions were completed at DaUas-Fort Worth, San 
Jose, Kailua-Kono Keahole, and Islip Long Island Mac Arthur. 
In 1993, Salt Lake City and Memphis began construction of 
independent parallel runways, and Louisville Standiford Field 
began construction of two independent parallel runways. In 
1994, Kansas City should complete construction of a new inde¬ 
pendent parallel runway. 

Of the top 100 airports, 60 have proposed new runways or 
extensions to existing runways. Of the 23 delay-problem air¬ 
ports in 1993,15 are in the process of constructing or planning 
the construction of new runways or extensions to existing run¬ 
ways. Of the 32 delay-problem airports forecast for the year 
2003, 24 propose to build new runways or runway extensions. 
The total anticipated cost of completing these new runways 
and runway extensions exceeds $9.0 billion. 

While much has been done and more is planned to increase 
system-wide capacity, it should be noted that the FAAs re¬ 
sources are limited. The demand for Facilities and Equipment 
(F&E) and Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds far ex¬ 
ceeds availability. However, the FAA will continue to explore 
innovative methods of increasing system capacity. 

System capacity must continue to grow in order to enable 
the air transportation industry to maintain the same level of 
service quality and allow airline competition to continue. In the 
dozen years since airline deregulation, real air fares have de¬ 
clined. Both the quality and cost of air service are strongly tied 
to aviation system capacity and will continue to show favorable 
trends only if aviation system capacity continues to grow to 
meet demand. 


Chapter 7-4 




Aviation Capacity Enhancement 


Appendices 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


Appendix A 

Aviation Statistics 


Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1991 and 1992.A-2 

Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1992 and Forecast 2005.A-5 

Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1992 and Forecast 2005 .A-8 

Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1991 to 1992.A-11 

Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1991 to 1992.A-14 

Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements.A-17 

Table A-7. Total IFR Aircraft Handled at ARTCCs .A-22 

Table A-8. Percentage of Operations Delayed 15 Minutes or More.A-23 

Figure A-1. Traffic Handled by ARTCCs, FY91 and FY92.A-20 

Figure A-2. Traffic Handled by ARTCCs, FY92 and Forecast FY05.A-21 


Appendix A-1 













Appendix A; Aviation Statistics 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1991 and 1992^ 


Airport Enplanements Operations 


City-Airport 

ID 

Rank 

FY91 

FY92 

FY91 

FY92 

FY93 

Chicago O’Hare Int’l 

ORD 

1 

27,827,241 

29,986,963 

808,759 

838,093 

851,865 

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l 

DFW 

2 

24,092,801 

25,963,239 

731,070 

763,372 

789,183 

Los Angeles Int’l 

LAX 

3 

22,519,698 

22,911,585 

660,680 

678,398 

681,845 

William B. Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l 

ATL 

4 

18,886,533 

20,966,165 

639,698 

611,889 

655,640 

San Francisco Int’l 

SFO 

5 

15,186,626 

15,257,138 

435,309 

424,829 

423,404 

Denver Stapleton Int’l 

DEN 

6 

13,270,540 

14,476,601 

491,275 

499,001 

552,238 

New York John F Kennedy Int’l 

JFK 

7 

12,577,222 

13,363,580 

304,315 

328,528 

351,205 

Miami Int’l 

MIA 

8 

12,492,320 

12,587,255 

481,709 

486,222 

527,545 

Newark Int’l 

EWR 

9 

11,050,061 

11,967,280 

381,850 

403,978 

431,944 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 

DTW 

10 

10,354,655 

10,986,668 

390,863 

413,544 

460,009 

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l 

PHX 

11 

11,111,486 

10,958,400 

499,157 

487,615 

520,403 

Boston Logan Int’l 

BOS 

12 

10,338,977 

10,641,027 

440,715 

482,582 

495,347 

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l 

MSP 

13 

9,770,403 

10,639,045 

382,856 

404,243 

442,341 

Lambert St. Louis Int’l 

STL 

14 

9,621,236 

10,476,785 

412,539 

429,473 

441,142 

Honolulu Int’l 

HNL 

15 

10,113,891 

10,220,760 

393,709 

413,725 

365,195 

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l 

LAS 

16 

9,653,154 

10,038,181 

398,637 

407,668 

440,393 

Orlando Int’l 

MCO 

17 

8,839,819 

9,989,092 

275,157 

294,387 

327,199 

New York LaGuardia 

LGA 

18 

9,788,285 

9,751,311 

332,930 

337,279 

335,071 

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l 

PIT 

19 

8,343,024 

9,350,221 

386,260 

421,903 

419,581 

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l 

CLT 

20 

8,425,447 

9,099,577 

440,956 

466,351 

446,315 

Houston Intercontinental 

lAH 

21 

8,452,340 

8,977,522 

310,404 

320,234 

352,340 

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l 

SEA 

22 

7,934,250 

8,773,365 

340,411 

346,180 

339,968 

Philadelphia Int’l 

PHL 

23 

7,423,013 

7,850,375 

382,646 

377,033 

390,736 

Washington National 

DCA 

24 

7,219,161 

7,331,346 

297,559 

312,014 

315,912 

Salt Lake City Int’l 

SLC 

25 

5,800,044 

6,510,001 

301,755 

316,783 

324,595 

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field 

SAN 

26 

5,617,219 

5,923,072 

206,424 

214,844 

209,267 

Greater Cincinnati Int’l 

CVG 

27 

5,044,813 

5,780,241 

297,963 

304,214 

306,811 

Washington Dulles Int’l 

lAD 

28 

5,407,070 

5,308,389 

267,007 

287,111 

277,483 

Nashville Int’l 

BNA 

29 

4,300,568 

5,068,011 

274,139 

302,030 

318,886 

Raleigh-Durham Int’l 

RDU 

30 

4,640,334 

4,939,336 

270,534 

289,462 

294,006 

Tampa Int’l 

TPA 

31 

4,748,930 

4,793,304 

233,650 

229,470 

240,425 

Baltimore-Washington Int’l 

BWI 

32 

4,966,257 

4,370,829 

282,320 

265,844 

261,674 

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l 

CLE 

33 

3,885,103 

4,266,092 

244,626 

237,216 

247,502 

San Juan Luis Munoz Marin Int’l 

sju 

34 

4,012,422 

4,192,629 

200,292 

205,560 

180,749 

Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l 

FLL 

35 

3,960,913 

4,109,796 

209,752 

204,183 

217,786 

Houston William P. Hobby 

HOU 

36 

3,781,702 

4,008,376 

267,199 

242,999 

239,634 

Memphis Int’l 

MEM 

37 

3,932,939 

3,958,432 

321,814 

344,655 

337,608 

San Jose Int’l 

SJC 

38 

3,443,484 

3,775,332 

336,928 

342,918 

312,399 

Kansas City Int’l 

MCI 

39 

3,482,600 

3,697,821 

168,193 

176,754 

184,848 

Portland Int’l 

PDX 

40 

3,178,617 

3,589,361 

264,854 

269,445 

280,263 

New Orleans Int’l 

MSY 

41 

3,255,817 

3,340,961 

152,126 

137,373 

141,384 

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l 

OAK 

42 

3,013,384 

3,186,437 

413,916 

419,233 

439,214 

Indianapolis Int’l 

IND 

43 

2,925,853 

3,139,728 

234,045 

247,553 

238,789 


1. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1992 enplanements, based on preliminary data intended for the FAAs annual report. 
Terminal Area Forecasts. 


Appendix A - 2 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix A; Aviation Statistics 


Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1991 and 1992’ 


Airport Enplanements Operations 


City-Airport 

ID 

Rank 

FY91 

FY92 

FY91 

FY92 

FY93 

Ontario Intd 

ONT 

44 

2,872,927 

3,042,508 

156,306 

152,935 

152,914 

Dallas-Love Field 

DAL 

45 

2,794,424 

2,944,942 

208,015 

212,049 

212,854 

Santa Ana John Wayne 

SNA 

46 

2,636,331 

2,769,936 

550,602 

557,442 

494,378 

San Antonio Int’l 

SAT 

47 

2,597,869 

2,730,976 

213,910 

210,063 

219,305 

Albuquerque Intd 

ABQ, 

48 

2,458,353 

2,626,486 

211,561 

211,601 

209,567 

Sacramento Metropolitan 

SMF 

49 

2,175,686 

2,552,734 

152,161 

162,995 

169,272 

Palm Beach Int’l 

PBI 

50 

2,524,206 

2,514,095 

223,775 

225,784 

230,903 

Kahului 

OGG 

51 

2,167,932 

2,385,649 

181,780 

179,808 

173,002 

Port Columbus Intd 

CMH 

52 

1,698,021 

2,358,521 

213,723 

224,598 

217,049 

Bradley Int’l 

BDL 

53 

2,232,166 

2,297,791 . 

171,063 

175,109 

166,859 

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal 

AUS 

54 

2,051,531 

2,169,135 

182,831 

186,796 

188,026 

Milwaukee General Mitchell Int’l 

MKE 

55 

2,043,068 

2,157,169 

205,587 

202,286 

198,529 

Chicago Midway 

MDW 

56 

3,241,851 

2,029,124 

301,690 

184,000 

189,755 

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena 

BUR 

57 

1,843,247 

1,913,912 

229,492 

214,361 

207,460 

Reno Cannon Int’l 

RNO 

58 

1,676,197 

1,895,183 

160,107 

161,839 

162,441 

El Paso Int’l 

ELP 

59 

1,671,354 

1,702,205 

164,300 

159,710 

151,284 

Fort Myers SW Florida Regional 

RSW 

60 

1,708,824 

1,692,442 

66,631 

62,578 

66,004 

Anchorage Int’l 

ANC 

61 

1,592,094 

1,691,428 

228,432 

236,719 

218,279 

Greater Buffalo Int’l 

BUF 

62 

1,631,868 

1,628,534 

128,205 

136,043 

142,136 

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World 

OKC 

63 

1,482,882 

1,543,566 

148,712 

163,336 

142,492 

Tulsa Int’l 

TUL 

64 

1,420,331 

1,459,526 

187,830 

196,835 

188,009 

Jacksonville Int’l 

JAX 

65 

1,277,495 

1,333,935 

155,234 

146,436 

129,683 

Tucson Int’l 

TUS 

66 

1,218,426 

1,254,597 

234,872 

235,309 

228,877 

Norfolk Int’l 

ORF 

67 

1,266,060 

1,251,548 

142,742 

138,084 

134,564 

Guam Agana Field 

NGM 

68 

1,112,628 

1,233,022 

— 

— 

69,362 

Greater Rochester Int’l 

ROC 

69 

1,160,582 

1,159,306 

182,613 

194,764 

188,072 

Providence Green State 

PVD 

70 

1,108,383 

1,120,491 

151,994 

146,937 

125,442 

Syracuse Hancock Int’l 

SYR 

71 

1,186,994 

1,120,011 

182,216 

176,567 

180,936 

Lihue 

LIH 

72 

1,259,368 

1,111,730 

109,903 

123,105 

55,194 

Dayton Int’l 

DAY 

73 

1,975,478 

1,099,090 

192,712 

149,879 

132,234 

Omaha Eppley Airfield 

OMA 

74 

1,104,414 

1,085,448 

164,008 

155,058 

143,739 

Little Rock Adams Field 

LIT 

75 

977,062 

1,043,736 

140,255 

162,439 

171,399 

Louisville Standiford Field 

SDF 

76 

1,001,745 

1,036,889 

158,050 

156,083 

155,941 

Kailua-Kona Keahole 

KOA 

77 

996,564 

1,022,344 

57,553 

61,172 

60,393 

Albany County 

ALB 

78 

976,174 

1,011,344 

156,448 

162,225 

160,587 

Birmingham 

BHM 

79 

967,754 

981,171 

184,707 

175,986 

168,074 

Richmond Int’l 

RIC 

80 

872,943 

954,165 

141,300 

145,079 

154,925 

Greensboro Piedmont Triad Int’l 

GSO 

81 

854,572 

924,267 

137,275 

130,026 

126,446 

Spokane Int’l 

GEG 

82 

797,892 

922,609 

111,912 

124,506 

122,360 

Sarasota Bradenton 

SRQ. 

83 

923,212 

882,365 

173,740 

161,749 

152,722 

Des Moines Int’l 

DSM 

84 

718,927 

715,587 

144,952 

139,135 

128,797 

Colorado Springs Municipal 

COS 

85 

624,431 

712,144 

189,195 

228,714 

246,732 

Hilo Int’l 

ITO 

86 

667,847 

703,736 

89,252 

89,284 

91,903 


1. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1992 enplanements, based on preliminary data intended for the FAAs annual report, 
Terminal Area Forecasts. 


Appendix A - 3 



Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1991 and 1992’ 


Airport Enplanements Operations 


City-Airport 

ID 

Rank 

FY91 

FY92 

FY91 

FY92 

FY93 

Grand Rapids Kent County Int’l 

GRR 

87 

667,456 

699,654 

171,425 

152,260 

150,313 

Harrisburg Int’l 

MDT 

88 

598,095 

663,456 

101,744 

95,916 

86,427 

Boise Air Terminal 

BOI 

89 

585,031 

647,554 

152,746 

161,434 

155,166 

Charleston AFB Int’l 

CHS 

90 

640,775 

645,762 

131,444 

135,599 

114,427 

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson 

TYS 

91 

576,502 

628,219 

152,638 

130,640 

130,368 

Wichita Mid-Continent 

ICT 

92 

559,966 

602,048 

173,722 

178,853 

174,527 

Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas (VI) 

STT 

93 

602,373 

583,817 

107,563 

108,796 

105,217 

Lubbock Int’l 

LBB 

94 

564,603 

583,156 

122,130 

113,035 

103,112 

Portland Int’l Jetport 

PWM 

95 

550,953 

569,775 

111,834 

117,121 

126,353 

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg 

GSP 

96 

529,573 

553,026 

60,388 

60,561 

56,855 

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur 

ISP 

97 

556,599 

550,762 

224,691 

202,008 

195,198 

Dane County Regional 

MSN 

98 

469,644 

549,723 

136,093 

140,890 

141,946 

Saipan Int’l 

GSN 

99 

468,490 

548,170 

— 

—- 

21,211 

Midland Int’l 

MAE 

100 

538,689 

532,202 

92,393 

92,464 

93,294 


Totals: 1991 Enplanements.450,169,114 

1992 Enplanements. 473,664,350 

1991 Operations.24,793,458 

1992 Operations...25,095,189 

1993 Operations. 25,293,458 


1. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1992 enplanements, based on preliminary data intended for the FAAs annual report. 
Terminal Area Forecasts. 


Appendix A - 4 








1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1992 and Forecast 2005^ 


City-Airport 

Airport 

ID 

Rank 

Enplanements 

FY92 FY2005 

% Growth 

Chicago O’Hare Int’l 

ORD 

1 

29,986,963 

46,991,000 

56.7 

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l 

DFW 

2 

25,963,239 

44,681,000 

72.1 

Los Angeles Int’l 

LAX 

3 

22,911,585 

32,262,000 

40.8 

William B. Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l 

ATL 

4 

20,966,165 

28,279,000 

34.9 

San Francisco Int’l 

SFO 

5 

15,257,138 

26,761,000 

75.4 

Denver Stapleton Int’l ^ 

DEN 

6 

14,476,601 

27,685,000 

91.2 

New York John R Kennedy Int’l 

JFK 

7 

13,363,580 

18,512,000 

38.5 

Miami Int’l 

MIA 

8 

12,587,255 

20,001,000 

58.9 

Newark Int’l 

EWR 

9 

11,967,280 

20,786,000 

73.7 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 

DTW 

10 

10,986,668 

18,949,000 

72.5 

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l 

PHX 

11 

10,958,400 

19,251,000 

75.7 

Boston Logan Int’l 

BOS 

12 

10,641,027 

17,129,000 

61.0 

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l 

MSP 

13 

10,639,045 

16,466,000 

54.8 

Lambert St. Louis Int’l 

STL 

14 

10,476,785 

18,300,000 

74.7 

Honolulu Int’l 

HNL 

15 

10,220,760 

13,986,000 

36.8 

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l 

LAS 

16 

10,038,181 

18,349,000 

82.8 

Orlando Int’l 

MCO 

17 , 

^ 9,989,092 

16,545,000 

65.6 

New York LaGuardia 

LGA 

18 

] 9,751,311 

14,185,000 

45.5 

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l 

PIT 

19 

9,350,221 

15,563,000 

66.4 

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l 

CLT 

20 

9,099,577 

14,245,000 

56.5 

Houston Intercontinental 

lAH 

21 

8,977,522 

13,348,000 

48.7 

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l 

SEA 

22 

8,773,365 

13,916,000 

58.6 

Philadelphia Int’l 

PHL 

23 

7,850,375 

13,397,000 

70.7 

Washington National 

DCA 

24 

7,331,346 

8,774,000 

19.7 

Salt Lake City Int’l 

SLC 

25 

6,510,001 

9,881,000 

51.8 

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field 

SAN 

26 

5,923,072 

10,445,000 

76.3 

Greater Cincinnati Int’l 

CVG 

27 

5,780,241 

12,256,000 

112.0 

Washington Dulles Int’l 

lAD 

28 

5,308,389 

10,871,000 

104.8 

Nashville Int’l 

BNA 

29 

5,068,011 

8,215,000 

62.1 

Raleigh-Durham Int’l 

RDU 

30 

4,939,336 

10,323,000 

109.0 

Tampa Int’l 

TPA 

31 

4,793,304 

9,059,000 

89.0 

Baltimore-Washington Int’l 

BWI 

32 

4,370,829 

7,258,000 

66.1 

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l 

CLE 

33 

4,266,092 

5,984,000 

40.3 

San Juan Luis Munoz Marin Int’l 

SJU 

34 

4,192,629 

7,231,000 

72.5 

Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l 

FLL 

35 

4,109,796 

8,131,000 

97.8 

Houston William P. Hobby 

HOU 

36 

4,008,376 

5,202,000 

29.8 

Memphis Int’l 

MEM 

37 

3,958,432 

7,311,000 

84.7 

San Jose Int’l 

SJC 

38 

3,775,332 

7,043,000 

86.6 

Kansas City Int’l 

MCI 

39 

3,697,821 

6,828,000 

84.6 

Portland Int’l 

PDX 

40 

3,589,361 

5,429,000 

51.3 

New Orleans Int’l 

MSY 

41 

3,340,961 

5,951,000 

78.1 

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l 

OAK 

42 

3,186,437 

4,379,000 

37.4 


2. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1992 enplanements, based on preliminary data intended for the FAA s annual report, 
TermmalArea Forecasts. 

3. Assumes development of a new airport at Denver and increased hubbing activity in 1993-1995. 


Appendix A - 5 


Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1992 and Forecast 2005^ 

Airport Enplanements 


City-Airport 

ID 

Rank 

FY92 

FY2005 

% Growth 

Indianapolis Int’l 

IND 

43 

3,139,728 

4,401,000 

40.2 

Ontario Intd 

ONT 

44 

3,042,508 

9,069,000 

198.1 

Dallas-Love Field 

DAL 

45 

2,944,942 

4,434,000 

50.6 

Santa Ana John Wayne 

SNA 

46 

2,769,936 

4,903,000 

77.0 

San Antonio Int’l 

SAT 

47 

2,730,976 

3,879,000 

42.0 

Albuquerque Int’l 

ABa 

48 

2,626,486 

4,261,000 

62.2 

Sacramento Metropolitan 

SMF 

49 

2,552,734 

5,036,000 

97.3 

Palm Beach Int’l 

PBI 

50 

2,514,095 

4,498,000 

78.9 

Kahului 

OGG 

51 

2,385,649 

3,399,000 

42.5 

Port Columbus Int’l 

CMH 

52 

2,358,521 

3,326,000 

41.0 

Bradley Int’l 

BDL 

53 

2,297,791 

3,820,000 

66.2 

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal 

AUS 

54 

2,169,135 

4,740,000 

118.5 

Milwaukee General Mitchell Int’l 

MKE 

55 

2,157,169 

4,367,000 

102.4 

Chicago Midway 

MDW 

56 

2,029,124 

3,287,000 

62.0 

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena 

BUR 

57 

1,913,912 

2,553,000 

33.4 

Reno Cannon Int’l 

RNO 

58 

1,895,183 

2,820,000 

48.8 

El Paso Int’l 

ELP 

59 

1,702,205 

2,633,000 

54.7 

Fort Myers SW Florida Regional 

RSW 

60 

1,692,442 

3,086,000 

82.3 

Anchorage Int’l 

ANC 

61 

1,691,428 

2,538,000 

50.1 

Greater Buffalo Int’l 

BUF 

62 

1,628,534 

2,696,000 

65.5 

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World 

OKC 

63 

1,543,566 

2,833,000 

83.5 

Tulsa Int’l 

TUL 

64 

1,459,526 

2,278,000 

56.1 

Jacksonville Int’l 

JAX 

65 

1,333,935 

2,386,000 

78.9 

Tucson Int’l 

TUS 

66 

1,254,597 

2,458,000 

95.9 

Norfolk Int’l 

ORF 

67 

1,251,548 

2,161,000 

72.7 

Guam Agana Field 

NGM 

68 

1,233,022 

— 

— 

Greater Rochester Int’l 

ROC 

69 

1,159,306 

2,051,000 

76.9 

Providence Green State 

PVD 

70 

1,120,491 

1,495,000 

33.4 

Syracuse Hancock Int’l 

SYR 

71 

1,120,011 

1,960,000 

75.0 

Lihue 

LIH 

72 

1,111,730 

1,797,000 

61.6 

Dayton Int’l 

DAY 

73 

1,099,090 

2,415,000 

119.7 

Omaha Eppley Airfield 

OMA 

74 

1,085,448 

1,725,000 

58.9 

Little Rock Adams Field 

LIT 

75 

1,043,736 

1,604,000 

53.7 

Louisville Standiford Field 

SDF 

76 

1,036,889 

1,748,000 

68.6 

Kailua-Kona Keahole 

KOA 

77 

1,022,344 

1,771,000 

73.2 

Albany County 

ALB 

78 

1,011,344 

1,640,000 

62.2 

Birmingham 

BHM 

79 

981,171 

1,595,000 

62.6 

Richmond Int’l 

RIC 

80 

954,165 

1,684,000 

76.5 

Greensboro Piedmont Triad Int’l 

GSO 

81 

924,267 

1,462,000 

58.2 

Spokane Int’l 

GEG 

82 

922,609 

1,626,000 

76.2 

Sarasota Bradenton 

sRa 

83 

882,365 

1,356,000 

53.7 

Des Moines Int’l 

DSM 

84 

715,587 

1,220,000 

70.5 

Colorado Springs Municipal 

COS 

85 

712,144 

1,256,000 

76.4 


2. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1992 enplanements, based on preliminary data intended for the FAA’s annual report, 
Terminal Area Forecasts, 


Appendix A - 6 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1992 and Forecast 2005^ 

Airport Enplanements 


City-Airport 

ID 

Rank 

FY92 

FY2005 

% Growth 

Hilo Inti 

ITO 

86 

703,736 

1,009,000 

43.4 

Grand Rapids Kent County Inti 

GRR 

87 

699,654 

1,089,000 

55.6 

Harrisburg Inti 

MDT 

88 

663,456 

1,398,000 

110.7 

Boise Air Terminal 

BOI 

89 

647,554 

1,013,000 

56.4 

Charleston AFB Inti 

CHS 

90 

645,762 

1,119,000 

73.3 

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson 

TYS 

91 

628,219 

1,042,000 

65.9 

Wichita Mid-Continent 

ICT 

92 

602,048 

1,096,000 

82.0 

Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas (VI) 

STT 

93 

583,817 

1,840,000 

215.2 

Lubbock Inti 

LBB 

94 

583,156 

840,000 

44.0 

Portland Inti Jetport 

PWM 

95 

569,775 

1,045,000 

83.4 

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg 

GSP 

96 

553,026 

809,000 

46.3 

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur 

ISP 

97 

550,762 

828,000 

50.3 

Dane County Regional 

MSN 

98 

549,723 

950,000 

72.8 

Saipan Inti 

GSN 

99 

548,170 

— 

— 

Midland Inti 

MAE 

100 

532,202 

767,000 

44.1 


Totals: 1992 Enplanements .473,664,350 

2005 Enplanements . 775,270,000 

Overall Growth at the Top 100 Airports.63.7 


2. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1992 enplanements, based on preliminary data intended for the FAA s annual report. 
Terminal Area Forecasts. 


Appendix A - 7 





Appendix A; Aviation Statistics 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1992 and Forecast 2005^ 


City-Airport 

Airport 

ID 

Rank 

Operations 

FY92 FY2005 

% Growth 


Chicago O’Hare Int’l 

ORD 

1 

838,093 

848,000 

1.2 


Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l 

DFW 

2 

763,372 

1,097,000 

43.7 


Los Angeles Int’l 

LAX 

3 

678,398 

826,000 

21.8 


William B. Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l 

ATL 

4 

611,889 

818,000 

33.7 


Santa Ana John Wayne 

SNA 

5 

557,442 

706,000 

26.6 


Denver Stapleton Int’l 

DEN 

6 

499,001 

664,000 

33.1 


Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l 

PHX 

7 

487,615 

617,000 

26.5 


Miami Int’l 

MIA 

8 

486,222 

635,000 

30.6 


Boston Logan Int’l 

BOS 

9 

482,582 

544,000 

12.7 


Charlotte/Douglas Int’l 

CLT 

10 

466,351 

582,000 

24.8 


Lambert St Louis Int’l 

STL 

11 

429,473 

555,000 

29.2 


San Francisco Int’l 

SFO 

12 

424,829 

657,000 

54.7 


Greater Pittsburgh Int’l 

PIT 

13 

421,903 

542,000 

28.5 


Metropolitan Oakland Int’l 

OAK 

14 

419,233 

600,000 

43.1 


Honolulu Int’l 

HNL 

15 

413,725 

517,000 

25.0 


Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 

DTW 

16 

413,544 

557,000 

34.7 


Las Vegas McCarran Int’l 

LAS 

17 

407,668 

500,000 

22.6 


Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l 

MSP 

18 

404,243 

582,000 

44.0 


Newark Int’l 

EWR 

19 

403,978 

468,000 

15.8 


Philadelphia Int’l 

PHL 

20 

377,033 

516,000 

36.9 


Seattle-Tacoma Int’l 

SEA 

21 

346,180 

435,000 

25.7 


Memphis Int’l 

MEM 

22 

344,655 

519,000 

50.6 


San Jose Int’l 

SJC 

23 

342,918 

532,000 

55.1 


New York LaGuardia 

LGA 

24 

337,279 

370,000 

9.7 


New York John F Kennedy Int’l 

JFK 

25 

328,528 

411,000 

25.1 


Houston Intercontinental 

lAH 

26 

320,234 

457,000 

42.7 


Salt Lake City Int’l 

SLC 

27 

316,783 

412,000 

30.1 


Washington National 

DCA 

28 

312,014 

365,000 

17.0 


Greater Cincinnati Int’l 

CVG 

29 

304,214 

538,000 

76.8 


Nashville Int’l 

BNA 

30 

302,030 

403,000 

33.4 


Orlando Int’l 

MCO 

31 

294,387 

561,000 

90.6 


Raleigh-Durham Int’l 

RDU 

32 

289,462 

458,000 

58.2 


Washington Dulles Int’l 

lAD 

33 

287,111 

390,000 

35.8 


Portland Int’l 

PDX 

34 

269,445 

296,000 

9.9 


Baltimore-Washington Int’l 

BWI 

35 

265,844 

350,000 

31.7 


Indianapolis Int’l 

IND 

36 

247,553 

368,000 

48.7 


Houston William P Hobby 

HOU 

37 

242,999 

336,000 

38.3 


Cleveland Hopkins Int’l 

CLE 

38 

237,216 

285,000 

20.1 


Anchorage Int’l 

ANC 

39 

236,719 

285,000 

20.4 


Tucson Int’l 

TUS 

40 

235,309 

453,000 

92.5 


Tampa Int’l 

TPA 

41 

229,470 

340,000 

48.2 


Colorado Springs Municipal 

COS 

42 

228,714 

286,000 

25.0 


Palm Beach Int’l 

PBi 

43 

225,784 

240,000 

6.3 



4. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1992 operations, based on preliminary data intended for the FAA’s annual report, Terminal 
Area Forecasts. 


Appendix A - 8 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1992 and Forecast 2005" 


Airport Operations 


City-Airport 

ID 

Rank 

FY92 

FY2005 

% Growth 

Port Columbus Int’l 

CMH 

44 

224,598 

291,000 

29.6 

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field 

SAN 

45 

214,844 

333,000 

55.0 

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena 

BUR 

46 

214,361 

270,000 

26.0 

Dallas-Love Field 

DAL 

47 

212,049 

387,000 

82.5 

Albuquerque Int’l 

ABa 

48 

211,601 

264,000 

24.8 

San Antonio Int’l 

SAT 

49 

210,063 

300,000 

42.8 

San Juan Luis Munoz Marin Int’l 

SJU 

50 

205,560 

286,000 

39.1 

Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l 

FLL 

51 

204,183 

290,000 

42.0 

Milwaukee General Mitchell Int’l 

MKE 

52 

202,286 

256,000 

26.6 

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur 

ISP 

53 

202,008 

290,000 

43.6 

Tulsa Int’l 

TUL 

54 

196,835 

258,000 

31.1 

Greater Rochester Int’l 

ROC 

55 

194,764 

297,000 

52.5 

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal 

AUS 

56 

186,796 

351,000 

87.9 

Chicago Midway 

MDW 

57 

184,000 

239,000 

29.9 

Kahului 

OGG 

58 

179,808 

255,000 

41.8 

Wichita Mid-Continent 

ICT 

59 

178,853 

309,000 

72.8 

Kansas City Int’l 

MCI 

60 

176,754 

278,000 

57.3 

Syracuse Hancock Int’l 

SYR 

61 

176,567 

255,000 

44.4 

Birmingham 

BHM 

62 

175,986 

253,000 

43.8 

Bradley Int’l 

BDL 

63 

175,109 

318,000 

81.6 

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World 

OKC 

64 

163,336 

172,000 

5.3 

Sacramento Metropolitan 

SMF 

65 

162,995 

294,000 

80.4 

Little Rock Adams Field 

LIT 

66 

162,439 

275,000 

69.3 

Albany County 

ALB 

67 

162,225 

234,000 

44.2 

Reno Cannon Int’l 

RNO 

68 

161,839 

235,000 

45.2 

Sarasota Bradenton 

SRQ_ 

69 

161,749 

200,000 

23.6 

Boise Air Terminal 

BOI 

70 

161,434 

282,000 

74.7 

El Paso Int’l 

ELP 

71 

159,710 

273,000 

70.9 

Louisville Standiford Field 

SDF 

72 

156,083 

210,000 

34.5 

Omaha Eppley Airfield 

OMA 

73 

155,058 

189,000 

21.9 

Ontario Int’l 

ONT 

74 

152,935 

347,000 

126.9 

Grand Rapids Kent County Int’l 

GRR 

75 

152,260 

227,000 

49.1 

Dayton Int’l 

DAY 

76 

149,879 

231,000 

54.1 

Providence Green State 

PVD 

77 

146,937 

170,000 

15.7 

Jacksonville Int’l 

JAX 

78 

146,436 

183,000 

25.0 

Richmond Int’l 

RIC 

79 

145,079 

209,000 

44.1 

Dane County Regional 

MSN 

80 

140,890 

216,000 

53.3 

Des Moines Int’l 

DSM 

81 

139,135 

165,000 

18.6 

Norfolk Int’l 

ORF 

82 

138,084 

217,000 

57.2 

New Orleans Int’l 

MSY 

83 

137,373 

204,000 

48.5 

Greater Buffalo Int’l 

BUF 

84 

136,043 

186,000 

36.7 

Charleston AFB Int’l 

CHS 

85 

135,599 

183,000 

35.0 

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson 

TYS 

86 

130,640 

160,000 

22.5 


4. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1992 operations, based on preliminary data intended for the FAA’s annual report. Terminal 
A^^ea Forecasts. 


Appendix A - 9 



Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1992 and Forecast 2005'* 

Airport Operations 


City-Airport 

ID 

Rank 

FY92 

FY2005 

% Growth 

Greensboro Piedmont Triad Int’l 

GSO 

87 

130,026 

196,000 

50.7 

Spokane Int’l 

GEG 

88 

124,506 

199,000 

59.8 

Lihue 

LIH 

89 

123,105 

163,000 

32.4 

Portland Int’l Jetport 

PWM 

90 

117,121 

159,000 

35.8 

Lubbock Int’l 

LBB 

91 

113,035 

163,000 

44.2 

Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas (VI) 

STT 

92 

108,796 

135,000 

24.1 

Harrisburg Int’l 

MDT 

93 

95,916 

160,000 

66.8 

Midland Int’l 

MAF 

94 

92,464 

166,000 

79.5 

Hilo Int’l 

ITO 

95 

89,284 

112,000 

25.4 

Fort Myers SW Florida Regional 

RSW 

96 

62,578 

141,000 

125.3 

Kailua-Kona Keahole 

KOA 

97 

61,172 

96,000 

56.9 

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg 

GSP 

98 

60,561 

103,000 

70.1 

Saipan Int’l 

GSN 

99 

— 

— 

— 

Guam Agana Field 

NGM 

100 



— 


Totals; 


1992 Operations.25,095,189 

2005 Operations.34,556,000 


Overall Growth at the Top 100 Airports 


37.7 


4. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1992 operations, based on preliminary data intended for the FAAs annual report, Terminal 
Area Forecasts. 


Appendix A - 10 






1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1991 to 1992^ 




Airport 


Enplanements 


City-Airport 

ID 

Rank 

FY91 

FY92 

% Growth 

Port Columbus Int’l 

CMH 

1 

1,698,021 

2,358,521 

38.9 

Nashville Int’l 

BNA 

2 

4,300,568 

5,068,011 

17.8 

Sacramento Metropolitan 

SMF 

3 

2,175,686 

2,552,734 

17.3 

Dane County Regional 

MSN 

4 

469,644 

549,723 

17.1 

Saipan Int’l 

GSN 

5 

468,490 

548,170 

17.0 

Spokane Int’l 

GEG 

6 

797,892 

922,609 

15.6 

Greater Cincinnati Int’l 

CVG 

7 

5,044,813 

5,780,241 

14.6 

Colorado Springs Municipal 

COS 

8 

624,431 

712,144 

14.0 

Reno Cannon Int’l 

RNO 

9 

1,676,197 

1,895,183 

13.1 

Orlando Int’l 

MCO 

10 

8,839,819 

9,989,092 

13.0 

Portland Int’l 

PDX 

11 

3,178,617 

3,589,361 

12.9 

Salt Lake City Int’l 

SLC 

12 

5,800,044 

6,510,001 

12.2 

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l 

PIT 

13 

8,343,024 

9,350,221 

12.1 

William B. Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l 

ATL 

14 

18,886,533 

20,966,165 

11.0 

Harrisburg Int’l 

MDT 

15 

598,095 

663,456 

10.9 

Guam Agana Field 

NGM 

16 

1,112,628 

1,233,022 

10.8 

Boise Air Terminal 

BOI 

17 

585,031 

647,554 

10.7 

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l 

SEA 

18 

7,934,250 

8,773,365 

10.6 

Kahului 

OGG 

19 

2,167,932 

2,385,649 

10.0 

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l 

CLE 

20 

3,885,103 

4,266,092 

9.8 

San Jose Int’l 

SJC 

21 

3,443,484 

3,775,332 

9.6 

Richmond Int’l 

RIC 

22 

872,943 

954,165 

9.3 

Denver Stapleton Int’l 

DEN 

23 

13,270,540 

14,476,601 

9.1 

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson 

TYS 

24 

576,502 

628,219 

9.0 

Lambert St. Louis Int’l 

STL 

25 

9,621,236 

10,476,785 

8.9 

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l 

MSP 

26 

9,770,403 

10,639,045 

8.9 

Newark Int’l 

EWR 

27 

11,050,061 

11,967,280 

8.3 

Greensboro Piedmont Triad Int’l 

GSO 

28 

854,572 

924,267 

8.2 

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l 

CLT 

29 

8,425,447 

9,099,577 

8.0 

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l 

DFW 

30 

24,092,801 

25,963,239 

7.8 

Chicago O’Hare Int’l 

ORD 

31 

27,827,241 

29,986,963 

7.8 

Wichita Mid-Continent 

ICT 

32 

559,966 

602,048 

7.5 

Indianapolis Int’l 

IND 

33 

2,925,853 

3,139,728 

7.3 

Albuquerque Int’l 

AB(A 

34 

2,458,353 

2,626,486 

6.8 

Little Rock Adams Field 

LIT 

35 

977,062 

1,043,736 

6.8 

Raleigh-Durham Int’l 

RDU 

36 

4,640,334 

4,939,336 

6.4 

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l 

JFK 

37 

12,577,222 

13,363,580 

6.3 

Anchorage Int’l 

ANC 

38 

1,592,094 

1,691,428 

6.2 

Houston Intercontinental 

lAH 

39 

8,452,340 

8,977,522 

6.2 

Kansas City Int’l 

MCI 

40 

3,482,600 

3,697,821 

6.2 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 

DTW 

41 

10,354,655 

10,986,668 

6.1 

Houston William R Hobby 

HOU 

42 

3,781,702 

4,008,376 

6.0 

Ontario Int’l 

ONT 

43 

2,872,927 

3,042,508 

5.9 


5. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total enplanments, based on preliminary data intended for the FAAs annual 
report, Terminal Area Forecasts. 


Appendix A -11 


Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1991 to 1992^ 

Airport Enplanements 


City-Airport 

ID 

Rank 

FY91 

FY92 

% Growth 

Philadelphia Int’l 

PHL 

44 

7,423,013 

7,850,375 

5.8 

Metropolitan Oakland Inti 

OAK 

45 

3,013,384 

3,186,437 

5.7 

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal 

AUS 

46 

2,051,531 

2,169,135 

5.7 

Milwaukee General Mitchell Inti 

MKE 

47 

2,043,068 

2,157,169 

5.6 

San Diego Inti Lindberg Field 

SAN 

48 

5,617,219 

5,923,072 

5.4 

Dallas-Love Field 

DAL 

49 

2,794,424 

2,944,942 

5.4 

Hilo Inti 

ITO 

50 

667,847 

703,736 

5.4 

San Antonio Inti 

SAT 

51 

2,597,869 

2,730,976 

5.1 

Santa Ana John Wayne 

SNA 

52 

2,636,331 

2,769,936 

5.1 

Grand Rapids Kent County Inti 

GRR 

53 

667,456 

699,654 

4.8 

San Juan Luis Munoz Marin Inti 

SJU 

54 

4,012,422 

4,192,629 

4.5 

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg 

GSP 

55 

529,573 

553,026 

4.4 

Jacksonville Inti 

JAX 

56 

1,277,495 

1,333,935 

4.4 

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World 

OKC 

57 

1,482,882 

1,543,566 

4.1 

Las Vegas McCarran Inti 

LAS 

58 

9,653,154 

10,038,181 

4.0 

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena 

BUR 

59 

1,843,247 

1,913,912 

3.8 

Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Inti 

FLL 

60 

3,960,913 

4,109,796 

3.8 

Albany County 

ALB 

61 

976,174 

1,011,344 

3.6 

Louisville Standiford Field 

SDF 

62 

1,001,745 

1,036,889 

3.5 

Portland Inti Jetport 

PWM 

63 

550,953 

569,775 

3.4 

Lubbock Inti 

LBB 

64 

564,603 

583,156 

3.3 

Tucson Inti 

TUS 

65 

1,218,426 

1,254,597 

3.0 

Bradley Inti 

BDL 

66 

2,232,166 

2,297,791 

2.9 

Boston Logan Inti 

BOS 

67 

10,338,977 

10,641,027 

2.9 

Tulsa Inti 

TUL 

68 

1,420,331 

1,459,526 

2.8 

New Orleans Inti 

MSY 

69 

3,255,817 

3,340,961 

2.6 

Kailua-Kona Keahole 

KOA 

70 

996,564 

1,022,344 

2.6 

El Paso Inti 

ELP 

71 

1,671,354 

1,702,205 

1.8 

Los Angeles Inti 

LAX 

72 

22,519,698 

22,911,585 

1.7 

Washington National 

DCA 

73 

7,219,161 

7,331,346 

1.6 

Birmingham 

BHM 

74 

967,754 

981,171 

1.4 

Providence Green State 

PVD 

75 

1,108,383 

1,120,491 

1.1 

Honolulu Inti 

HNL 

76 

10,113,891 

10,220,760 

1.1 

Tampa Inti 

TPA 

77 

4,748,930 

4,793,304 

0.9 

Charleston AFB Inti 

CHS 

78 

640,775 

645,762 

0.8 

Miami Inti 

MIA 

79 

12,492,320 

12,587,255 

0.8 

Memphis Inti 

MEM 

80 

3,932,939 

3,958,432 

0.6 

San Francisco Inti 

SFO 

81 

15,186,626 

15,257,138 

0.5 

Greater Rochester Inti 

ROC 

82 

1,160,582 

1,159,306 

-0.1 

Greater Buffalo Inti 

BUF 

83 

1,631,868 

1,628,534 

-0.2 

New York LaGuardia 

LGA 

84 

9,788,285 

9,751,311 

-0.4 

Palm Beach Inti 

PBI 

85 

2,524,206 

2,514,095 

-0.4 

Des Moines Inti 

DSM 

86 

718,927 

715,587 

-0.5 


5. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total enplanments, based on preliminary data intended for the FAAs annual 
report, Terminal Area Forecasts. 


Appendix A - 12 


1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1991 to 1992^ 

Airport Enplanements 


City-Airport 

ID 

Rank 

FY91 

FY92 

% Growth 

Fort Myers SW Florida Regional 

RSW 

87 

1,708,824 

1,692,442 

-1.0 

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur 

ISP 

88 

556,599 

550,762 

-1.0 

Norfolk Int’l 

ORF 

89 

1,266,060 

1,251,548 

-1.1 

Midland Inti 

MAF 

90 

538,689 

532,202 

-1.2 

Phoenix Sky Harbor Inti 

PHX 

91 

11,111,486 

10,958,400 

-1.4 

Omaha Eppley Airfield 

OMA 

92 

1,104,414 

1,085,448 

-1.7 

Washington Dulles Inti 

lAD 

93 

5,407,070 

5,308,389 

-1.8 

Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas (VI) 

STT 

94 

602,373 

583,817 

-3.1 

Sarasota Bradenton 

SRQ, 

95 

923,212 

882,365 

-4.4 

Syracuse Hancock Inti 

SYR 

96 

1,186,994 

1,120,011 

-5.6 

Lihue 

LIH 

97 

1,259,368 

1,111,730 

-11.7 

Baltimore-Washington Inti 

BWI 

98 

4,966,257 

4,370,829 

-12.0 

Chicago Midway 

MDW 

99 

3,241,851 

2,029,124 

-37.4 

Dayton Inti 

DAY 

100 

1,975,478 

1,099,090 

-44.4 


Totals: 1991 Enplanements .450,169,114 

1992 Enplanements . 473,664,350 

Overall Growth at the Top 100 Airports.5.2 


5. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total enplanments, based on preliminary data intended for the FAAs annual 
report, Terminal Area Forecasts. 


Appendix A - 13 





Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1991 to 1992^ 


Airport 


City-Airport 

ID 

Colorado Springs Municipal 

COS 

Little Rock Adams Field 

LIT 

Lihue 

LIH 

Spokane Int’l 

GEG 

Nashville Int’l 

BNA 

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World 

OKC 

Boston Logan Int’l 

BOS 

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l 

PIT 

New York John R Kennedy Int’l 

JFK 

Washington Dulles Int’l 

lAD 

Sacramento Metropolitan 

SMF 

Memphis Int’l 

MEM 

Raleigh-Durham Int’l 

RDU 

Orlando Int’l 

MCO 

Greater Rochester Int’l 

ROC 

Kailua-Kona Keahole 

KOA 

Greater Buffalo Int’l 

BUF 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 

DTW 

Newark Int’l 

EWR 

Indianapolis Int’l 

IND 

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l 

CLT 

Boise Air Terminal 

BOI 

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l 

MSP 

Kansas City Int’l 

MCI 

Port Columbus Int’l 

CMH 

Honolulu Int’l 

HNL 

Salt Lake City Int’l 

SLC 

Washington National 

DCA 

Tulsa Int’l 

TUL 

Portland Int’l Jetport 

PWM 

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l 

DFW 

Lambert St. Louis Int’l 

STL 

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field 

SAN 

Albany County 

ALB 

Anchorage Int’l 

ANC 

Chicago O’Hare Int’l 

ORD 

Dane County Regional 

MSN 

Houston Intercontinental 

lAH 

Charleston AFB Int’l 

CHS 

Wichita Mid-Continent 

ICT 

Los Angeles Int’l 

LAX 

Richmond Int’l 

RIC 

San Juan Luis Munoz Marin Int’l 

SJU 


Operations 


Rank 

FY91 

FY92 

% Growth 

1 

189,195 

228,714 

20.9 

2 

140,255 

162,439 

15.8 

3 

109,903 

123,105 

12.0 

4 

111,912 

124,506 

11.3 

5 

274,139 

302,030 

10.2 

6 

148,712 

163,336 

9.8 

7 

440,715 

482,582 

9.5 

8 

386,260 

421,903 

9.2 

9 

304,315 

328,528 

8.0 

10 

267,007 

287,111 

7.5 

11 

152,161 

162,995 

7.1 

12 

321,814 

344,655 

7.1 

13 

270,534 

289,462 

7.0 

14 

275,157 

294,387 

7.0 

15 

182,613 

194,764 

6.7 

16 

57,553 

61,172 

6.3 

17 

128,205 

136,043 

6.1 

18 

390,863 

413,544 

5.8 

19 

381,850 

403,978 

5.8 

20 

234,045 

247,553 

5.8 

21 

440,956 

466,351 

5.8 

22 

152,746 

161,434 

5.7 

23 

382,856 

404,243 

5.6 

24 

168,193 

176,754 

5.1 

25 

213,723 

224,598 

5.1 

26 

393,709 

413,725 

5.1 

27 

301,755 

316,783 

5.0 

28 

297,559 

312,014 

4.9 

29 

187,830 

196,835 

4.8 

30 

111,834 

117,121 

4.7 

31 

731,070 

763,372 

4.4 

32 

412,539 

429,473 

4.1 

33 

206,424 

214,844 

4.1 

34 

156,448 

162,225 

3.7 

35 

228,432 

236,719 

3.6 

36 

808,759 

838,093 

3.6 

37 

136,093 

140,890 

3.5 

38 

310,404 

320,234 

3.2 

39 

131,444 

135,599 

3.2 

40 

173,722 

178,853 

3.0 

41 

660,680 

678,398 

2.7 

42 

141,300 

145,079 

2.7 

43 

200,292 

205,560 

2.6 


6. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total operations, based on preliminary data intended for the FAA’s annual report, 
Terminal Area Forecasts. 


Appendix A - 14 


1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1991 to 1992^ 

Airport Operations 


City-Airport 

ID 

Rank 

FY91 

FY92 

% Growth 

Bradley Int’l 

BDL 

44 

171,063 

175,109 

2.4 

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l 

LAS 

45 

398,637 

407,668 

2.3 

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal 

AUS 

46 

182,831 

186,796 

2.2 

Greater Cincinnati Int’l 

CVG 

47 

297,963 

304,214 

2.1 

Dallas-Love Field 

DAL 

48 

208,015 

212,049 

1.9 

San Jose Int’l 

SJC 

49 

336,928 

342,918 

1.8 

Portland Inti 

PDX 

50 

264,854 

269,445 

1.7 

Seattle-Tacoma Inti 

SEA 

51 

340,411 

346,180 

1.7 

Denver Stapleton Inti 

DEN 

52 

491,275 

499,001 

1.6 

New York LaGuardia 

LGA 

53 

332,930 

337,279 

1.3 

Metropolitan Oakland Inti 

OAK 

54 

413,916 

419,233 

1.3 

Santa Ana John Wayne 

SNA 

55 

550,602 

557,442 

1.2 

Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas (VI) 

STT 

56 

107,563 

108,796 

1.1 

Reno Cannon Inti 

RNO 

57 

160,107 

161,839 

1.1 

Miami Inti 

MIA 

58 

481,709 

486,222 

0.9 

Palm Beach Inti 

PBI 

59 

223,775 

225,784 

0.9 

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg 

GSP 

60 

60,388 

60,561 

0.3 

Tucson Inti 

TUS 

61 

234,872 

235,309 

0.2 

Midland Inti 

MAF 

62 

92,393 

92,464 

0.1 

Hilo Inti 

ITO 

63 

89,252 

89,284 

0.0 

Albuquerque Inti 

ABQ_ 

64 

211,561 

211,601 

0.0 

Kahului 

OGG 

65 

181,780 

179,808 

-1.1 

Louisville Standiford Field 

SDF 

66 

158,050 

156,083 

-1.2 

Philadelphia Inti 

PHL 

67 

382,646 

377,033 

-1.5 

Milwaukee General Mitchell Inti 

MKE 

68 

205,587 

202,286 

-1.6 

Tampa Inti 

TPA 

69 

233,650 

229,470 

-1.8 

San Antonio Inti 

SAT 

70 

213,910 

210,063 

-1.8 

Ontario Inti 

ONT 

71 

156,306 

152,935 

-2.2 

Phoenix Sky Harbor Inti 

PHX 

72 

499,157 

487,615 

-2.3 

San Francisco Inti 

SFO 

73 

435,309 

424,829 

-2.4 

Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Inti 

FLL 

74 

209,752 

204,183 

-2.7 

El Paso Inti 

ELP 

75 

164,300 

159,710 

-2.8 

Cleveland Hopkins Inti 

CLE 

76 

244,626 

237,216 

-3.0 

Syracuse Hancock Inti 

SYR 

77 

182,216 

176,567 

-3.1 

Norfolk Inti 

ORF 

78 

142,742 

138,084 

-3.3 

Providence Green State 

PVD 

79 

151,994 

146,937 

-3.3 

Des Moines Inti 

DSM 

80 

144,952 

139,135 

-4.0 

William B. Hartsfield Atlanta Inti 

ATL 

81 

639,698 

611,889 

-4.3 

Birmingham 

BHM 

82 

184,707 

175,986 

~4.7 

Greensboro Piedmont Triad Inti 

GSO 

83 

137,275 

130,026 

-5.3 

Omaha Eppley Airfield 

OMA 

84 

164,008 

155,058 

-5.5 

Jacksonville Inti 

JAX 

85 

155,234 

146,436 

-5.7 

Harrisburg Inti 

MDT 

86 

101,744 

95,916 

-5.7 


6. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total operations, based on preliminary data intended for the FAA’s annual report. 
Terminal Area Forecasts. 


Appendix A -15 


Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1991 to 1992^ 


Airport Operations 

City-Airport_ ID Rank _ FY91 _ FY92 % Growth 


Baltimore-Washington Int’l 

BWI 

87 

282,320 

265,844 

-5.8 

Fort Myers SW Florida Regional 

RSW 

88 

66,631 

62,578 

-6.1 

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena 

BUR 

89 

229,492 

214,361 

-6.6 

Sarasota Bradenton 

SRa 

90 

173,740 

161,749 

-6.9 

Lubbock Inti 

LBB 

91 

122,130 

113,035 

-7.4 

Houston William R Hobby 

HOU 

92 

267,199 

242,999 

-9.1 

New Orleans Int’l 

MSY 

93 

152,126 

137,373 

-9.7 

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur 

ISP 

94 

224,691 

202,008 

-10.1 

Grand Rapids Kent County Int’l 

GRR 

95 

171,425 

152,260 

-11.2 

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson 

TYS 

96 

152,638 

130,640 

-14.4 

Dayton Int’l 

DAY 

97 

192,712 

149,879 

-22.2 

Chicago Midway 

MDW 

98 

301,690 

184,000 

-39.0 

Saipan Int’l 

GSN 

99 

— 

— 

— 

Guam Agana Field 

NGM 

100 

— 

— 

— 


Totals: 1991 Operations.24,793,458 

1992 Operations.*. 25,095,189 

Overall Growth at the Top 100 Airports... 


6 . 


At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total operations, based on preliminary data intended for the FAAs annual report, 
Terminal Area Forecasts. 


Appendix A - 16 






1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


Table A-6, Growth in Operations and Enplanements^ 

Airport % Growth in Enplanements % Growth in Operations 


City-Airport 

ID 

FY91-FY92 

FY92-FY05 

FY91-FY92 

FY92-FY05 

Albuquerque Int’l 

ABa 

6.8 

62.2 

0.0 

24.8 

Albany County 

ALB 

3.6 

62.2 

3.7 

44.2 

Anchorage Int’l 

ANC 

6.2 

50.1 

3.6 

20.4 

William B. Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l 

ATL 

11.0 

34.9 

-4.3 

33.7 

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal 

AUS 

5.7 

118.5 

2.2 

87.9 

Bradley Int’l 

BDL 

2.9 

66.2 

2.4 

81.6 

Birmingham 

BHM 

1.4 

62.6 

-4.7 

43.8 

Nashville Int’l 

BNA 

17.8 

62.1 

10.2 

33.4 

Boise Air Terminal 

BOI 

10.7 

56.4 

5.7 

74.7 

Boston Logan Int’l 

BOS 

2.9 

61.0 

9.5 

12.7 

Greater Buffalo Int’l 

BUF 

-0.2 

65.5 

6.1 

36.7 

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena 

BUR 

3.8 

33.4 

-6.6 

26.0 

Baltimore-Washington Int’l 

BWI 

-12.0 

66.1 

-5.8 

31.7 

Charleston AFB Int’l 

CHS 

0.8 

73.3 

3.2 

35.0 

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l 

CLE 

9.8 

40.3 

-3.0 

20.1 

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l 

CLT 

8.0 

56.5 

5.8 

24.8 

Port Columbus Int’l 

CMH 

38.9 

41.0 

5.1 

29.6 

Colorado Springs Municipal 

COS 

14.0 

76.4 

20.9 

25.0 

Greater Cincinnati Int’l 

CVG 

14.6 

112.0 

2.1 

76.8 

Dallas-Love Field 

DAL 

5.4 

50.6 

1.9 

82.5 

Dayton Int’l 

DAY 

-44.4 

119.7 

-22.2 

54.1 

Washington National 

DCA 

1.6 

19.7 

4.9 

17.0 

Denver Stapleton Int’l 

DEN 

9.1 

91.2 

1.6 

33.1 

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l 

DFW 

7.8 

72.1 

4.4 

43.7 

Des Moines Int’l 

DSM 

-0.5 

70.5 

-4.0 

18.6 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 

DTW 

6.1 

72.5 

5.8 

34.7 

El Paso Int’l 

ELP 

1.8 

54.7 

-2.8 

70.9 

Newark Int’l 

EWR 

8.3 

73.7 

5.8 

15.8 

Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l 

FLL 

3.8 

97.8 

-2.7 

42.0 

Spokane Int’l 

GEG 

15.6 

76.2 

11.3 

59.8 

Grand Rapids Kent County Int’l 

GRR 

4.8 

55.6 

-11.2 

49.1 

Saipan Int’l 

GSN 

17.0 

— 


— 

Greensboro Piedmont Triad Int’l 

GSO 

8.2 

58.2 

-5.3 

50.7 

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg 

GSP 

4.4 

46.3 

0.3 

70.1 

Honolulu Int’l 

HNL 

1.1 

36.8 

5.1 

25.0 

Houston William R Hobby 

HOU 

6.0 

29.8 

-9.1 

38.3 

Washington Dulles Int’l 

lAD 

-1.8 

104.8 

7.5 

35.8 

Houston Intercontinental 

lAH 

6.2 

48.7 

3.2 

42.7 

Wichita Mid-Continent 

ICT 

7.5 

82.0 

3.0 

72.8 

Indianapolis Int’l 

IND 

7.3 

40.2 

5.8 

48.7 

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur 

ISP 

-1.0 

50.3 

-10.1 

43.6 

Hilo Int’l 

ITO 

5.4 

43.4 

0.0 

25.4 

Jacksonville Int’l 

JAX 

4.4 

78.9 

-5.7 

25.0 


7. At the top 100 airports, listed in alphabetical order by Airport Identifier, based on preliminary data intended for the FAA’s 
annual report, Terminal Area Forecasts. 


Appendix A - 17 




Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements^ 


City-Airport 

Airport 

ID 

% Growth in Enplanements 
FY91-FY92 FY92-FY05 

% Growth in Operations 
FY91-FY92 FY92-FY05 

New York John R Kennedy Intd 

JFK 

6.3 

38.5 

8.0 

25.1 

Kailua-Kona Keahole 

KOA 

2.6 

73.2 

6.3 

56.9 

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l 

LAS 

4.0 

82.8 

2.3 

22.6 

Los Angeles Intd 

LAX 

1.7 

40.8 

2.7 

21.8 

Lubbock Int’l 

LBB 

3.3 

44.0 

-7.4 

44.2 

New York LaGuardia 

LGA 

-0.4 

45.5 

1.3 

9.7 

Lihue 

LIH 

-11.7 

61.6 

12.0 

32.4 

Little Rock Adams Field 

LIT 

6.8 

53.7 

15.8 

69.3 

Midland Int’l 

MAF 

-1.2 

44.1 

0.1 

79.5 

Kansas City Int’l 

MCI 

6.2 

84.6 

5.1 

57.3 

Orlando Int’l 

MCO 

13.0 

65.6 

7.0 

90.6 

Harrisburg Int’l 

MDT 

10.9 

110.7 

-5.7 

66.8 

Chicago Midway 

MDW 

-37.4 

62.0 

-39.0 

29.9 

Memphis Int’l 

MEM 

0.6 

84.7 

7.1 

50.6 

Miami Int’l 

MIA 

0.8 

58.9 

0.9 

30.6 

Milwaukee General Mitchell Int’l 

MKE 

5.6 

102.4 

-1.6 

26.6 

Dane County Regional 

MSN 

17.1 

72.8 

3.5 

53.3 

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l 

MSP 

8.9 

54.8 

5.6 

44.0 

New Orleans Int’l 

MSY 

2.6 

78.1 

-9.7 

48.5 

Guam Agana Field 

NGM 

10.8 

— 

— 

— 

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l 

OAK 

5.7 

37.4 

1.3 

43.1 

Kahului 

OGG 

10.0 

42.5 

-1.1 

41.8 

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World 

OKC 

4.1 

83.5 

9.8 

5.3 

Omaha Eppley Airfield 

OMA 

-1.7 

58.9 

-5.5 

21.9 

Ontario Int’l 

ONT 

5,9 

198.1 

-2.2 

126.9 

Chicago O’Hare Int’l 

ORD 

7.8 

56.7 

3.6 

1.2 

Norfolk Int’l 

ORF 

-1.1 

72.7 

-3.3 

57.2 

Palm Beach Int’l 

PBI 

-0.4 

78.9 

0.9 

6.3 

Portland Int’l 

PDX 

12.9 

51.3 

1.7 

9.9 

Philadelphia Int’l 

PHL 

5.8 

70.7 

-1.5 

36.9 

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l 

PHX 

-1.4 

75.7 

-2.3 

26.5 

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l 

PIT 

12.1 

66.4 

9.2 

28.5 

Providence Green State 

PVD 

1.1 

33.4 

-3.3 

15.7 

Portland Int’l Jetport 

PWM 

3.4 

83.4 

4.7 

35.8 

Raleigh-Durham Int’l 

RDU 

6.4 

109.0 

7.0 

58.2 

Richmond Int’l 

RIC 

9.3 

76.5 

2.7 

44.1 

Reno Cannon Int’l 

RNO 

13.1 

48.8 

1.1 

45.2 

Greater Rochester Int’l 

ROC 

-0.1 

76.9 

6.7 

52.5 

Fort Myers SW Florida Regional 

RSW 

-1.0 

82.3 

-6.1 

125.3 

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field 

SAN 

5.4 

76.3 

4.1 

55.0 

San Antonio Int’l 

SAT 

5.1 

42.0 

-1.8 

42.8 

Louisville Standiford Field 

SDF 

3.5 

68.6 

-1.2 

34.5 

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l 

SEA 

10.6 

58.6 

1.7 

25.7 


7. At the top 100 airports, listed in alphabetical order by Airport Identifier, based on preliminary data intended for the FAA’s 
annual report, Terminal Area Forecasts. 


Appendix A - 18 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements^ 


City-Airport 

Airport 

ID 

% Growth in Enplanements 
FY91-FY92 FY92-FY05 

% Growth in Operations 
FY91-FY92 FY92-FY05 

San Francisco Int’l 

SFO 

0.5 

75.4 

-2.4 

54.7 

San Jose Int’l 

SJC 

9.6 

86.6 

1.8 

55.1 

San Juan Luis Munoz Marin Int’l 

SJU 

4.5 

72.5 

2.6 

39.1 

Salt Lake City Int’l 

SLC 

12.2 

51.8 

5.0 

30.1 

Sacramento Metropolitan 

SMF 

17.3 

97.3 

7.1 

80.4 

Santa Ana John Wayne 

SNA 

5.1 

77.0 

1.2 

26.6 

Sarasota Bradenton 

sRa 

-4.4 

53.7 

-6.9 

23.6 

Lambert St. Louis Int’l 

STL 

8.9 

74.7 

4.1 

29.2 

Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas (VI) 

STT 

-3.1 

215.2 

1.1 

24.1 

Syracuse Hancock Int’l 

SYR 

-5.6 

75.0 

-3.1 

44.4 

Tampa Int’l 

TPA 

0.9 

89.0 

-1.8 

48.2 

Tulsa Int’l 

TUL 

2.8 

56.1 

4.8 

31.1 

Tucson Int’l 

TUS 

3.0 

95.9 

0.2 

92.5 

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson 

TYS 

9.0 

65.9 

-14.4 

22.5 

Totals: Overall Growth at the Top 100 Airports 

5.2 

63.7 

1.2 

37.7 


7. At the top 100 airports, listed in alphabetical order by Airport Identifier, based on preliminary data intended for the FAA s 
annual report, Terminal Area Forecasts, 


Appendix A - 19 



Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


1994 ACE Plan 


FY91 

Total IFR Operations 
36.4 Million 


Air Carrier (50.3%) 



Air Taxi/Commuter (15.4%) 


Military (14.0%) 


General Aviation (20.3%) 



Military (13.9%) 


General Aviation (20.2%) 


Air Taxi/Commuter (16.1 %) 


FY92 

Total IFR Operations 
36.7 Million 


Air Carrier (49.8%) 


Figure A-1. Traffic Handled by artccs, fy91 and fy92 


Appendix A - 20 






1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix A; Aviation Statistics 


Military (13.9%) 


General Aviation (20.2%) 


Air Taxi/Commuter (16.1 %) 





FY92 

Total IFR Operations 
36.7 Million 


Air Carrier (49.8%) 



Military (9.9%) 


General Aviation (18.7%) 



FY05 

Total IFR Operations 
46.5 Million 


Air Carrier (51.4%) 


Air Taxi/Commuter (20.0%) 


Figure A-2. Traffic Handled by artccs, fy92 and Forecast fy05 


Appendix A - 21 












Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 


1994 ACE Plan 


Table A-7. Total ifr Aircraft Handled at artccs 


Center 

FY91 

Operations (000) 
FY92 

FY05 

% Growth '92-'05 

Albuquerque (ZAB) 

1,442 

1,359 

1,707 

25.6 

Atlanta (ZTL) 

2,225 

2,221 

2,910 

31.0 

Boston (ZBU) 

1,537 

1,590 

2,064 

29.8 

Chicago (ZAU) 

2,610 

2,553 

3,517 

37.8 

Cleveland (ZOB) 

2,313 

2,396 

2,993 

24.9 

Fort Worth (ZFW) 

1,929 

1,978 

2,510 

26.9 

Denver (ZDV) 

1,442 

1,394 

1,875 

34.5 

Houston (ZHU) 

1,671 

1,660 

2,003 

20.7 

Indianapolis (ZID) 

1,870 

1,912 

2,443 

27.8 

Jacksonville (ZJX) 

1,644 

1,643 

2,360 

43.6 

Kansas City (ZKC) 

1,679 

1,756 

2,348 

33.7 

Los Angeles (ZLA) 

1,830 

1,776 

2,267 

27.6 

Memphis (ZME) 

1,808 

1,866 

2,468 

32.3 

Miami (ZMA) 

1,767 

1,781 

2,458 

38.0 

Minneapolis (ZMP) 

1,725 

1,774 

2,416 

36.2 

NeAvYork(ZNY) 

1,935 

1,949 

2,549 

30.8 

Oakland (ZOA) 

1,685 

1,629 

2,675 

64.2 

Salt Lake City (ZLC) 

1,250 

1,379 

1,874 

35.9 

Seattle (ZSE) 

1,279 

1,296 

1,711 

32.0 

Washington (ZDC) 

2,183 

2,212 

2,675 

20.9 


Source: Forecast of IFR Aircraft Handled by ARTCC FY93-05, May 1993 


Appendix A-22 




1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix A; Aviation Statistics 


Table A-8. Percentage of Operations Delayed 15 Minutes or More 


■ ■ . ; Airports 

Percentage of Operations Delayed 

15 Minutes or More 

iipll 

liipi 


1988 

1989 

1990 

iiMt 

1992 

Newark Int'l. 

9.2 

13.8 

6.5 

6.7 

10.6 

8.5 

6.7 

8.3 

New York La Guardia 

9.2 

8.9 

6.5 

5.2 

9.6 

8.7 

6.2 

5.5 

Chicago O'Hare Int'l. 

iliili 

iilif 

ill 

iliili: 

10.3 

6.5 

418 

4.5 

New York Kennedy 

6.1 

Bijig 

III' 

iBii 

6.1 

6.8 

iiiii 

4.1 

Boston Logan Int'l. 

6.1 

7.3 

4.8 

3.7 

2.9 

3.2 

3.3 

3.5 

San Francisco Int'l. 

3.4 

5.3 

6.2 

6.3 

7.1 

4.6 

5.8 

3.0 

Dallas-Ft. Worth Int'l. ■ 

1.7 

iiiiii 

111 


MIBI 

1 3.2 ^' 

3.5 

3.0 

Atlanta Hartsfield Int'l. 

6.2 

iliili 

till' ■ 

IMIWi 

2.5 

iliili 

2.2 

3.0 

Denver Stapleton Int'l. 

4.6 

3.2 

3.7 

3.7 

2.7 

2.9 

2.9 

2.6 

Los Angeles Int'l. 

0.8 

1.1 

3.3 

1.7 

1.1 

0.7 

1.5 

2.0 

Philadelphia Int'l. 

0.9 

liPill 

iiiii 

2.6 

2.2 

3.5 

i|Mjli 

1.8 

St; Louis-Lambert Int'l. 

4.6 

iiiii 



2.9 

2.5 

3.0 

1.5 

Detroit Metropolitan 

2.1 

1.3 

1.5 

1.5 

1.6 

2.0 

0.9 

1.1 

Washington National 

2.0 

3.2 

2.3 

1.5 

1.0 

1.0 

0.5 

1.1 

Miami Int'L Y; 

" ' • 

0.3 

0.7 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.9 

2.4 

1.0 

Houston Intercontinental 

0.3 

0.2 

0.5 

0.7 ; 

0.6 

‘O' 

1.3 

0.8 

Pittsburgh Int'l. 

1.7 

0.6 

0.7 

0.7 

0.8 

0.9 

0.5 

0.8 

Minneapolis Int'l. 

2.2 

3.9 

0.7 

1.4 

0.8 

3.2 

0.8 

0.4 

Ft. Lauderdale Int'l. 

0.1 

0.3 

0.2 

0.2 

0.3 

0.3 

0.2 

0.4 

Cleveland Hopkins Int'l. 

0.1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.5 

0.3 

0.5 

0.2 

0.2 

Kansas City Int'l. 

0.3 

1.0 

0.5 

0.2 

0.3 

0.2 

0.3 

0.1 

Las Vegas McCarran Int'l. 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.1 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 


Appendix A - 23 







Appendix A: Aviation Statistics_____ 1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix A - 24 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix B; Airport Directory 


Appendix B 

Airport Layout Directory 



State 

Airport 

ID 

Where 

Alaska 

Anchorage Int’l 

ANC 

Appendix E 

Alabama 

Birmingham Municipal 

BHM 

Appendix E 

Arkansas 

Little Rock Adams Field 

LIT 

Appendix D 

Arizona 

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l 

PHX 

Appendix D 


Tucson Int’l 

TUS 

Appendix D 

California 

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena 

BUR 

Appendix E 


Los Angeles Int’l 

LAX 

Appendix E 


Oakland Metro Int’l 

OAK 

Appendix E 


Ontario Int’l 

ONT 

Appendix E 


Sacramento Metropolitan 

SMF 

Appendix E 


San Diego Lindbergh 

SAN 

Appendix E 


San Francisco Int’l 

SFO 

Appendix E 


San Jose Int’l 

SJC 

Appendix E 


Santa Ana John Wayne 

SNA 

Appendix D 


Appendix B - 1 












Appendix B: Airport Directory 


1994 ACE Plan 


state 

Airport 

ID 

Where 

Colorado 

Colorado Springs Municipal 

COS 

Appendix E 


Denver Intd Airport (replacement) 

DEN 

Appendix D 


Denver Stapleton Intd 

DEN 

Appendix E 

Connecticut 

Windsor Locks Bradley Int’l 

BDL 

Appendix E 

District of Columbia 

Washington Dulles Intd 

lAD 

Appendix D 


Washington National 

DCA 

Appendix: E 

Florida 

Fort Lauderdale Inti 

ELL 

Appendix: D 


Fort Myers SW Florida Regional 

RSW 

Appendix D 


Jacksonville Inti 

JAX 

Appendix D 


Miami Inti 

MIA 

Appendix D 


Orlando Inti 

MCO 

Appendix D 


Sarasota-Bradenton 

SR(L 

Appendix D 


Tampa Inti 

TPA 

Appendix D 


West Palm Beach Inti 

FBI 

Appendix D 

Georgia 

Atlanta Hartsfield Inti 

ATL 

Appendix D 

Hawaii 

Hilo General Lyman 

ITO 

Appendix E 


Honolulu Inti 

HNL 

Appendix E 


Kahului 

OGG 

Appendix D 


Kailua-Kona Keahole 

KOA 

Appendix E 


Lihue 

LIH 

Appendix E 

Iowa 

Des Moines Inti 

DSM 

Appendix E 

Idaho 

Boise Air-Terminal 

BOI 

Appendix E 

Illinois 

Chicago Midway 

MDW 

Appendix E 


Chicago O’Hare Inti 

ORD 

Appendix D 

Indiana 

Indianapolis Inti 

IND 

Appendix D 

Kansas 

Wichita Mid-Continent 

ICT 

Appendix E 

Kentucky 

Louisville Standiford Field 

SDF 

Appendix D 

Louisiana 

New Orleans Inti 

MSY 

Appendix D 

Massachusetts 

Boston Logan Inti 

BOS 

Appendix D 

Maryland 

Baltimore-Washington Inti 

BWI 

Appendix D 

Maine 

Portland Inti Jetport 

PWM 

Appendix E 

Michigan 

Detroit Metro Wayne County 

DTW 

Appendix D 


Grand Rapids Kent County Inti 

GRR 

Appendix D 

Minnesota 

Minneapolis-St. Paul Inti 

MSP 

Appendix D 

Missouri 

Kansas City Inti 

MCI 

Appendix D 


Lambert St. Louis Inti 

STL 

Appendix D 

North Carolina 

Charlotte/Douglas Inti 

CLT 

Appendix D 


Greensboro Piedmont Inti 

GSO 

Appendix D 


Raleigh-Durham Inti 

RDU 

Appendix D 

Nebraska 

Omaha Eppley Airfield 

OMA 

Appendix E 

New Jersey 

Newark Inti 

EWR 

Appendix E 

New Mexico 

Albuquerque Inti 

ABCL 

Appendix D 

Nevada 

Las Vegas McCarran Inti 

LAS 

Appendix D 


Reno Cannon Inti 

RNO 

Appendix D 


Appendix B - 2 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix B: Airport Directory 


State 

Airport 

ID 

Where 

New York 

Albany County 

ALB 

Appendix D 


Buffalo Int’l 

BUF 

Appendix E 


Islip Long Island 

ISP 

Appendix D 


John R Kennedy Int’l 

JFK 

Appendix E 


LaGuardia 

LGA 

Appendix E 


Rochester Monroe County 

ROC 

Appendix D 


Syracuse Hancock Int’l 

SYR 

Appendix D 

Ohio 

Cincinnati Int’l 

CVG 

Appendix D 


Cleveland Hopkins Int’l 

CLE 

Appendix D 


Dayton Int’l 

DAY 

Appendix E 


Port Columbus Int’l 

CMH 

Appendix D 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma City Will Rogers 

OKC 

Appendix D 


Tulsa Int’l 

TUL 

Appendix D 

Oregon 

Portland Int’l 

PDX 

Appendix E 

Pennsylvania 

Harrisburg Int’l 

MDT 

Appendix E 


Philadelphia Int’l 

PHL 

Appendix D 


Pittsburgh Int’l 

PIT 

Appendix D 

Rhode Island 

Providence Green State 

PVD 

Appendix E 

South Carolina 

Charleston Int’l 

CHS 

Appendix E 


Greer Greenville-Spartanburg 

GSP 

Appendix D 

Tennessee 

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson 

TYS 

Appendix E 


Memphis Int’l 

MEM 

Appendix D 


Nashville Int’l 

BNA 

Appendix D 

Texas 

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal 

AUS 

Appendix E 


Bergstrom AFB (new Austin) 

BSM 

Appendix D 


Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l 

DFW 

Appendix D 


Dallas Love Field 

DAL 

Appendix E 


El Paso Int’l 

ELP 

Appendix D 


Houston Hobby 

HOU 

Appendix E 


Houston Intercontinental 

lAH 

Appendix D 


Lubbock Int’l 

LBB 

Appendix D 


Midland Int’l 

MAF 

Appendix D 


San Antonio Int’l 

SAT 

Appendix D 

Utah 

Salt Lake City Int’l 

SLC 

Appendix D 

Virginia 

Norfolk Int’l 

ORF 

Appendix E 


Richmond Int’l 

RIC 

Appendix D 

Washington 

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l 

SEA 

Appendix D 


Spokane Int’l 

GEG 

Appendix D 

Wisconsin 

Milwaukee Mitchell Int’l 

MKE 

Appendix D 


Dane County Regional 

MSN 

Appendix D 

Guam 

Agana Field 

NGM 

Appendix E 

Puerto Rico 

San Juan Luis Munoz Marin Int’l 

SJU 

Appendix E 

Virgin Islands 

Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas 

STT 

Appendix E 

Saipan 

Saipan International 

GSN 

Appendix E 


Appendix B - 3 



Appendix B: Airport Directory 


1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix B - 4 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix C: Capacity Design Team Summaries 


Appendix C 

Airport Capacity Design Team Project Summaries^ 


Background 

Recognizing the problems posed by conges¬ 
tion and delay within the National Airspace 
System, the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) asked the aviation community to study 
the problem of airport congestion through the 
Industry Task Force on Airport Capacity Im¬ 
provement and Delay Reduction chaired by the 
Airport Operators Council International. 

By 1984, aircraft delays recorded throughout 
the system highlighted the need for more cen¬ 
tralized management and coordination of activi¬ 
ties to relieve airport congestion. In response, 
the FAA estabhshed the Airport Capacity Pro¬ 
gram Office, now called the Office of System 
Capacity and Requirements (ASC). The goal of 
this office and its capacity enhancement pro¬ 
gram is to identify and evaluate initiatives that 
have the potential to increase capacity, so that 
current and projected levels of demand can be 
accommodated within the system with a mini¬ 
mum of delay and without compromising safety 
or the environment. 

In 1985, the FAA initiated a renewed pro¬ 
gram of Airport Capacity Design Teams at vari¬ 
ous major air carrier airports throughout the 
U.S. Each Capacity Team identifies and evalu¬ 
ates alternative means to enhance existing air¬ 
port and airspace capacity to handle future de¬ 
mand and works to develop a coordinated action 
plan for reducing airport delay. Over 30 Airport 
Capacity Design Teams have either completed 
their studies or have work in progress. 


The need for this program continues. In 
1993, 23 airports each exceeded 20,000 hours of 
airline flight delays. If no improvements in ca¬ 
pacity are made, the number of airports that 
could exceed 20,000 hours of annual aircraft de¬ 
lay is projected to grow from 23 to 32 by 2003. 
The challenge for the air transportation industry 
in the nineties is to enhance existing airport and 
airspace capacity and to develop new facilities to 
handle future demand. As environmental, finan¬ 
cial, and other constraints continue to restrict 
the development of new airport facilities in the 
U.S., an increased emphasis has been placed on 
the redevelopment and expansion of existing 
airport facilities. 

Objectives 

The major goal of a Capacity Team is to 
identify and evaluate proposals to increase air¬ 
port capacity, improve airport efficiency, and re¬ 
duce aircraft delays while maintaining or im¬ 
proving aviation safety. To achieve this objective, 
the Capacity Team: 

• Assesses the current airport capacity. 

• Examines the causes of delay associated 
with the airfield, the immediate airspace, 
and the apron and gate-area operations. 

• Evaluates capacity and delay benefits of 
alternative air traffic control (ATC) proce¬ 
dures, navigational improvements, airfield 
development, and operational improve¬ 
ments. 


1. As of 10-01-94. 


Appendix C -1 



Appendix C: Capacity Design Team Summaries 


1994 ACE Plan 



Scope 

The Capacity Team limits its analyses to air¬ 
craft activity within the terminal area airspace 
and on the airfield. They consider the opera¬ 
tional benefits of the proposed airfield improve¬ 
ments, but do not address environmental, socio¬ 
economic, or political issues regarding airport 
development. These issues need to be addressed 
in future airport planning studies, and the data 
generated by the Capacity Team can be used in 
such studies. 

Methodology 

The Capacity Team, which includes repre¬ 
sentatives from the FAA, the airport authority of 
the airport under study, the appropriate State 
Department of Transportation, various aviation 
industry groups, and members of the local gen¬ 
eral aviation community meet periodically for 


review and coordination. The Capacity Team 
members consider suggested capacity improve¬ 
ment alternatives proposed by the FAA’s Office 
of System Capacity and Requirements, FAA 
Technical Center, Regional Aviation Capacity 
Program Manager, and by other members of the 
Team. Alternatives which are considered practi¬ 
cable are developed into experiments which can 
be tested by simulation modeling. The FAA 
Technical Center’s Aviation Capacity Branch 
provides expertise in airport simulation model¬ 
ing. The Capacity Team validates the data used 
as input for the simulation modeling and analy¬ 
sis and reviews the interpretation of the simula¬ 
tion results. The data, assumptions, alternatives, 
and experiments are continually reevaluated, and 
modified where necessary, as the study 
progresses. A primary goal of the study is to de¬ 
velop a set of capacity-producing recommenda¬ 
tions, complete with planning and implementa¬ 
tion time horizons. 


Appendix C - 2 





1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix C: Capacity Design Team Summaries 


Initial work consists of gathering data and 
formulating assumptions required for the capac¬ 
ity and delay analysis and modeling. Where 
possible, assumptions are based on actual field 
observations at the target airport. Proposed im¬ 
provements are analyzed in relation to current 
and future demands with the help of FAA com¬ 
puter models, the Airport and Airspace Simula¬ 
tion Model (SIMMOD), the Runway Delay 
Simulation Model (RDSIM), and the Airfield 
Delay Simulator (ADSIM). 

The simulation models consider Air Traffic 
Control procedures, airfield improvements, and 
traffic demands. Alternative airfield configura¬ 
tions are prepared from present and proposed 
airport layout plans. Various configurations are 
evaluated to assess the benefit of projected im¬ 
provements. Air Traffic Control procedures and 
system improvements determine the aircraft 
separations to be used for simulations under 
both VER and IFR. 

Air traffic demand levels are derived from 
Official Airline Guide data, historical data, and 
Capacity Team and other forecasts. Aircraft vol¬ 
ume, fleet mix, and peaking characteristics are 
considered for each of the three different de¬ 
mand forecast levels (Baseline, Future 1, and 
Future 2). From this, annual delay estimates are 
determined based on implementing various im¬ 
provements. These estimates take into account 
historic variations in runway configuration, 
weather, and demand. Annual delay estimates 
for each configuration are then compared to 
identify delay reductions resulting from the im¬ 
provements. Following the evaluation, the Ca¬ 
pacity Team develops a plan of recommended 
alternatives for consideration. 

Reports 


Design Team Completion Dates 


Albuquerque Int’l.1993 

Boston Logan Int’l.1992 

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l.1991 

Chicago Midway.1991 

Chicago O’Hare Int’l.1991 

Cleveland-Hopkins Int’l. 1994 

Dallas-Ft. Worth Int’l.1994 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County. 1988 

Eastern Virginia Region. 1994 

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l.1993 

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l. 1991 

Honolulu Int’l. 1992 

Houston Intercontinental. 1993 

Indianapolis Int’l. 1993 

Kansas City Int’l.1990 

Lambert St. Louis Int’l. 1988 

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l. 1994 

Los Angeles Int’l.1991 

Memphis Int’l. 1988 

Metropolitan Orlando Int’l.1990 

Miami Int’l.1989 

Minneapolis-Saint Paul Int’l.1993 

Nashville Int’l.1991 

New Orleans Int’l. 1992 

OaHand Int’l.1987 

Philadelphia Int’l.1991 

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l. 1989 

Port Columbus Int’l.1993 

Raleigh-Durham Int’l.1991 

Salt Lake City Int’l.1991 

San Antonio Int’l.1992 

San Francisco Int’l.1987 

San Jose Int’l.1987 

San Juan Luis Munoz Man'n Int’l.1991 

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l.1991 

Washington Dulles Int’l.1990 

William B. Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l.1987 


Since the renewal of the program in 1985, 

37 Airport Capacity Design Team studies have 
been completed. Currently, three Capacity De¬ 
sign Team studies are in progress. The following 
listing provides locations and dates for com¬ 
pleted studies. 


Appendix C - 3 







































Appendix C: Capacity Design Team Summaries 


1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix C - 4 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Appendix D 

New Runway & Runway Extension Construction 


Appendix D contains current airport layouts 
for those airports among the top 100 airports^ 
that are considering or have plans for the con¬ 
struction of new runways or extensions to 
existing runways. The airport layouts show 


simplified drawings of the existing airports, with 
proposed runway and runway extension projects 
indicated in blue. Airport layouts for the re¬ 
mainder of the top 100 airports are contained in 
Appendix E. 


Albany County Airport (alb).D-2 

Albuquerque Int'l Airport (abq).D-3 

Austin Robert Mueller Airport (aus).D-4 

Baltimore-Washington Int'l Airport (bwi).D-5 

Boston Logan Int'l Airport (bos).D-6 

Charlotte/Douglas Int'l Airport (CLT) .D-7 

Chicago O'Hare Int'l Airport (ORD) .D-8 

Cleveland Hopkins Int'l Airport (CLE) .D-9 

Dallas-Fort Worth Int'l Airport (dfw). D-10 

Denver Int'l Airport (den).D-11 

Detroit Metropolitan Airport (dtw).D-12 

El Paso Int'l Airport (elp).D-1 3 

Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Int'l Airport (fll). D-14 

Ft. Myers Southwest Regional Airport (rsw). D-15 

Grand Rapids Kent County Int'l Airport (grr)... D-16 

Greater Cincinnati Int'l Airport (cvG).D-17 

Greater Pittsburgh Int'l Airport (pit).D-18 

Greater Rochester Int'l Airport (ROC) .D-19 

Greensboro Piedmont Triad Int'l Airport (Gso). D-20 

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport (gsp).D-21 

Houston Intercontinental Airport (iah).D-22 

Indianapolis Int'l Airport (ind).D-23 

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport (isp).D-24 

Jacksonville Int'l Airport ()AX) .D-25 

Kahului Airport (ogg).D-26 

Kansas City Int'l Airport (mgi).D-27 

Lambert St. Louis Int'l Airport (STL) .D-28 

Las Vegas McCarran Int'l Airport (las).D-29 

Little Rock Adams Field (lit).D-30 

Louisville Standiford Field (sdf).D-31 

Lubbock Int'l Airport (lbb).D-32 

Madison/Dane County Regional Airport (msn) D-33 

Memphis Int'l Airport (mem).D-34 

Miami Int'l Airport (mia).D-35 

Midland Int'l Airport (maf).D-36 


Milwaukee Int'l Airport (mke) .D-37 

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int'l Airport (msp) .D-38 

Nashville Int'l Airport (bna) .D-39 

New Orleans Int'l Airport (msy) .D-40 

Oklahoma City Airport (OKC) .D-41 

Orlando Int'l Airport (mco) .D-42 

Palm Beach Int'l Airport (PBl)... .D-43 

Philadelphia Int'l Airport (phl) .D-44 

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int'l Airport (phx) .D-45 

Port Columbus Int'l Airport (GMH).... .D-46 

Raleigh-Durham Int'l Airport (rdu) .D-47 

Reno Cannon Int'l Airport (rno) .D-48 

Richmond Int'l Airport (rig) .D-49 

Salt Lake City Int'l Airport (slc) .D-50 

San Antonio Int'l Airport (sat) .D-51 

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport (SNA) . D-52 

Sarasota Bradenton Airport (SRQ) .D-53 

Seattle-Tacoma Int'l Airport (sea) .D-54 

Spokane Int'l Airport (geg) .D-55 

Syracuse Hancock Int'l Airport (syr) .D-56 

Tampa Int'l Airport (tpa) .D-57 

Tucson Int'l Airport (TUS) .D-58 

Tulsa Int'l Airport (tul) .D-59 

Washington Dulles Int'l Airport (lAD) .D-60 


William B. Hartsfield Atlanta Int'l Airport (atl).. D-61 


Legend 

lllllllllll^^ Existing Runway 

New Runway or Runway Improvement 
5- j* * s 4 Existing Taxiway/Apron 
[New Taxiway or Taxiway Improvement 
f HNI buildings 
# New Buildings 

Note: some ALRs may have additional symbols or patterns. 


1. Based on 1992 passenger enplanements (see Appendix A, Table A-1), 


Appendix D-1 



























































Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Albany County Airport (alb) 


Construction of an exten¬ 
sion to Runway 10/28 is 
planned. The estimated cost of 
construction is S5.8 million. A 
new parallel Runway 1R/19L 
is also planned. The estimated 
cost is $7.5 million. 



1,000 ft. 


5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 2 







1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Albuquerque Int'l Airport (abq) 

A 1,500 foot extension to 
Runway 3/21 will provide an 
8,800 foot runway, eliminating 
the intersection with Runway 
8/26. The expected operational 
date is December 1996. The 
estimated cost of the runway 
and parallel taxiway is $20 
million. 



5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 3 











Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport (Bergstrom) (aus) 


The community has 
approved the sale of revenue 
bonds for the development of 
a new airport. The present 
Robert Mueller Airport 
cannot be expanded. 
Bergstrom Air Force Base 
(AFB) was transferred to the 
city on October 1,1993, and 
the city is now planning to 
construct a new parallel run- 
way and relocate all commer¬ 
cial activity there in 1998. The 
total estimated project cost is 
$583 million. The city has an 
Airport Master Plan under 
development. Environmental 
studies are in progress by the 
Air Force and the city. Since 
Robert Mueller Airport will 
close upon completion of the 
new airport, no capacity 
enhancements are planned at 
Mueller. 



5,000 ft. 

Der^etrom Air Force baee Conversion 
Opening Pay Layout Plan 
as of 1-51-94 


Appendix D - 4 









1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Baltimore-Washington Int'l Airport (bwi) 


Construction of an exten¬ 
sion of Runway 10/28 began 
June 1,1993, and the exten¬ 
sion should be operational 
October 1, 1994. The esti¬ 
mated cost of construction is 
$12 million. A new 7,800-foot 


runway. Runway 10R/28L, is 
planned to be constructed 
3,500 feet south of Runway 
10/28 by 2003. When Runway 
10R/28L is constructed. 
Runway 4/22 will be converted 
to a taxiway. 



33L 


1,000 ft . 


5.000 ft. 


Appendix D - 5 








Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Boston Logan IntM Airport (bos) 

A new uni-directional 
commuter runway (Runway 
14/32) 4,300 feet from Run¬ 
way 15R/33L, an extension of 
Runway 15L/33R to 3,500 
feet, and a 400-foot extension 
of Runway 9 are being studied. 



5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 6 










1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Charlotte/Douglas Int'l Airport (clt) 


Construction has been 
completed on the extension of 
Runway 18L/36R 1,000 feet 
to the south to provide simul¬ 
taneous approach capability 
during noise abatement hours. 
Plans are to open a third 


parallel 8,000-foot runway 
west of Runway 18R/36L in 
1999 that would permit 
dependent IFR arrivals. The 
Capacity Team also recom¬ 
mended the study of a fourth 


parallel runway east of 18L/ 
36R. Dependent triple or 
quadruple IFR approaches 
could become available with 
the construction of this run¬ 
way. 




Appendix D - 7 












i\ew air carrier j\unways 
9/27 and 14/32, extensions to 
Runways 14L and 22L, and 
the relocation of Runways 4L/ 
22R and 9L/27R have been 


recommended by the Chicago 
Airport Capacity Design 
Team. 








1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Cleveland Hopkins Int'l Airport (cle) 

A Master Plan Update is struction is expected to be estimated cost of $50 million 

currently being coordinated. completed in 1997 at a cost of and conversion of the existing 

The preliminary Airport $125 million. Also included m Runway 5R/23L to a parallel 

Layout Plan shows construe- the development plan is an taxiway at a cost of $3 million, 

tion of a new Runway 5W/ extension of the existing All of this work is scheduled 

23W that would be 9,600 feet Runway 5L/23R from 7,095 for completion in 2000. 

long and 150 feet wide. Con- feet to 12,000 feet at an 



5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 9 




Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Dallas-Fort Worth Int1 Airport (dfw) 


Proposed 2,000-foot 
extensions to all of the north/ 
south parallel runways will 
provide an overall length of 
13,400 feet for each. The 
estimated cost of each exten¬ 
sion is $25 million. The 
extension of Runway 17R/35L 
has been completed and was 
operational September 16, 
1993. Also planned are two 
more parallel runways. Run¬ 
way 16L/34R and Runway 
16R/34L. The east runway. 
Runway 16L/34R, will be 
8,500 feet in length. It wiU be 
located 5,000 feet east of and 
parallel to Runway 17L/35R. 
The estimated cost is $320 
million. It is anticipated that 
the east runway wiU be opera¬ 
tional by 1996. Construction 
on the west runway. Runway 
16R/34L, will begin when 
warranted by aviation demand. 
It could be available as early as 
2001. The estimated cost is 
$150 million. It wiU be located 
5,800 feet west of Runway 
18R/36L. Runway 16R/34L 
may be constructed in phases, 
with the first phase a 6,000 
foot runway located north of 
Runway 13R/31L. The second 
phase extension to 9,760 feet 
would intersect and continue 
south of Runway 13R/31L. 
These runways could poten¬ 
tially permit triple or qua¬ 
druple IFR arrival operations 
(84 and 114 hourly IFR 
arrivals, respectively) if the 
multiple approach concepts are 
approved. 



Appendix D -10 











1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Denver Int'l Airport (den) 


The initial phase of the 
new Denver airport will 
consist of five runways, with a 
sixth runway added a year after 
airport opening. The current 
plan involves four north-south 
parallels and two east-west 
parallels. Runway IdR/SdL 
will initially be the farthest 
west of the four north-south 
parallels. It will be located 
2,600 feet west of Runway 
16L/34R and 10,200 feet west 
of Runway 17R/35L. Runway 
17R/35L and Runway 17L/ 


35R will be separated by 5,280 
feet. East-west parallels. 
Runways 7L/25R and 8R/ 

26L, will have centerlines 
13,500 feet apart. Runway 7L/ 
25R is south of Runways 16C/ 
34C and 16L/34R. Runway 
8R/26L is north of Runways 
17R/35L and 17L/35R. 
Construction at the new 
airport began in late 1989. The 
total estimated cost of con¬ 
struction (exclusive of land 
acquisition and pre-1990 
planning and administration 


costs) is $2,972 billion. The 
new airport is expected to be 
operational in 1995 and could 
potentially operate indepen¬ 
dent triple or quadruple IFR 
approaches, if they are ap¬ 
proved. This could increase 
Denver’s IFR arrival capacity 
from 57 to 86 per hour with 
triples or 114 per hour with 
quadruples. A second, future 
phase proposes the construc¬ 
tion of up to six more runways 


91 



5,000 ft. 


Appendix D -11 



Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (dtw) 

Construction of new arrival capabilities. A fourth IFR arrivals with one depen- 

Runway 9R/27L was com- north-south parallel, Runway dent and one independent 

pleted in late 1993. The 4/22, 2,667 feet west of Run- pairing. If approved, hourly 

estimated cost of construction way 3L/21R, is also planned. IFR arrival capacity could 

was $61.6 milli on. This new Construction is expected to increase from 57 to 71. An 

runway will allow DTW to begin in 1996 and should be environmental assessment was 

run independent parallel IFR completed in 1998. The submitted in September 1989, 

approaches in an east-west estimated cost of construction and a record of decision was 

configuration, thus matching is $54.5 million. This runway issued in March 1990. 

its current north-south IFR could potentially permit triple 





5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 12 







1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


El Paso Int1 Airport (elp) 

A new parallel Runway 8/ 

26 is planned. Construction is 
expected to begin in 1999 with 
an estimated cost of $10.7 
million. 





5,000 ft, 


Appendix D -13 





Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Int'l Airport (fll) 


An extension of the short 
parallel Runway 9R/27L to 
10,000 feet long by 150 feet 
wide is planned to provide the 
airport with a second parallel 
air carrier runway. Construc¬ 
tion is expected to begin in 
1997. The estimated cost of 
construction is $270 million. 
The anticipated operational 
date is 2000. 



Appendix D -14 













1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Ft. Myers Southwest Florida Regional Airport (rsw) 

Runway 6/24 from 8,400 feet 
to 12,000 feet began July 14, 
1993. The estimated cost of 
the extension is $20 million, 
and the estimated operational 
date is October 1994. 



5,000 ft, 


Planning has begun for a 
new 9,000 to 10,000 foot 
parallel runway. Runway 6R/ 
24L, 4,300 feet or more 
southeast of Runway 6/24. 
Construction is expected to 
begin in 1998. The new 
runway should be operational 


by 2000. The estimated cost of 
the project is $87 million. This 
new runway will support 
independent parallel opera¬ 
tions, with the potential to 
increase IFR hourly arrival 
capacity from 29 to 57. Con¬ 
struction of an extension to 


Appendix D -15 




Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Grand Rapids Kent County Int1 Airport (grr) 

An extension of the exist- 26R. An extension to 8,500 coverage, noise relief, and 

ing Runway 8L/26R to 5,000 feet and realignment are reduce winter weather related 

feet is under construction and planned for the cross-wind delays by providing a second 

will be completed in 1994. Runway 18/36 (17/35). The air carrier runway. Airport 

Estimated cost of construction project is expected to start in Layout Plan (ALP) and 

is $3.6 million. In the long- 1994. Estimated cost of Environmental approvals for 

range plan, this runway will be construction is $40 million. these projects were completed 

converted into a taxiway for a The runway will provide wind in January 1993. 

new 7,000 foot Runway 8L/ 



5,000 ft, 


Appendix D -16 





1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Greater Cincinnati Int'l Airport (cvc) 

An extension of Runway construction is $11 million, additional $5 million to recon- 

18R/36L has been proposed to and the estimated operational struct the intersection of 

allow all aircraft to land on date is 1997. An extension of Runways 9/27 and 18R/36L. 

Runway 18R and hold short of Runway 9/27 is under con- This runway will increase 

Runway 27 and to add capac- struction, with an estimated capacity during night-time 

ity during noise abatement operational date of 1995 and a noise abatement operations, 

hours. The estimated cost of cost of $20 million, with an 





Appendix D - 17 






Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Greater Pittsburgh Int'l Airport (pit) 


A recently completed 
Master Plan has recommended 
that at least two new runways 
will be needed within a twenty 
year planning period to ac¬ 
commodate projected Baseline 
(normal growth) forecast 
demands and achieve accept¬ 
able aircraft delay times and 
associated delay costs. Con¬ 
struction of the two east/west 
runways include a northern 
parallel and a southern paral¬ 
lel, with the latter as the 
preferred first-build runway 
The southern parallel will be 
located approximately 4,300 
feet south of existing Runway 
10R/28L and should be 
operational by the time the 
airport reaches 495,000 annual 
aircraft operations. 

The northern parallel 
runway will be located 1,000 
feet north of existing Runway 
10L/28R and should be 
operational by the time the 
airport reaches 522,000 annual 
aircraft operations. Should 
forecasts exceed Baseline 
demands the airport has 
identified two additional 
runway options including a 
close-in south parallel runway 
located 1,000 feet south of 
existing Runway 10R/28L and 
a crosswind runway located 
8,700 feet from the existing 
crosswind Runway 14/32. An 
environmental Impact State¬ 
ment is currently being pre¬ 
pared for the development of 
the fifth runway. 



5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 18 




1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Greater Rochester IntM Airport (roc) 


Construction of an exten¬ 
sion to Runway 10/28 is being 
considered. The estimated cost 
of construction is $3.2 million. 
An extension to Runway 4/22 
is also being considered, and is 


expected to cost $4 million. 
Construction of a new parallel 
Runway 4R/22L 700 feet 
southeast of Runway 4/22 is 
estimated to cost $10 million. 
These runway improvements 


are anticipated post 2000. 
Environmental assessments 
have not yet been started for 
these projects. 


AIK CAKGO 

FACILITY TERMINAL 

DUILPING 



4 


Appendix D -19 








Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Greensboro Piedmont Triad Int'l Airport (cso) 


An extension of Runway struction of a new parallel 
14/32 is planned. It is expected Runway 5L/23R 5,300 feet 
to be operational by 1998, at a north of Runway 5/23 is also 
cost of $15.7 million. Con- being planned. 


ez 



woo ft. 


5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 20 







1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport (gsp) 


A new parallel runway, 
Runway 3R/21L, is antici¬ 
pated in 2015 at an estimated 
cost of $50 million. Presently, 
its planned length is 10,000 


feet with a 4,300 foot separa¬ 
tion from Runway 3/21. This 
would potentially double 
hourly IFR arrival capacity 
from 29 to 57. Also, an exten¬ 


sion of Runway 3L/21R to 
10,000 feet is planned. Con¬ 
struction is expected to be 
completed in 1999 at a cost of 
$34.1 million. 


12 



1,000 ft. _ 

5,000 ft, 


Appendix D - 21 



Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Houston Intercontinental Airport (iah) 


An $8 million 2,000-foot 
extension to Runway 14R/32L 
is planned to be operational in 
1997. Construction is expected 
to begin in 1996. A new 
Runway 8L/26R is planned to 
be completed in 1999. Con¬ 


struction should begin in 1997 
and is estimated to cost $44 
million. This runway will be 
parallel to and north of the 
existing Runway 8/26. Run¬ 
way 8L/26R, in conjunction 
with Runways 9/27 and 8/26, 


has the potential to support 
triple IFR approaches, if 
approved. Another new run¬ 
way, parallel to and south of 
Runway 9/27 is also planned. 
Construction is expected to 
cost $44 million. 


MZ 



Appendix D - 22 










1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Indianapolis Int'l Airport (ind) 


Construction of a replace¬ 
ment for Runway 5L/23R 
4,800 feet northwest of Run¬ 
way 5R/23L began on January 
22,1993, and is scheduled to 
be completed in 1995. The 
estimated total project cost is 
$37.5 million, and the esti- 



IWVSd Existirg Runway to be decommissioned 
.1 Existing Taxi way to be removed 









Appendix D: Runway Construction 

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport (isp) 


An extension of Runway 
15R/33L is planned for 2000. 
The estimated cost of con¬ 
struction is $26 million. 



Appendix D - 24 






1994 ACE Plan _ 

Jacksonville IntM Airport (JAX) 


Construction began March 
20,1993 of an extension to 
Runway 7/25, with an ex¬ 
pected operational date of 
September 1994. The esti¬ 
mated project cost is $19 
million. A new parallel Run¬ 


way 7R/25L is also being 
planned. It will be 6,500 feet 
south of the existing Runway 
7/25, permitting independent 
parallel IFR operations and 
potentially doubling 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Jacksonville’s hourly IFR 
arrival capacity. Construction 
is scheduled to begin in 1999, 
with completion expected in 
2000. Estimated cost of 
construction is $37 million. 



Appendix D - 25 








1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Kansas City Int'l Airport (mci) 

Construction began on the independent IFR operations. underway an extension of 

new north-south parallel The runway should be opera- Runway 1L/19R and addi- 

Runway 1R/19L in October tional in November 1994. The tional parallel runways west of 

1989. It it located 6,575 feet estimated cost of construction the existing north-south 

east of the existing Runway is S45.2 million. In the Air- runway are being considered. 

1L/19R and will permit port Master Plan currently 





5,000 ft 


Appendix D - 27 







Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Lambert St. Louis IntM Airport (stl) 


A new parallel Runway 
12L/30R in several configura¬ 
tions had been recommended 
by the St. Louis Airport 
Capacity Design Team. A 
Master Plan Update is under¬ 
way, and the entire airport 
layout may change as a result. 
The new plan will probably 
call for three parallel runways, 
with at least two supporting 
independent IFR operations. 
An EIS is also underway. The 
Master Plan Update and the 
EIS are anticipated to be 
completed by December 1995. 

A new Runway 14R/32L 
is planned as the first phase of 
the airport expansion. Con¬ 
struction of the runway could 
occur beginning in 1996, 
subject to environmental 
approval. 


■^zi 



30R 



^ 

5,000 ft 


Appendix D - 28 






1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Las Vegas McCarran Int'l Airport (las) 


An upgrade of Runway 
1L/19R to accommodate air 
carrier aircraft is being planned 
for 1997. This improvement 
will significandy increase the 
capacity of the airport when 
weather conditions require the 
use of Runways IL and IR or 


19L and 19R. An extension of 
Runway 7L/25R has been 
completed, at a cost of $17.5 
million. An extension of 
Runway 7R/25L is also 
planned to be operational in 
1995 at a cost of $3.2 million. 


; 'Air 
C&.^o 


5,000 ft. 


Charter 

International 

Terminal 


Control Tower '' 

^ t ^ pi 






1 ^ \^ ,4s 


Appendix D - 29 














Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Little Rock Adams Field (lit) 

An extension to Runway 
4L/22R is scheduled to begin 
construction in 1994 and 
should be operational in 1996. 

The estimated cost of con¬ 
struction is $30 million, 
including the resurfacing/ 
reconstruction of the existing 
runway. 









s: ■ • •: 


1.000 ft. 


5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 30 











1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Louisville Standiford Field (sdf) 


Construction is underway 
for two new parallel runways, 
4,950 feet apart. They will be 
numbered Runways 17R/35L 
and 17L/35R and will be 
10,000 and 7,800 feet long, 
respectively. They will replace 


Runway 1/19, which will be 
closed. The estimated cost of 
construction is $51 million for 
Runway 17R/35L and $42 
million for 17L/35R. Runway 
17L/35R is expected to be 
completed in 1995, and Run¬ 


way 17R/35L is expected to be 
completed in 1997. The two 
runways will permit indepen¬ 
dent parallel IFR operations 
and increase hourly IFR arrival 
capacity from 29 to 57. 



5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 31 









Appendix D: Runway Construction 

Lubbock Int'l Airport (lbb) 

An extension to Runway 
8/26 is planned. The start of 
construction is scheduled for 
2000 and the estimated cost is 
$3.8 million. It is anticipated 
that the extension will be 
operational in 2000. 


■ULi 



35L 

1,000 ft. 



Appendix D - 32 


1994 ACE Plan 







1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Madison/Dane County Regional Airport (msn) 


A new runway, Runway 3/ 
21, is proposed to be built to 
provide additional operational 
capabilities to direct flights 
away from noise sensitive 
areas. This will be necessary 
when Runway 18/36 reaches 
its limit to run operations in 
reverse flow for noise abate¬ 


ment purposes during peak 
operating hours. Runway 3/21 
would replace Runway 4/22. It 
is not feasible to extend 4/22 
to have the same operational 
capabilities desired of Runway 
3/21. The estimated cost of 
construction is $15 million. 

An EIS is underway. 



Appendix D - 33 



Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Memphis Int'l Airport (mem) 

Construction of a new dent parallel approaches. This million. An extension of 

north-south parallel Runway will increase present hourly Runway 18L/36R is also 

18E/36E began in 1993. It IFR arrival capacity by about planned. Construction is 

will be located about 900 feet 33 percent. The new runway expected to start in 1997 and 

east of Runway 18L/36R and should be operational in 1997. be completed by 1999 at a cost 

4,300 feet from Runway 18R/ The estimated cost is $88.8 of $58 million. 

36L, thus allowing indepen- 



56L 36R 


Appendix D - 34 














1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Miami Int'l Airport (mia) 


Construction of a new air 
carrier runway 8,600 feet long 
and 800 feet north of existing 
Runway 9L/27R is expected to 
start in 1997 and be completed 
by late 1999. The estimated 
cost of construction is $170 
million. 



Appendix D - 35 







1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Milwaukee General Mitchell Int1 Airport (mke) 

Construction of a new 
parallel Runway 7R/25L 3,500 
feet south of the existing 
runway is expected to start in 
1999 and be completed in 
2003. The estimated cost of 
construction is $150 million. 



5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 37 












Appendix D: Runway Constmction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Minneapolis-St. Paul Int1 Airport (msp) 


An extension of Runway 
4/22 2,750 feet to the south¬ 
west is proposed, which would 
bring the runway length to 
11,000 feet. Construction is 
scheduled to begin in late 
1994, and the extension should 
be operational in late 1995. 
The estimated cost of con¬ 


struction is S12.5 million. 
Associated taxiway improve¬ 
ments will cost an additional 
S14.5 million and noise miti¬ 
gation for the runway exten¬ 
sion will cost $29.4 million. 
Taxiway improvements are 
expected to be completed by 
late 1996. 


USAF Area N 



5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 38 


















1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Nashville Int'l Airport (bna) 


The relocation and exten¬ 
sion of Runway 2C/20C has 
been completed and is opera¬ 
tional A new Runway 2E/20E 
is planned for the future 
between 1,500 and 3,500 feet 


from Runway 2R/20L. In 
addition, an extension to 
Runway 2R/20L is planned. It 
is expected to be completed by 
2000, at an estimated cost of 
$38.6 million. 



1000 ft. 

5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 39 




Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


New Orleans Int1 Airport (msy) 

A new north-south run- 1996 and be completed in construct a north parallel east/ 

way, Runway 1L/19R, is 2000, at an approximate cost west taxiway approximately 

planned. This new runway will of $340 million. As an alterna- 800 feet north of and parallel 

be parallel to the existing tive to this north-south run- to the existing Runway 10/28, 

Runway 1/19 and will be way, the airport is considering which could later be converted 

located west of the threshold the construction of an east/ into a 6,000-foot commuter 

of Runway 10, approximately west parallel runway. Runway and general aviation runway. 

11,000 feet away from Runway 10S/28S, 4,300 feet to the The site preparation phase of 

1/19. This will allow indepen- south of existing Runway 10/ the taxiway construction has 

dent parallel operations, 28, off of present airport already begun. The estimated 

doubling IFR hourly arrival property. The estimated cost of cost of construction is $25.5 

capacity. Pending environmen- construction is $460 million. million, and the expected 

tal approvals, construction The airport is also planning to operational date is 1995. 

could begin as early as January 



Appendix D - 40 





1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Airport (okc) 

Construction of a new 35R and 17R/35L are also 

west parallel runway 1,600 feet planned. The estimated costs 
west of of Runway 17R/35L is of extending 17L/35R is $8 

planned to be operational by million. Construction of the 
2004. Estimated cost of extension to Runway 17R/3SL 

construction is $13 million. is expected to start in 2001 and 

Extensions to both north/ be operational by 2014, at an 

south runways. Runways 17L/ estimated cost of $8 million. 



Appendix D - 41 




Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Orlando Int'l Airport (mco) 

Construction of a fourth of Runway 17R/35L. This 

north-south runway, Runway may permit triple independent 
17L/35R, began October 10, IFR operations. The estimated 
1990. The runway is expected cost of construction of this 

to be operational in 2000. It runway is $115 million, 
will be located 4,300 feet east 



35L 


Appendix D - 42 






1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Palm Beach Int'l Airport (pbi) 


Runway 9L/27R will be 
extended 1,200 feet to the 
west and 811 feet to the east, 
for a total length of 10,000 
feet. Construction is not 
expected to start until 1995 or 


later. The total estimated 
project cost is $4.8 million. In 
addition, an extension of 
Runway 13/31 is planned to be 
completed in 1999 at a cost of 
$1 milUon. A 700 foot exten¬ 


sion of Runway 9R/27L is also 
being considered for comple¬ 
tion in 1999 or later at a cost 
of $0.5 milhon. 


4 



1,000 ft. 


5.000 ft. 


Appendix D - 43 



Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Philadelphia Int1 Airport (phl) 

A new 5,000-foot parallel 
commuter runway, Runway 8/ 

26, has been proposed with an 
expected operational date of 
1997. It would be located 
3,000 feet north of Runway 
9R/27L. The estimated cost is 
$215 million. 



Appendix D - 44 








1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Phoenix Sky Harbor IntM Airport (phx) 


A new 9,500-foot third 
parallel runway, Runway 7/25, 
is proposed 800 feet south of 
Runway 8R/26L. The esti¬ 
mated cost of construction is 


$88 million. The estimated 
operational date for the first 
7,800 feet of Runway 7/25 is 
1996; the remaining 1,700 feet 
of the runway is not scheduled 


at this time. In addition, an 
extension of Runway 8L/26R 
is under consideration. The 
estimated cost of construction 
is $7.0. 



1,000 ft. 


5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 45 












Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Port Columbus Int'l Airport (cmh) 


The Airport Layout Plan 
has been coordinated to show 
a third parallel Runway lOS/ 
28S constructed 800 feet south 
of the existing Runway lOR/ 
28L. This runway will be 
10,250 feet long and 150 feet 
wide, with two high speed 


exits, a 90 degree exit at the 
center, and a 90 degree bypass 
taxiway at each end. This 
would provide a 3,650 foot 
separation between the pro¬ 
posed Runway 10S/28S and 
the existing Runway 10L/28R. 
With the installation of the 


Precision Runway Monitor 
(PRM), the existing Runway 
10L/28R and the proposed 
Runway 10S/28S could be 
used for arrival air traffic. 
Runway 10R/28L would be 
used as the departure runway. 




Appendix D - 46 






1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Raleigh-Durham Int1 Airport (rdu) 

The relocation of Runway carrier runway. Two other the southeast of the relocated 

5R/23L and its associated runways are proposed for Runway 5R/23L. The actual 

taxiways is being considered. eventual construction. Runway sequence of these develop- 

The new runway will be 5W/23W would be located ments will be decided after a 

parallel to and approximately 1,000 to 4,300 feet to the study by a long-range planning 

450-1,200 feet southeast of northwest of Runway 5L/23R, committee, 

existing Runway 5R/23L. It and Runway 5E/23E would be 
will be a 9,000-foot long air located 1,000 to 4,300 feet to 



Appendix D - 47 










Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Reno Cannon Int'l Airport (rno) 


Construction began April 
23, 1993 to extend and widen 
Runway 16L/34R. The esti¬ 
mated operational date is the 
summer of 1994, and the 
estimated cost of construction 
is $22 million. 

mi 



5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 48 








1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Richmond Int1 Airport (ric) 

An extension of Runway 
16/34 is planned for an opera¬ 
tional date of January 1997. 

The estimated cost of con¬ 
struction is $12 million. 



Appendix D - 49 





Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Salt Lake City Int'l Airport (SLC) 

Construction of a new 
12,000 foot runway parallel to 
and 6,300 feet west of existing 
Runway 16R/34L began May 
17,1993. The estimated cost 
of construction is S120 mil¬ 
lion. This new runway will 
permit independent parallel 
approaches. 


16R 



5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 50 


















Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Santa Ana John Wayne Airport - Orange County (sna) 

An extension of Runway 
1L/19R is under consider¬ 
ation. 



Appendix D - 52 















1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Sarasota Bradenton Airport (srq) 


A new parallel Runway 
14L/32R 1,230 feet northwest 
of Runway 14/32 is being 
planned at an estimated cost of 
S9 million. It is expected to be 
operational by 1998. In addi¬ 


tion, an extension of the 
existing Runway 14/32 is 
planned at a cost of S4.3 
million. It is expected to be 
complete in 1996. 



Appendix D - 53 






Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Seattle-Tacoma Int1 Airport (sea) 

Potential airport improve^ 
ments include a new parallel 
runway, Runway 16W/34W, 
which will be located 2,500 
feet from Runway 16L/34R. A 
decision on construction will 
be made in 1996, and the 
estimated cost of construction 
is $400 million. 



Appendix D - 54 







1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Spokane IntM Airport (geg) 

Future projects include the operations, doubling hourly 
construction of a new parallel IFR arrival capacity. The 
Runway 3L/21R. The new estimated cost of construction 

runway will be 8,800 feet long of the new runway is approxi- 

by 150 feet wide and will be mately $11 million. Construc- 

separated from Runway 3R/ tion is expected to start in 
21L by 4,400 feet. This would 1999 and should be completed 
enable independent parallel in 2001. 



5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 55 








Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Syracuse Hancock Int1 Airport (syr) 

A new parallel Runway is 2000. The cost of construc- 

10L/28R, 9,000 feet long and tion is estimated to be $46 
separated from the existing million for the first phase of 

Runway 10/28 by 3,400 feet is the new runway, which would 
being considered. It would be 7,500 feet long, including a 

provide independent parallel parallel taxiway and connec- 
IFR operations, doubling tions to the ramp. The final 

hourly IFR arrival capacity. length of the runway will be 

The expected operational date 9,000 feet. 



5.000 ft. 


Appendix D - 56 






1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Tampa Int1 Airport (tpa) 


A third parallel Runway 
18R/36L 9,650 feet long and 
700 feet west of Runway 18L/ 
36R is being considered. 
Construction is expected to be 
completed by 2000, and the 
estimated cost of construction 


is S55 million. An extension of 
Runway 18L is also being 
considered for the timeframe 
beyond 2005, and an extension 
of Runway 27, for the 
timeframe beyond 2010. 



5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 57 










Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Tucson Int'l Airport (tus) 

status. It is not anticipated that 
the sponsor will proceed before 
1998. Current plans call for 
construction to start in 2003 to 
be operational in 2005. The 
cost of construction is esti¬ 
mated to be $30 million. 





An additional parallel air 
carrier runway, Runway HR/ 
29L, has been proposed. Upon 
completion of the new runway, 
the current Runway 11R/29L, 
a general aviation runway, will 
revert to its original taxiway 


Appendix D - 58 





1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


Tulsa IntM Airport (tul) 


A new parallel runway, million. The new runway 

Runway 18L/36R, is being could permit IFR triple inde- 

considered to be located 5,200 pendent approaches, if ap- 
feet east of the present 18L/ proved, to Runways 18L, 18C, 
36R and will be 9,600 feet and 18R. 

long. The cost of the new 
runway is estimated to be $115 



5.000 ft. 


Appendix D - 59 








Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Washington Dulles Int'l Airport (iad) 

Two new parallel runways is 2009. This could provide feet southwest of Runway 12/ 

are under consideration. A triple independent parallel 30. The runway is expected to 

north-south parallel, Runway approaches, if they are ap- be completed by 2010. The 

1W/19W, would be located proved. A second parallel estimated total cost of con- 

5,000 feet west of the existing Runway 12R/30L has been struction is $140 million for 

parallels and north of Runway proposed for location 3,000 both runways. 

12/30. Estimated opening date 


aei 



5,000 ft 


Appendix D - 60 








1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D: Runway Construction 


William B. Hartsfield Atlanta Int'l Airport (atl) 


A fifth parallel runway, 
6,000 feet long and 3,850 to 
4,150 feet south of Runway 
9R/27L, is being planned. The 
runway will permit triple 
independent IFR approaches 
using the PRM. The total 
estimated cost is $160 million. 
The estimated operational date 
is 1999. 



5,000 ft. 


Appendix D - 61 











Appendix D: Runway Construction 


1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix D - 62 


1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix E: Airport Layouts 


Appendix E 

Layouts of the Remaining Top 100 Airports 


Appendix E contains current airport layouts 
for those airports among the top 100 airports^ 
that are not considering construction of new 
runways or extensions to existing runways at the 
present time. The airport layouts show simpli¬ 


fied drawings of the existing airports. Airport 
layouts for those airports that are considering or 
have plans for new runways or runway extension 
projects are contained in Appendix D. 


Anchorage International Airport (anc).E-2 

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport (AUS) .E-3 

Birmingham Airport (bhm).E-4 

Boise Air Terminal (boi).E-5 

Bradley International Airport (bdl).E-6 

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport (bur).E-7 

Charleston AFB International Airport (CHS) .E-8 

Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, Virgin Islands (sir)... E-9 

Chicago Midway Airport (mow).E-10 

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport (cos).E-11 

Dallas-Love Field (dal).E-12 

Dayton International Airport (day).E-13 

Denver Stapleton International Airport (den).E-14 

Des Moines International Airport (dsm).E-15 

Greater Buffalo International Airport (buf).E-16 

Guam Agana Field (ncm).E-17 

Harrisburg International Airport (mdt).E-18 

Hilo International Airport (ITO). E-19 

Honolulu International Airport (hnl).E-20 

Houston William P. Hobby Airport (hou).E-21 

Kailua-Kona Keahole Airport (koa).E-22 


Knoxville McChee-Tyson Airport (WS) .E-23 

Lihue Airport (lih) .E-24 

Los Angeles International Airport (lax) .E-25 

Metropolitan Oakland Int'l Airport (oak) .E-26 

New York Kennedy International Airport ()FK) .E-27 

New York LaCuardia Airport (lga) .E-28 

Newark International Airport (ewr) .E-29 

Norfolk International Airport (ORF) .E-30 

Omaha Eppley Airfield (oma) .E-31 

Ontario International Airport (ont) .E-32 

Portland International Airport (pdx) .E-33 

Portland International Jetport (pwm) .E-34 

Providence Theodore Francis Green State (pvd) ... E-35 

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport (smf) .E-36 

Saipan International (gsn) .E-37 

San Diego International Lindberg Field (SAN) .E-38 

San Francisco International Airport (SFO) .E-39 

San Jose International Airport (sjc).E-40 

San Juan Louis Munoz Marfn Int'l Airport (sju).E-41 

Washington National Airport (dca) .E-42 

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport (icr).E-43 


1. Based on 1992 passenger enplanements (see Appendix A, Table A-1). 


Appendix E-1 








































































1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix E: Airport Layouts 



1,000 ft. 


5,000 ft. 


Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, Virgin Islands (stt) 


Appendix E “ 9 





















Appendix E: Airport Layouts 



Dallas-Love Field (dal) 


Appendix E - 12 









1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix E: Airport Layouts 



Dayton International Airport (day) 


Appendix E - 13 







Appendix E: Airport Layouts 


1994 ACE Plan 



5,000 ft. 


Denver Stapleton International Airport (den) 


Appendix E -14 





















Pacific Ocean 





1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix E: Airport Layouts 


Terminal 



Houston William P. Hobby Airport (hou) 


Appendbc E - 21 






Appendix E: Airport Layouts 


1994 ACE Plan 


Zt 



5,000 ft. 


Kailua-Kona Keahole Airport (koa) 


Appendix E — 22 






Appendix E: Airport Layouts 


1994 ACE Plan 



I.OOOfE 


5,000 ft. 


Lihue Airport (lih) 


Appendix E - 24 











Appendix E: Airport Layouts 


1994 ACE Plan 



Metropolitan Oakland International Airport (oak) 


Appendix E - 26 



















1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix E: Airport Layouts 


L\ 



5,000 ft. 


Omaha Eppley Airfield (oma) 


Appendix E - 31 























Appendix E: Airport Layouts 


1994 ACE Plan 



5.000 ft. 


Sacramento Metropolitan Airport (smf) 


Appendix E - 36 












1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix E: Airport Layouts 



5,000 ft. 


Saipan International (csn) 


Appendix E - 37 



Appendix E: Airport Layouts 


1994 ACE Plan 


6 



San Diego International Lindberg Field (san) 


Appendix E - 38 




























Appendix E: Airport Layouts 


1994 ACE Plan 



1,000 ft. 


5,000 ft. 


Washington National Airport (dca) 


Appendix E - 42 
















Appendix E: Airport Layouts 




Appendix E - 43 


Appendix E: Airport Layouts 


1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix E - 44 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix F: Capacity Design Team Po tential Savings 


Appendix F 

Airport Capacity Design Teams Potential Savings from 
Recommended Airfield Improvements 


This appendix expands on the summary material in Table 
2-4. Estimates in savings are in hours of delay and millions of 
dollars for selected airfield improvements recommended by the 
various Airport Capacity Design Teams. Estimates are given 
based upon demand ■— rated in annual operations — at current 
levels and future projections, refered to as Baseline, Future 1, 
and Future 2. Demand levels for each airport varied, and are 
listed in the tables. 

It should be noted that the particular combination of 
computer models and analytic methods used to calculate the 
annual delay costs and benefits is unique to each airport. 
Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to compare one 
airport with another. 

For further details on individual airports and recommenda¬ 
tions, refer to Appendix C and the specific Design Team study 
reports. 


Appendix F -1 


Appendix F: Capacity Design Team Potential Savings 


1994 ACE Plan 


Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport 


Estimated Annual Delay Savings 
(hours and millions of 1990 dollars) 
Baseline-219,000 Future 1-294,000 Future 2-350,000 
Recommended Improvement Hours $M Hours $M Hours $M 

2d) Extend Runway 9R/27L 1,355 S1.62 7,910 $11.12 20,680 $32.34 

10,000 ft. long, 150 ft. wide, 
withCATIILS 


Project Cost = $259M 

4b) Improve angles exits on 66 $0.08 105 $0.15 124 $0.19 

Runway 27R at Twy F 

Project Cost = $0.045M 


Greater Pittsburgh international Airport 


Estimated Annual Delay Savings 
(hours and millions of 1990 dollars) 

Baseline-471,000 Future 1-540,000 Future 2-618,000 
Recommended Improvement Hours $M Hours $IVI Hours $M 

6) Construct south parallel — — 59-60 $67-$68t 124-126 $127-$129t 

runway 4,300 ft. south of 
Runway 10R/28L and north 
parallel runway 1,000 ft north 
of Runway 10L/28R 

t The lower value represents Runway lOL use without jet departures; higher value, with jet departures. 


Appendix F - 2 






1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix F: Capacity Design Team Potential Savings 


Honolulu International Airport 


Estimated Annual Delay Savings 
(hours and millions of 1991 dollars) 
Baseline-407,000 Future 1-500,000 Future 2-700,000 


Recommended Improvement 

Hours 

$M 

Hours 

$M 

Hours 

$M 

4) 

Extend Runway 4L/22R 
to southwest to 10,000 ft. 

7,290 

114.2 

32,920 

164.1 

42,420 

$82.6 


Project Cost = S44.8M 







9) 

Construct Runway 8C/26C 

13,510 

$26.3 

57,880 

$112.7 

382,490 

1744.7 


Project Cost = $86.0M 







12) 

Construct angles exits on 
Runways 4R, 8L, and 26L 

460 

$0.9 

7,860 

$15.3 

32,820 

$63.9 


Project Cost = SIO.OM 


Houston Intercontinental Airport 


Estimated Annual Delay Savings 
(hours and millions of 1992 dollars) 




Baseline334,000 

Future 1-450,000 

Future 2-650,000 

Recommended Improvement 

Hours 

$M 

Hours 

$M 

Hours 

$M 

la) 

Extend Runway 14R/32L 

1,300 

$2.2 

11,400 

$20.0 

189,600 

$330.0 


Project Cost = $13.4M 







If) 

New Runways 8L/26R and 
9R/27L for quadruple 
independent approaches 

(11,100) 

(113.7) 

24,000 

$41.7 

764,400 

$1,335.4 


Project Cost = S135.5M 







2b) 

New high speed exit on 

1,100 

10.6 

7,600 

110.4 

313,600 

1545.7 


Runway 14R 
Project Cost = S0.72M 


Appendix F - 3 


Appendix F: Capacity Design Team Potential Savings 


1994 ACE Plan 


Los Angeles International Airport 


Estimated Annual Delay Savings 
(hours and millions of 1990 dollars) 
Baseline-641,751 Future 1-711,092 Future 2-782,056 


Recommended Improvement 

Hours 

$M 

Hours 

$M 

Hours 

$M 

1) 

Construct departure pads 

7,692 

S 14.06 

30,701 

160.29 

67,274 

$141.23 

5a) 

Construct 24 remote gates 

— 

— 

— 

— 

1,722 

$3.62 


Project Cost = S36.3M 







7) 

New high speed Taxiway 43 

441 

10.8 

444 

$0.87 

455 

$0.96 


Project Cost = S5.3M 


Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport 


Estimated Annual Delay Savings 
(hours and millions of 1992 dollars) 
Baseline-420,390 Future 1-530,000 Future 2-600,000 


Recommended Improvement 

Hours 

$M 

Hours 

$M 

Hours 

$M 

4) 

New Runways 17/35 and 
11N/29N 

8,438 

$12.2 

26,296 

$38.1 

56,548 

$81.8 


Project Cost = S307.0M 







7) 

New full-length parallel 
taxiway for Runway 11R/29L 

927 

$1.3 

1,147 

$1.7 

2,340 

$3.4 


Project Cost = S16.0M 







8) 

Dual crossover taxiways 
for Runways 11L/29R and 
11R/29L 

Project Cost = 1)20.OM 

2,084 

$3.0 

3,294 

$4.8 

3,787 

$5.5 


Appendix F - 4 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix F: Capacity Design Team Potential Savings 


Nashville International Airport 


Estimated Annual Delay Savings 


Recommended Improvement 

(hours and millions of 1989 dollars) 
Baseline-266,000 Future 1-417,500 Future 2-534,000 

Hours $M Hours $M Hours $M 

1) 

Relocate Runway 2C and 
extend to 8,000 ft. 

— 

— 

2,969 

S2.9 

7,585 

$7.6 


Project Cost = $33.0M 







4) 

Improve Taxiways 

— 

— 

413 

10.4 

1,034 

$1.0 


Project Costs = $27.8M 







5b) 

New Runway 2E/20E 2,500 ft. 
east of Runway 2R/20L 

— 

— 

4,371 

14.6 

7,413 

$7.8 


Project Cost = $150.0M 







11) 

Connecting taxiway 

— 

— 

4,017 

$4.0 

7,392 

$7.5 


from Concourse D to 


Runway 2R/20L 
Project Cost = SlS.OM 


Philadelphia International Airport 


Estimated Annual Delay Savings 
(hours and millions of 1990 dollars) 
Baseline-410,000 Future 1-500,000 Future 2-565,000 
Recommended Improvement Hours $M Hours $IVI Hours $M 

2) New 5,000 ft. commuter 20,402 S28.4 88,171 $122.8 154,624 $215.4 

Runway 8/26 

Project Cost = $169.2M 

3) Relocate Runway 9L/27R t 

400 ft. south 

Project Cost - $108.7M 

4) Shift Runway 9L/27R t 

2,735 ft. to the west 

Project Cost = $54.9M 

5) Shift Runway 9R/27L t 

1,000 ft. to the east 

Project Cost = $30.6M 


t The savings shown represent the combined benefits of recommended improvements 2, 3, 4, and 5. 


Appendix F - 5 



Appendix F: Capacity Design Team Potential Savings 


1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix F - 6 




1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


Appendix G 

Airspace Capacity Design Studies 

Studies completed to date are summarized in this appendix. 

It should be noted that these studies only considered the 
technical and operational feasibility of the proposed alterna¬ 
tives. Environmental, socioeconomic, and political issues will 
be addressed in future planning studies. 


G.l Kansas City Area Airspace Projecth2,3 

The purpose of the Kansas City Airspace Capacity Project 
was to evaluate proposed operational alternatives in the St. 
Louis and Kansas City TRACONs and Kansas City ARTCC 
airspaces. The Kansas City Airspace Capacity Project consisted 
of three simulation analyses. Results of each were analyzed 
with respect to increasing capacity, reducing delay, and improv¬ 
ing efficiency. 



G.1.1 St. Louis TRACON Operational 
Alternatives 

The first simulation analysis considered delay and capacity 
impacts at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport (STL) 
associated with relocating arrival fixes based on a four 
cornerpost VOR concept, implementing dual arrival routes over 
the cornerposts, and developing new departure routes. 

Two options for the St. Louis TRACON were studied. The 
first alternative considered a dual arrival route system with no 
other modifications to the existing TRACON or Kansas City 
ARTCC airspace and traffic systems. 

The second alternative considered a four cornerpost VOR 
system, relocating arrival fixes, providing dual arrival routes, 
adding new departure gates for St. Louis TRACON, and making 
significant Kansas City ARTCC routing changes. Greater delay 


1. Kansas City Airspace Capacity Project, May 1991 

2. Lambert-St. Louis International Airport Capacity Enhancement 
Plan, June 1988 

3. Kansas City International Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan, 
September 1990 


Appendix G - 1 




Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


1994 ACE Plan 


savings were realized from the second alternative than from the 
first as a result of the proposed airspace changes. These pro¬ 
posed changes reduce restrictions on aircraft flowing through 
the arrival fixes and increase the number of departure routes 
available, thus making use of previously unused runway capac¬ 
ity at STL due to increased airspace capacity in the St. Louis 
TRACON. 

A recommendation of the study was that runway capacity 
expansion at STL should be considered if the potential benefits 
of a new airspace network are to be realized during IFR condi¬ 
tions. 

The Lambert-St. Louis International Airport Capacity 
Enhancement Plan, completed in 1988, addressed this issue. 
The goals of the study were to increase IFR capacity at the 
airport to equal VER capacity. The recommendations of the St. 
Louis Task Force Study are listed in Appendix C. 

Recommendations for St. Louis designed for airfield 
improvement included: constructing a new runway parallel to 
Runway 12L/30R, constructing angled exits on Runway 12l/ 

3 Or, and constructing three major taxiway extensions parallel to 
Runway pairs 12R/30L and 12L/30R and Runway 6/24. 

Facility and equipment improvements recommended 
included: installing a CAT III ILS system on Runways 12L and 
30R, installing a precision approach system on Runway 6 to 
lower landing minimums on Runway 6 and also to support 
approaches during IFR weather conditions to Runways 30R and 
30L, and installing runway alignment indicator lights (RAILs) 
and centerline lights on Run-way 24 to lower approach mini¬ 
mums and support converging approaches during IFR to Run¬ 
ways 24, 30L, and 30R. 

G.1.2 Kansas City tracon Operational 
Alternatives 

The second simulation analysis evaluated proposed airport/ 
airspace improvements designed to increase capacity at Kansas 
City International Airport (MCl). This analysis considered 
three alternatives. The first alternative added a new north/ 
south parallel runway at MCL The second alternative analyzed a 
four cornerpost VOR system, relocated arrival fixes, and pro¬ 
vided dual arrival routes for MCL The third alternative included 
the four cornerpost VOR system, relocated the arrival fixes, 
added dual arrival routes, and added a new north/south parallel 
runway at MCL 


Appendix G - 2 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix G; Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


Simulation results of the second alternative showed that 
there would be daily savings in delay gained by using the 
proposed four cornerpost VOR system. The delay savings, 
though, are only realized during VFR weather conditions. 

The third alternative resulted in added delay savings for 
both VFR and IFR weather conditions. The capacity increases 
afforded by dual runways and dual arrival routes significantly 
increased airfield capacity, especially at the 200 percent traffic 
demand level. 

Runway capacity expansion at Kansas City International 
Airport is to be strongly considered and was a major objective 
of the Kansas City Capacity Design Team in its report of 
September 1990. Recommendations that directly relate to 
increasing runway capacity under IFR weather conditions are 
listed in Appendix C. 

Recommendations for Kansas City designed for airfield 
improvement included: independent 9,500 foot parallel Run¬ 
way 1r/19L, independent 10,000 foot parallel Runway 18R/ 
36L, high speed exits for Runways IL and 19R, and high speed 
exits for Runway 27R. 

Facility and equipment improvements recommended 
included: installing a CAT III ITS for Runway iR, installing a 
CAT IILS for Runway 19L to allow for simultaneous approaches 
to Runways 19L and 19R, installing an ILS/MLS for Runway 
27R to provide precision approaches and allow for simultaneous 
converging approaches to Runway 27R and north/south run¬ 
ways in IFR without the application of visual separation, and 
upgrading Runway IL ILS to CAT III. 

G.1.3 Kansas City En Route Airspace 
Alternatives 

The third simulation analyzed modifications of Kansas City 
ARTCC traffic flows to align with the St. Louis and Kansas City 
TRACON arrival and departure changes made in the first two 
simulations, rerouted overflight traffic based on specific desti¬ 
nation criteria, and raised the ceiling on low altitude sectors 
from FL230 to FL270. 

Simulation results show that raising the low altitude ceil¬ 
ings to FL270 would provide immediate delay savings at the 
baseline demand level and as overflight traffic increases within 
Kansas City ARTCC. Higher ceilings for low altitude sectors 
should provide a more balanced distribution of traffic by sector. 


Appendix G - 3 



Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


1994 ACE Plan 


G,2 Houston/Austin Airspace Project^ 



The purpose of the Houston/Austin Airspace Capacity 
Project was to support the FAA Southwest Region in their 
planning efforts and quantitatively evaluate the impacts of 
proposed operational alternatives in the Houston and Fort 
Worth Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs), terminal 
airspace operations in the Austin Terminal Radar Approach 
Control (TRACON), and airfield operations at the existing 
Robert Mueller Airport and at the proposed new Manor 
Airport in Austin. 

The Austin TRACON provides air traffic control services in 
the terminal airspace surrounding Robert Mueller Airport. 
Austin TRACON airspace has Robert Mueller Airport located 
near the center and Bergstrom Air Force Base located southeast 
of Robert Mueller Airport. In addition to Robert Mueller 
Airport, the primary airport, there are 11 satellite airports 
within the Austin TRACON. 

Two simulation analyses were conducted to quantitatively 
evaluate the capacity and delay impacts of operational alterna¬ 
tives in the Houston and Fort Worth Centers and in the Austin 
TRACON. The first involved evaluating the capacity gains and 
delay reductions that would result from construction of the new 
airport at Manor, Texas, including redesigning airspace struc¬ 
tures, routings, and procedures in the Austin TRACON. The 
second simulation analysis involved analyzing the impacts of 
potential rerouting of specific Austin-bound traffic from the 
east coast through the Fort Worth Center instead of via the 
present routing through the Houston Center. 


G.2.1 New Austin Airport/Airspace System 


The runway system for the existing Austin Municipal 
Airport, Robert Mueller Airport, consists of three runways: 
two parallel diagonal runways and a north/south runway. The 
existing airspace system uses a combination of radar vectors 
and preferential arrival routes for arriving aircraft bound for 
airports within the Austin terminal area. In addition, an ap¬ 
proach is available for Bergstrom AFB high performance jet 
arrivals. Aircraft depart the Austin TRACON airspace via radar 
vectors, preferential departure routes, or the jet airway struc¬ 
ture. 


4. Houston/Austin Airspace Capacity Project, May 1991 


Appendix G — 4 




1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


The proposed system incorporates several major airspace 
and procedural modifications. The new airport will be located 
near the town of Manor, which is approximately 11 miles 
northeast of Mueller Airport, around which the existing air¬ 
space and procedures were designed. The new proposed Manor 
Airport consists of two parallel air carrier runways, spaced 
5,800 feet apart. The spacing between the two runways allows 
simultaneous independent IFR approaches. In order to accom¬ 
modate the new airport’s traffic patterns and extended final 
approach courses, Austin TRACON airspace will be expanded 5 
miles northward and eastward to a point approximately 35 
miles east of the Manor Airport. 

A modified four cornerpost system is proposed for arrivals, 
providing for segregated traffic, both vertically and laterally 
separated on parallel arrival routes from three directions. The 
departure route design is based on major traffic flows allowing 
for segregation by destination. The plan allows for multiple 
departure routes diverging at or near the airport resulting in an 
increased departure capacity. With about 70 percent of 
Bergstrom Air Force Base traffic operating to the west, a 
separate departure route dedicated to military operations was 
created, thereby segregating very high performance aircraft 
from other types. 

Traffic demand schedules were generated for two scenarios. 
The first projected traffic growth without the development of 
an airline hub at the new Manor Airport, and the second 
scenario projected traffic growth with the development of an 
airline hub. Each scenario assumed little or no change in 
general aviation and military operations, moderate growth in 
commuter operations, and significant growth in air carrier 
operations. 

Weather conditions strongly influence the capacity at 
Mueller Airport due to impacts on runway utilization and 
dependencies, procedures, and separation criteria. Under IFR, 
capacity decreases at both the existing and proposed airports 
primarily because arriving aircraft must conduct instrument 
approaches, thus increasing separation requirements for arriv¬ 
ing aircraft and between successive departure operations. At 
the existing airport, decreases result due to the inability to run 
simultaneous approaches to the closely-spaced parallel runways 
and to the dependency of departure operations from the two 
runways. In addition, converging approaches at the existing 
airport are impractical. At the new proposed Manor Airport, 
on the other hand, the runways are spaced far enough apart 
that there is no dependency between departure operations, and 
criteria for simultaneous ILS approaches are met, resulting in a 
higher capacity operation than that at the existing airport. 


Appendix G - 5 



Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


1994 ACE Plan 


Simulation results indicate that airspace restructuring and 
the construction of a new airport at Austin with two new 
independent air carrier runways would result in significant 
increased capacity and cost savings when compared to the 
existing airfield and airspace structure. Delay and cost savings 
would be realized for both the hub and non-hub projections in 
traffic growth. 

G.2.2 East Coast Traffic Rerouting Option 

The second simulation analysis evaluated proposed rerout¬ 
ing of specific Austin-bound East Coast traffic. East Coast jet 
traffic arriving at Austin from the direction of Atlanta, Geor¬ 
gia, is currently routed entirely through Houston Center. An 
alternative route under consideration involves routing the 
traffic through Fort Worth Center at high altitude with the jet 
traffic bound for the DEW area. The flights bound for Austin 
would descend southwest bound to enter Houston Center 
south of the Waco VORTAC, in-trail with other Austin arrivals 
from the DEW area. Air traffic operations in the Houston and 
Fort Worth Centers for three demand levels under VFR were 
simulated. The new Austin airport/airspace system was as¬ 
sumed to be in place, with an airline hub serving the East 
Coast established at Manor Airport, by the second traffic 
demand level. 

Simulation results for the hub scenario traffic demand 
levels provided results for assessing the delay impact of the 
routing alternatives. The overall system-wide delay associated 
with routing the east coast traffic through Houston Center was 
compared with the corresponding delay associated with routing 
the traffic through Fort Worth Center. Simulation results 
indicate that flights incur less travel time when routed via the 
present route through Houston Center instead of the alterna¬ 
tive route through Fort Worth Center. 


Appendix G - 6 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


G3 Oakland Airspace Project^ ^ 


The purpose of the Oakland Center Airspace Analysis 
Project was to evaluate the delay and capacity impacts of 
proposed operational alternatives aimed at increasing capacity, 
reducing delay, and improving the overall efficiency of air 
traffic operations within the Oakland Air Route Traffic Con¬ 
trol Center (ARTCC), terminal airspace operations in the Bay 
and Sacramento Terminal Radar Approach Controls 
(TRACONs), and airfield operations at San Francisco Interna¬ 
tional (SFO), Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK), San 
Jose International (SJC), and Sacramento Metropolitan (SMF) 
Airports. 

The Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) 
adjoins three other domestic ARTCCs and has an oceanic 
control area to the west, which provides air traffic services to 
transpacific flights. Air traffic operations within Oakland 
Center airspace are very complex. There exists a significant east 
to west and north to south traffic flow, several interactive, high 
density airports, considerable military activity, and numerous 
geographical constraints restricting radar coverage, radio 
communications, and air traffic movement. Traffic handled by 
the Oakland Center includes overflights, arrivals, departures, 
and intra-center traffic. Due to its geographical location, the 
majority of flights within the Oakland ARTCC are either climb¬ 
ing or descending. The three Bay Area airports account for 
over 55 percent of the total Oakland Center IFR operations. 

The Oakland Center Airspace Analysis Project consisted of 
four major simulation analysis tasks. Results of each were 
analyzed with respect to increasing capacity, reducing delay, 
and improving the overall efficiency of air traffic operations and 
are summarized below. 



G3.1 Sector 11 Initiative 


The first simulation analysis task involved evaluating two 
proposed airspace realignment and routing alternatives to 
alleviate complexity and saturation problems associated with 
Oakland Center Sector 11. 


5. Oakland Center Airspace Analysis Project, June 1991 

6. San Francisco Bay Area Airport Task Force Capacity Study of SFO, 
SJC, and OAK International Airports, December 1987 


Appendix G - 7 






Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


1994 ACE Plan 


Sector 11 is one of 25 en route sectors located within the 
Oakland Center. The base of Sector 11 airspace commences at 
the surface and attains its highest altitude at FL230. Some 
shelving exists at the lower altitudes, mainly where Sector 11 
interfaces with Bay TRACON, Monterey Approach Control, 
and Stockton Approach Control. Sector 11 is a relatively small 
sector, encompassing the majority of the area south of San Jose 
International Airport, approximately 45 miles north to south 
and 60 miles east to west. 

Alternative A involved an extension of the lateral and 
vertical confines of Bay TRACON, Monterey Approach Control, 
and Stockton Approach Control; a modification to the major 
San Jose International Airport jet arrival routes to conform 
with proposed boundary and procedure changes between Bay 
TRACON and Oakland ARTCC Sector 11; and a reduction in 
metering restrictions to San Jose International Airport from 
the Los Angeles Basin and southwestern U.S. Alternative B 
included the changes proposed in Alternative A, plus it ex¬ 
tended the ceilings of Monterey and Stockton Approach 
Controls. 

Both improvement options proposed under the Oakland 
Sector 11 Initiative result in capacity gains and delay savings, 
though Alternative B results in greater delay savings when 
compared to baseline operations. This is due to fewer aircraft 
impacting Oakland Center Sector 11 and reduced in-trail 
separation standards required within approach control airspace. 
Besides the operating cost savings realized under the Sector 11 
improvement alternatives, additional benefits would include; 
reduced Sector 11 complexity and traffic density; increased 
sequencing flexibility for Bay TRACON to merge traffic; reduced 
en route traffic metering; reduced inter-facility and intra¬ 
facility coordination; and a more efficient airspace alignment, 
resulting in an increased capacity to handle future traffic de¬ 
mand with reduced delay. 

There is a narrowing of the margin between the delay and 
cost savings benefits between the alternatives in future demand 
levels when compared to the baseline and to each other due to 
limited runway capacity at San Jose International Airport. 
Future runway capacity expansion at San Jose International 
Airport should be a serious consideration if the potential 
benefits of any new airspace network are to be fully realized for 
increased traffic demands and IFR conditions. 

The San Francisco Bay Area Airports Capacity Task Force’s 
major objective, in its report of December 1987, was to develop 
an action plan to increase capacity and efficiency and to reduce 


Appendix G - 8 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


aircraft delays at the three Bay Area international airports. 
Recommendations for San Jose designed to maximize the 
benefits of redesigned airspace include; creating staging areas at 
Runways 30L and 30R, extending and upgrading Runways 30R 
and 29, creating angled exits for Runway 12R, promoting use of 
reliever ILS training facilities, installing MLS on Runway 30L, 
and implementing simultaneous departures with Moffett Field. 

G.3.2 Northern California Combined Radar 
Facility (norcal crf) Airspace 
Redesign 

The second task in this analysis involved analyzing the 
system capacity and air traffic delay impacts associated with 
combining several approach control facilities and delegating 
airspace from Oakland ARTCC to form the proposed Northern 
California Combined Radar Facility (NORCAL CRF). The 
proposed operational changes required: combining Bay 
TRACON, Travis RAPCON, Sacramento Approach Control, 
Stockton Approach Control, and portions of Oakland ARTCC 
into a single radar approach control facility, expanding 
Monterey Approach Control’s area of jurisdiction; developing 
new sectors and modifying existing sectors within all facilities 
to conform with the proposed airspace changes; extending 
Runway 30R at San Jose International Airport to 7,460 feet for 
specific improvement options; and modifying arrival and 
departure routes to coincide with the proposed airspace 
changes. Results were analyzed for VFR and IFR conditions. 

Simulation results show that the consolidation of facilities 
to establish the NORCAL CRF would result in capacity gains, 
delay savings, and aircraft operating cost savings. Potential 
benefits associated with establishing the NORCAL CRF facility 
include: increased sequencing flexibility to merge traffic using 
terminal in-trail separation criteria; expansion of available 
TRACON airspace for vectoring of arrival and departure traffic; 
improved efficiency in merging traffic with Oakland Center, 
reduced inter- and intra-facility coordination, and a more 
efficient airspace alignment resulting in increased capacity to 
handle future traffic demands with reduced delay. The exten¬ 
sion of Runway 30R at San Jose International Airport would 
provide increased capacity to more efficiently accommodate 
current traffic demand as well as future traffic growth at the 
airport. Extending Runway 30R at San Jose International 
Airport in conjunction with implementing the NORCAL CRF 
airspace redesign produces even greater delay savings and cost 


Appendix G - 9 



Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


1994 ACE Plan 


benefits than separately adding together the delay benefits and 
cost savings of each option. 


G.3.3 Sacramento Airspace Routings 
Analysis 


The third simulation analysis task involved evaluating 
alternative routings and procedures proposed to alleviate noise 
problems in the Sacramento Metropolitan area. Analyses tvere 
performed to determine the impact that these routings might 
have on current traffic flows within the Sacramento TRACON 
and Oakland Center. Four routing options were analyzed (one 
northwind and three southwind operations); a combination of 
the northwind alternative with each of the southwind alterna¬ 
tives was also analyzed. 

Simulation results show that the four alternative options do 
not yield any significant arrival delay changes for the baseline 
traffic demand at Sacramento Metropolitan Airport. 


G.3.4 Fallon Special Use Airspace Impact 
Analysis 

The fourth simulation analyzed the capacity and delay 
impacts associated with rerouting specific traffic to evaluate a 
proposed reconfiguration of the Fallon Range Training Com¬ 
plex. The proposed operational changes included raising the 
ceiling on the Fallon area and rerouting civilian traffic currently 
overflying the Fallon military airspace onto existing routes that 
circumvent the Fallon training area. 

The expansion of the Fallon Range Training Complex 
signiflcantly reduces Sector 43’s airspace previously available for 
the vectoring of traffic to relieve congestion. The proposed 
expansion of the Fallon Range Training Complex is situated on 
a major west to east air traffic corridor. Requiring traffic to be 
rerouted around or clear of the proposed Fallon Range Training 
Complex restricts the majority of the departure traffic to using 
two primary departure routes. This rerouting of traffic results 
in increased ground delay at impacted airports due to the 
necessity to provide in-trail separation on airway specific routes 
instead of utilizing vectors and/or direct routes to expedite 
traffic movement. 


Appendix G - 10 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


G.4 Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex Project^ 

The objective of the Dallas-Ft. Worth (DFW) Metroplex 
Air Traffic Analysis Project was to address a variety of capacity 
and delay problems and issues in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, 
including development of plans for increasing airport and 
airspace capacity. 

This project focused on three primary areas: (1) evaluation 
of the new airspace design for the DFW area, (2) assessment of 
the need for and alternatives for providing and utilizing new 
runway capacity at DPW Airport, and (3) evaluation of the 
capacity and delay impacts of airspace interactions among 
traffic from various airports in the DFW area. 

These analyses relating to the new DFW airspace were 
aimed at evaluating and refining routings and procedures for 
the new airspace design, analyzing the capacity of the new 
airspace design to accommodate future traffic volumes and 
expanded airport capacity, and assessing the capability of the 
new airspace to support procedures for four simultaneous ILS 
approaches to DFW Airport. Analyses relating to the new 
runway capacity at DFW Airport were aimed at analyzing new 
runway alternatives in terms of the type of runway (commuter 
or air carrier), timing of construction, location on the airfield, 
use configurations, and operating procedures. Airspace interac¬ 
tion problems analyzed included the interaction between 
departures from Dallas Love Field and DFW Airport under 
both North Flow and South Flow operations, and the interac¬ 
tions between DFW Airport arrivals and Navy Dallas Airfield 
departures and arrivals during North Flow operations. 

G.4.1 New Airspace Design for the dfw 
Area 

Simulation analyses were conducted to analyze the capacity 
of the new DFW airspace system being designed by the DFW 
Metroplex Program Office of the FAAs Southwest Region. 
Major modifications to the old system include: expand 
TRACON airspace from 30 nm to 40 nm by relocating 
cornerposts and adding two new VORTACs, establish dual jet 
routing for arrivals over each cornerpost, estabhsh additional 


7. The Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex Air Traffic Analysis Project, 

November 1989 

! Appendix G - 11 

i 

1 _______ 




Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


1994 ACE Plan 


terminal departure routings, segregate jet, turboprop, and prop 
traffic, segregate some military flights from civilian traffic, 
revise nominal radar vector paths within the TRACON, and 
revise arrival and departure routings in the Fort Worth Center. 

Simulation results show that the maximum benefits from 
the new airspace design wfll be realized in the future, with 
expected airport capacity improvements and increased demand 
levels, but the airspace design will also yield significant delay 
reductions and cost savings under current demand levels with 
existing airport facilities. Furthermore, the simulation results 
verify that the new airspace system provides the capacity to 
efficiently accommodate the increased traffic levels forecast 
through year 2010, including traffic associated with two new 
air carrier runways at DEW Airport. The new airspace struc¬ 
tures and procedures provide the throughput to feed four 
simultaneous ILS approaches to DEW Airport. 

G.4.2 New Runway Capacity at dfw Airport 

The simulation of increased levels of traffic clearly indicate 
that existing runway facilities at DFW Airport do not provide 
adequate capacity to accommodate forecast traffic demand in the 
upcoming decade. Without new runway capacity, delays will 
increase to levels that result in severe economic penalties to 
aircraft operators and will be too expensive to support planned 
operations. 

Potential airfield improvements at DFW v^irport included 
north extensions on each of the north/south runways on either 
side of the terminal area with departure staging areas, a new 
eastside runway with associated taxiways, a new westside runway 
with associated new taxiways, new terminal facilities, and 
relocation of the general aviation parking area. The changes that 
were assumed to be in place depended on the demand year and 
runway options under consideration in the various simulation 
runs. 

The results from the simulation runs indicated that to 
maintain the baseline (1987) level of service at DFW Airport 
(i.e., without increasing flight delays), a new commuter runway 
will be needed in 1990, a new air carrier runway in the mid 
1990’s, a new commuter runway and a new air carrier runway 
around 2000, and two new air carrier runways around the year 
2005. In addition, the operational benefits that can be realized 
by a new north/south air carrier runway on the westside of DFW 
Airport depends on its location relative to the existing westside 
diagonal runway. The two options for locating a new westside 


Appendix G -12 


1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


air carrier runway were an intersecting option and a non-inter¬ 
secting option. It was assumed that triple independent IFR 
approaches can be conducted when one new runway is available 
and quadruple approaches can be conducted when two new 
runways are available. Increased cost savings will be realized if 
the new westside runway is non-intersecting. In addition, the 
complexity of operations and controller workload would be less 
for the non-intersecting alternative. These savings must be 
weighed against the greater construction costs for a new non¬ 
intersecting runway. 


G.4.3 Airspace Interactions between dfw 
Airport and Satellite Airport Traffic 


Simulation analyses were conducted to evaluate the capac¬ 
ity and delay impacts of airspace interactions among traffic 
from various airports in the DFW area. Airspace interaction 
problems analyzed included the interaction between departures 
from Dallas Love Field and DFW Airport under both North 
Flow and South Flow operations, and the interaction between 
DFW Airport arrivals and Dallas Naval Air Station (NAS) 
departures and arrivals during North Flow operations. 

Simulation results indicate that potential interactions 
between departures from DFW Airport and Dallas Love Field 
during South Flow operations are particularly critical. Substan¬ 
tial delay savings result from using routings and procedures that 
minimize airspace interactions between DFW Airport and 
Dallas Love Field departures and should be strongly encour¬ 
aged. 


Appendix G - 13 


Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


1994 ACE Plan 


G.5 Expanded East Coast Plans 



The purpose of the Airport and Airspace Simulation 
Model (SIMMOD) application to the Expanded East Coast 
Plan (EECP) was to support the FAA in its planning efforts to 
restructure airspace operations on the East Coast of the United 
States to increase capacity, reduce delays, and improve overall 
efficiency of the air traffic system. 

The application effort was concerned with New England’s 
portion of the EECP, which focused on airspace operations in 
the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). Simu¬ 
lation efforts focused on redesigning traffic routings, ATC 
procedures, and airspace sectors that would properly interface 
with other portions of the EECP (i.e., the New York area), and 
that would yield increased capacity and reduced delays in the 
Boston ARTCC airspace. 

Boston Center airspace operations are complex, involving 
significant EastAVest and North/South flows. Of the more 
than 100 airports underlying the Boston Center airspace, 
Logan International Airport flights account for almost 25 
percent of Boston Center total traffic. Traffic handled by the 
Boston Center includes overflights, arrivals, departures, and 
intra-center traffic. Because of the geographic location, most 
flights in the Boston Center are chmbing or descending, 
including intra-center flights, oceanic traffic, and traffic ac¬ 
cepted from and handed to adjacent facilities. The climbs, 
descents, routings, and other airspace maneuvering required by 
these flights contribute to the complexity of air traffic opera¬ 
tions. Adjacent to Boston Center to the southwest is New York 
Center. Just within the New York Center airspace is a major 
“hub area,” including Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark 
Airports. Many flights departing from or arriving at these 
airports must transit through Boston Center airspace. Montreal 
Centre is adjacent to Boston Center to the north. Due to the 
close proximity of Montreal area airports to the center bound¬ 
ary, much of the traffic to and from Montreal is climbing or 
descending. 

Simulation runs were conducted for both the current 
Boston ARTCC operations (routes, sectors, and procedures) as 
well as new proposed EECP operations for a basehne traffic 
demand schedule. 


8. Airport and Airspace Simulation Model (SIMMOD) Application to 
the Expanded East Coast Plan, October 1987 


Appendix G - 14 


1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix G; Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


G.5.1 Current Operations 


Operational procedures used under the current system to 
control aircraft in Boston Center airspace rely primarily on 
maintaining minimum en route separation requirements. 
Certain flights, however, have added restrictions placed upon 
them in the form of specific routing, altitude, and miles-in-trail 
separation requirements. 

For the current system simulation, the standard restrictions 
that are routinely in effect on a daily basis were assumed. They 
include miles-in-trail restrictions on aircraft entering Sardi, 
Stewart, and Pawling sectors for certain periods of the day, and 
miles-in-trail restrictions on specific Boston Center flights 
being handed to New York Center and Cleveland Center. 

A traffic demand schedule was developed for a baseline day 
of operations in Boston Center airspace in 1987 which in¬ 
cluded air carrier, military, air taxi, and general aviation depar¬ 
tures, arrivals, and overflights. 



G.5.2 Proposed Operations 


Major modifications to the current system include: 


(1) Boston Center airways were restructured to provide 
direct routings for established traffic flows with less 
radar vectoring, 

(2) Boston Center departure routes were realigned with 
revised New York Center EECP routings, 

(3) More efficient routings for arrivals into the Boston 
Center were provided, 

(4) Boston Center airspace sectors were revised to effi¬ 
ciently accommodate traffic flows and uniformly 
distribute the traffic load among sectors, 

(5) Airspace sectors were made less complex by reducing 
the amount of “shelving,” i.e., variation of sector 
shape with altitude, and 

(6) TRACONs were delegated more airspace to enhance 
the efficient use of Tower En Route Control (TEC) 
routings. 


In addition, procedures for metering arrivals into Logan 
Airport were identified for potential implementation in the 
proposed EECP system. 


Appendix G -15 




Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


1994 ACE Plan 


Several simulation cases were run. The first analysis was 
one where no runway constraints were present. It was assumed 
that the airports can accept arrivals at the rate the airspace can 
deliver the aircraft to the runway, subject to all airspace route, 
procedure, and separation constraints. Another case involved 
having representative airport arrival acceptance rate (AAR) 
constraints imposed. Two AARs for Logan Airport were se¬ 
lected for the analysis. The first was an AAR of 60 which 
allowed 34 arrivals per hour on the primary runway and 26 on 
the secondary runway. The second was an AAR of 36 which 
allowed 26 arrivals per hour on the primary runway and 10 
arrivals on the secondary runway. 

It was also decided to evaluate the impacts of arrival se¬ 
quencing and spacing procedures on delay. In the current 
system, the primary method for spacing arrivals is to set inde¬ 
pendent miles-in-trail constraints on the various arrival flows 
which feed the runways at Logan Airport, so as to stay within 
the AAR constraints. The use of coordinated arrival metering 
procedures is being considered for use in the proposed EECP 
system. Thus, the simulation cases included the AAR 60 and 
AAR 36 cases, with and without arrival metering. 

Simulation results indicate that from a purely airspace point 
of view, the new proposed EECP airspace routings and 
sectorizations will result in substantial efficiency and capacity 
gains. Flight time savings increase as the AAR level is de¬ 
creased. Additional delay reductions are realized when coordi¬ 
nated arrival metering procedures are used. 

An analysis was conducted to evaluate the capacity of the 
proposed EECP system to handle increased levels of traffic 
demand, compared to that of the current system. 

Simulation results show that the amount of delay at all 
traffic levels is significantly less for the proposed system than 
for the current system. It was also found that the proposed 
system is able to absorb approximately ten percent more traffic 
before it reaches the same overall delay level experienced in the 
current system. 

Based on an analysis of the sector occupancy statistics, it 
can be concluded that the proposed EECP system will reduce 
the intensity of traffic in airspace sectors. The reduced traffic 
congestion has the potential to alleviate sector saturation, 
reduce controller workload, and enhance aviation safety. 


Appendix G - 16 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


C.6 New Denver Airport/Airspace Study^ 

The purpose of the New Denver Airport/Airspace Study 
was to help the FAAs Northwest Mountain Region in their 
plans to realign en route and Terminal Radar Control 
(TRACON) airspace so that air traffic operations can be effi¬ 
ciently accommodated at the new Denver Airport. The New 
Denver Airport/Airspace Study consisted of two airspace 
options and two runway use plans. Each alternative was ana¬ 
lyzed with respect to increasing capacity, reducing delay, and 
improving efficiency. 

Stapleton International Airport is nearing capacity and will 
not be able to accommodate traffic forecasts of 1,900 opera¬ 
tions per day in 1993. The city of Denver, Colorado is planning 
to replace Stapleton International Airport with a new airport in 
order to accommodate the forecast increases in traffic. The new 
Denver airport will be located approximately 10 miles north¬ 
east of Stapleton International Airport and is scheduled to 
open in 1995 with five runways. Existing plans for the new 
airport include expansion to twelve runways as the traffic 
demand increases to 3,600 operations per day. 

The six runway configuration consists of four north/south 
runways (two on either side of the terminal area) and two east/ 
west runways. One is located north of the two runways on the 
right side of the terminal area and the other is located south of 
the runways on the left side of the terminal area. All runways 
are 12,000 feet long with the exception of one runway that is 
16,000 feet long. The runway spacing is large enough for three 
simultaneous ILS approaches during IFR conditions. The 
airport is primarily a north/south flow airport; the two east/ 
west runways are used as offload runways during north or south 
flow operations. 

The new Denver Terminal Radar Approach Control 
(TRACON) will be operated as an arrival/departure gate system. 
Two arrival/departure gate options and two runway utilization 
plans were analyzed. 

G.6.1 Terminal Airspace Design Evaluation 

The TRACON airspace for the New Denver Airport is 
bound by a circle, centered at the New Denver Airport, with a 
radius of 30 nautical miles, and extends from the ground to 


9. New Denver Airport/Airspace Study, October 1989 


Appendix 0-17 


Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


1994 ACE Plan 


20,000 feet in altitude. The basic design involves four arrival 
and four departure gates to accommodate traffic associated 
with the New Denver Airport and satellite airports (Jeffco, 
Centennial, and Front Range). Two options for placement of 
the arrival/departure gates were analyzed. Option 1 involves 
roughly symmetric distribution of arrival and departure gates 
around the boundary of the TRACON. The arrival gates are 
placed so that existing airways that feed the arrival gates at 
Stapleton International Airport can be used. In Option 2, the 
arrival gates are moved so that the north and south departure 
gates are smaller. 

Simulation results show that Option 1 provides more 
capacity and more efficient operations than Option 2. Delay 
reductions and more efficient airspace routings result in sub¬ 
stantial savings in aircraft operating time for Option 1. 

C.6.2 Runway Use Analysis 

The New Denver Airport is scheduled to open in 1995 
with a five-runway configuration. Two runway use plans were 
evaluated. The plans differ in terms of criteria for offloading 
aircraft from the primary runways during arrival and departure 
peaks. Plan 1 assumes the use of procedures similar to those 
currently used at Stapleton International Airport. Plan 2 
involves more demand-responsive use of runways, with the 
number of arrival and departure runways varying with demand, 
and with balanced utilization of available runway capacity. 

The runway utilization for departure rushes under Plan 1 is 
the same for VFR and IFR operations, where up to four runways 
are available to handle the departure rush. During a VER arrival 
rush, up to five arrival runways are available, depending on the 
size of the arrival rush. The runway use is balanced so that 
arrivals are evenly allocated to the arrival runways, and depar¬ 
tures are evenly allocated to departure runways. The main 
difference between VFR and IFR operations is the number of 
arrival runways. Only three arrival runways are available for IFR 
operations because the east/west runways become departure 
runways. 

Under Plan 2, the departure rush runway utilization is the 
same for VFR and IFR operations as it is for Plan 1. During a 
VFR arrival rush, four runways are always available for arrivals. 
The arrival and departure use is not balanced. As in Plan 1, 
only three IFR arrival runways are used. 

Simulation results show that substantial benefits may be 
realized using Plan 2 instead of Plan 1. 


Appendix G - 18 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


G.6.3 New Denver Airport and Terminal 
Airspace Capacity Analysis 

The traffic demand at the New Denver Airport is forecast 
to be 1,900 daily operations when it opens in 1995. This was 
used as the baseline demand. An analysis was conducted to 
evaluate the capacity of the New Denver Airport and terminal 
airspace using airspace Option 1 and runway use Plan 2. The 
analysis was conducted for VFR and IFR operations with 
baseline and increased demand in increments of 10 percent, up 
to a 50 percent increase over the baseline demand. 

Simulation results show that there is sufficient airspace and 
runway capacity to accommodate future growth with six run¬ 
ways when the runways are used efficiently. The use of airspace 
Option 1 and runway use Plan 2 will provide adequate capacity 
to accommodate expected future traffic growth of up to 30 
percent over baseline demand with modest increases in annual 
delay. For demand increases greater than 30 percent over 
baseline, additional runway capacity at the New Denver Air¬ 
port will be required to avoid substantial increases in delay. 


Appendix G - 19 


Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


1994 ACE Plan 


G.7 Los Angeles Airspace Projectio ii 



The purpose of the Los Angeles Airspace Capacity Project 
was to support the FAA Western-Pacific Region in their plan¬ 
ning efforts and analyze several critical capacity and delay 
problems and issues in the Southern California area. 

Los Angeles Center airspace operations are complex, 
involving significant EastAVest and North/South flows. Traffic 
handled by the Los Angeles Center includes overflights, 
arrivals, departures, and intra-center traffic. Because of its 
geographic location, most flights in the Los Angeles Center are 
climbing or descending. Los Angeles International Airport 
flights account for almost 30 percent of Los Angeles Center 
total traffic. 

Immediately adjacent to and to the north of Los Angeles 
Center is Oakland Center. Flights between Oakland Center 
and Los Angeles Center departing from or arriving at Los 
Angeles Basin airports must transit the Ventura/Palmdale 
corridor, one of four primary corridors available for ingress or 
egress into the Los Angeles Basin area. These corridors are a 
result of the numerous Special Use Airspaces (SUAs) which 
exist within and immediately adjacent to Los Angeles Center. 
The Ventura/Palmdale corridor is one of the busiest in the 
world and requires special flow management to maintain 
maximum capacity usage during peak traffic periods. 

The Los Angeles Airspace Capacity Project consisted of 
three major simulation analysis tasks. They are: (1) Los Ange¬ 
les International Airport capacity analysis; (2) Los Angeles 
Center airspace choke point delay analysis; and (3) Los Ange¬ 
les Basin airspace realignment analysis. Results of each were 
analyzed with respect to increasing capacity, reducing delay, 
and improving the overall efficiency of air traffic operations and 
are summarized below. 


C.7.1 Los Angeles International Airport 
Capacity Analysis 

The objective of this task was to determine the arrival and 
departure capacity of Los Angeles International Airport under 
various operating conditions and the sensitivity of the airport 
capacity to variations in key operational parameters. 


10. Los Angeles Airspace Capacity Project, December 1988 

11. Los Angeles International Aiport Capacity Enhancement Plan, 
September 1992 


Appendix G - 20 





1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


Simulation results show that under baseline operating 
conditions, the maximum arrival/departure capacity of Los 
Angeles International Airport was 138 operations per hour 
during IFR conditions and 166 operations per hour under VFR 
conditions. However, high levels of delay would occur if the 
airport were operated at capacity. For baseline operating condi¬ 
tions, the level of operations under which delays remain small 
are approximately 116 operations per hour under IFR condi¬ 
tions and 140 operations per hour under VFR conditions. 

The goal of the Capacity Design Team at Los Angeles 
International Airport was to develop an action plan of alterna¬ 
tives to increase airport capacity, improve airport efficiency, and 
reduce aircraft delays. These must coincide with improvements 
mentioned above if maximum capacity is to be realized. Those 
recommendations that directiy relate to airport capacity at the 
airport can be found in Appendix C. 

Recommendations for Los Angeles International Airport 
designed for airfield improvements included: constructing 
departure pads (staging areas) at ends of runways, extending 
taxiways, constructing high-speed taxiways, and extending 
Runway 24R. Facility and equipment improvements recom¬ 
mended included upgrading the ILS on Runway 25L to CAT III. 


G.7.2 Airspace Choke Point Delay Analysis 

The flow of traffic in the Los Angeles Basin is affected by 
large areas of Special Use Airspace. There are four major choke 
points through which traffic to and from the Los Angeles 
Basin must pass due to Special Use Airspace. 

The fact that these choke points cause delay for flights 
transiting these corridors has been observed by the FAA for 
some time. Speed reductions, path stretching, and other con¬ 
troller techniques initiated during peak traffic demand periods 
provide evidence that delay does occur. 

Simulation results show that substantial delays are incurred 
by traffic passing through choke points in Los Angeles ARTCC 
airspace. Modest increases in traffic volume will result in 
substantial increases in delay unless choke point constraints are 
released to increase capacity. 


Appendix G - 21 



Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


G.7.3 Los Angeles Basin Airspace 
Realignment Analysis 


1994 ACE Plan 


A saturation problem exists in the Los Angeles Center 
which constrains the capacity of the airspace structure. It is 
primarily due to the complexity and intensity of operations in 
Sector 21 of the Los Angeles Center. Sector 21 is a relatively 
small sector encompassing, at its maximum, a distance of 
approximately 35 miles from north to south and 50 miles from 
east to west. The bottom of Sector 21 airspace commences at 
an altitude of 7,000 feet and reaches its highest altitude at 
FL230. 

The workload complexity factors associated with Sector 21 
traffic flow are as a result of the fact that (1) the majority of 
traffic tends to converge to one point within Sector 21; (2) the 
closure rate between aircraft is significantly high, especially in 
head-on situations; (3) lower performance aircraft must be 
interleaved with the higher performance jet traffic, which 
complicates operations; and (4) within the limited airspace 
available, traffic flows must be merged to satisfy minimum 
separation standards required under the en route airspace 
environment. 

Potential airspace and routing changes for Sectors 21 and 
22, and Los Angeles and Coast TRACONs were defined. Major 
modifications to the old system included expanding the lateral 
boundaries of Coast TRACONs, establishing a common ceiling 
of 13,000 feet for Coast and Los Angeles TRACONs, and 
rerouting departures from Los Angeles International, Orange 
County, and Long Beach Airports to the Coast TRACON. 

Simulation results show that realignment of the Los Ange¬ 
les Basin airspace will relieve the airspace saturation in Los 
Angeles ARTCC Sector 21 and result in substantial improve¬ 
ments in efficiency. Airspace capacity will be substantially 
increased in the new airspace realignment enabling increased 
volumes of traffic to be handled with less delay. For the near- 
term traffic demand, delay will be five times greater under the 
existing airspace structure than with the new reafigned airspace 
and at a level of 40 percent increase in traffic (the nominal 
forecast projection), the delay is nine times greater under the 
old system than the new system. The airspace realignment wiU 
increase traffic loading for both Los Angeles and Coast 
TRACONs. This increased traffic can be accommodated without 
increased delay, assuming that sufficient controller staffing is 
available to provide adequate sectorization of the terminal 
airspace. 


Appendix G - 22 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


G.8 Chicago Airspace Project^^jB 


The purpose of the Chicago Airport/Airspace Capacity 
Project was to support the planning efforts of the FAA’s Great 
Lakes Region in evaluating alternatives addressing capacity and 
delay problems in the greater Chicago metropolitan area. 
Potential solutions involved operational alternatives that in¬ 
cluded airspace realignment, route redesign, new runways, and 
revised procedures to enhance the efficiency and safety of air 
traffic operations. The operations of primary concern were en 
route and terminal airspace operations in the Chicago Air 
Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), terminal airspace 
operations in the Chicago Terminal Radar Approach Control 
(TRACON), and airfield operations at Chicago O’Hare (ORD) 
and Midway (MDW) Airports. 

The Chicago TRACON provides air traffic control services 
in the terminal airspace encompassing O’Hare Airport and 
several other satellite airfields. In addition to O’Hare Airport, 
the primary airport, there are 23 satellite airports controlled by 
the different control positions within Chicago TRACON. 

The simulation analysis involved various scenarios using 
the existing airfield facilities, proposed airfield improvements at 
O’Hare Airport, and the existing and proposed airspace sys¬ 
tems. Various weather conditions and traffic demand levels 
were simulated to provide an adequate assessment of the 
relative benefits or drawbacks of the various airfield/airspace 
options. The runway options and alternatives for O’Hare 
Airport that were simulated included existing runways and the 
potential options of adding one or two new air carrier 
runway(s), including changes in operational procedures and 
realignment of Chicago Center airspace. 



G.8.1 Baseline Operations 

The existing airfield of Chicago’s O’Hare International 
Airport consists of three sets of parallel runways: a pair of 
northeast/southwest runways, a pair of southeast/northwest 
runways, and a pair of east/west runways. In addition, a smaller 
general aviation commuter north/south runway is located north 
of the terminal area, but is used only sparingly. 


12. Chicago Airport/Airspace Capacity Project, June 1990 

13. Chicago Delay Task Force: Delay Reduction/Efficiency Enhance¬ 
ment Final Report, April 1991 


Appendix G - 23 




Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


1994 ACE Plan 


The existing airspace system utilizes a four “cornerpost” 
design for arriving aircraft bound for airports within the Chi¬ 
cago TRACON. The en route system uses a network of airways 
to merge O’Hare Airport traffic entering the terminal area over 
the four cornerposts. Aircraft depart the Chicago TRACON 
airspace in the existing airspace system initially on the four 
cardinal directions, i.e., north, south, east, and west. Traffic 
departing satellite airports, with a few exceptions, are provided 
in-trail spacing with O’Hare departures proceeding over a 
common fix. 

Simulation results of baseline operations show that the 
predominantly east and west direction of flow of inbound 
flights to O’Hare Airport, along with the present location of 
the four cornerposts, results in uneven loading of two 
cornerposts during peak arrival periods. These traffic flow 
imbalances at the arrival fixes result in delay as inbound traffic 
is constrained during these uneven loading situations. 

O’Hare Airport arrival traffic on the baseline day was not 
allowed to free flow through the four cornerposts, that is, 
special miles-in-trail (MIT) separation restrictions between 
successive arrivals over a cornerpost were used. Output results 
revealed that the imposition of MIT restrictions on arrivals over 
the cornerposts will result in delay increases. 

Additional runs were made to evaluate delay impacts of 
future traffic demand projections, for the short term and the 
long term, using the baseline airport/airspace system. Simula¬ 
tion results indicate that capacity of the baseUne airport/ 
airspace system is not sufficient to accommodate anticipated 
traffic growth at O’Hare and Midway Airports, thus resulting 
in substantial delay penalties. 

G.8.2 Short-Term Operational Alternatives 

The specific alternatives evaluated involved a set of short 
term airspace realignment and procedural changes that could 
be implemented over several months. These changes, which 
were aimed at reducing traffic complexity and workload in the 
Chicago area airspace to enhance safety, while maintaining the 
efficiency of operations, included: 


Appendix G - 24 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix 


(1) ' rotating the four arrival cornerposts by 45 degrees to 

the four cardinal directions: north, south, east, and 
west, 

(2) raising the ceiling of the TRACON airspace, 

(3) removing holding patterns from the TRACON airspace 
to provide a dedicated departure corridor for Midway 
Airport, 

(4) establishing merge points for arrivals farther from the 
TRACON boundary, 

(5) eliminating the WHETT departure fix to allow a 
dedicated departure corridor for Midway traffic, and 

(6) establishing a dedicated departure corridor for Mid¬ 
way traffic. 


Simulation results show that substantial delay and cost 
savings would be realized using the short term airspace realign¬ 
ment and procedural changes (without MIT restrictions) de¬ 
scribed above. 

C.8.3 Long-Term Operational Alternatives 

The long term options, aimed at increasing capacity and 
reducing delays in the Chicago area, included building one or 
two new runways at O’Hare Airport and/or rotating the four 
arrival cornerposts by 45 degrees to the cardinal directions (as 
analyzed in the short term alternatives). The benefits of the 
new runways include capacity gains due to utilizing triple 
independent approaches in both VFR and lER. The rotation of 
the O’Hare TRACON arrival cornerposts increases the number 
of south satellite arrival fixes by 50 percent (three versus two), 
allows departures to the south to operate independent of 
O’Hare Airport traffic, and provides added vectoring-sequenc¬ 
ing airspace within the O’Hare TRACON. High performance jet 
traffic destined to Midway Airport, approaching from a north¬ 
erly direction would be able to remain at higher altitudes 
longer, resulting in an operating cost savings for those Midway 
Airport arrivals. 

Simulation results show that delay savings are realized by 
u tili zing the proposed cornerpost rotation and are a result of 
additional aircraft flowing through arrival fixes and taking 
advantage of previously unused runway capacity at O’Hare 
Airport. Delay savings are realized only during VFR operations, 
because, during operations under IFR, the runway capacity 
available at O’Hare Airport is not sufficient to take advantage 



Appendix G: Airspace Capacity Design Studies 


1994 ACE Plan 


of the airspace capacity gains afforded by the rotated 
cornerposts. Thus, runway capacity at O’Hare must be in¬ 
creased if the potential benefits of the new airspace capacity are 
to be realized during IFR conditions. 

The addition of two new runways at O’Hare Airport, while 
utilizing the existing airspace system, provides a reduction in 
operational complexity, yielding potential safety enhancements, 
large gains in airport capacity when operating under IFR, and 
equalized airport capacity during VFR and IFR operations. 

Rotation of the arrival cornerposts and addition of two new 
runways at O’Hare Airport result in substantial delay savings 
under both VFR and IFR operations. Under VFR, the capacity 
increases afforded by the new rotated airspace allow full utiliza¬ 
tion of the new runway capacity. Under IFR, the new airspace 
provides added flexibility for balancing the use of the new 
runways, thus yielding greater delay savings than with the 
existing airspace system. 

Additional simulation runs involved assessing the impact of 
adding only one new runway at O’Hare Airport, while still 
maintaining the existing four cornerpost system and the case 
where the arrival fixes are rotated 45 degrees and one new 
runway is added at O’Hare Airport. 

The Final Report of the Chicago Delay Task Force identi¬ 
fies constraints which currently exist in the Chicago airport and 
airspace operating environment and defines options to explore 
further which will alleviate these constraints, thereby reducing 
delays at Chicago’s airports. The Chicago Delay Task Force’s 
recommendations are outlined in Appendix C. 

The Chicago Delay Task Force issued its final report in 
April 1991. Since that time, the FAA Great Lakes Region and 
the City of Chicago have organized the Chicago/FAA Delay 
Task Force Implementation Team. That team consists of the 
Airport Technical Working Group and the ATC Technical 
Working Group. 

The Airport Technical Working Group was developed to 
facilitate implementation of Delay Task Force airport improve¬ 
ment recommendations. The projects selected for the near term 
are: flow-through aircraft hold pads, Runway 4R angled exit 
taxiway, and northward relocation of Runways 9 l/ 27R and 4L/ 
22R. 

The ATC Technical Working Group was formed to facili¬ 
tate implementation of Delay Task Force airspace recommen¬ 
dations. The projects currently being analyzed include restruc¬ 
turing of the Chicago airspace and additional CAT Il/lII ap¬ 
proach capability. 


Appendix G - 26 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


Appendix H 

New Technology for Improving 
System Capacity 


H.1 Background 

The demands on the National Airspace System 
(NAS) are continuously growing, and this increasing 
demand must be accommodated with limited airport and 
airspace capacity. New and changing technologies 
provide the opportunity to dramatically improve the 
efficiency and effectiveness of the NAS. One of the major 
purposes of the Research, Engineering, and Develop¬ 
ment (RE&D) program is to develop and exploit tech¬ 
nologies that will increase system capacity and fully 
utilize existing capacity resources, while maintaining or 
improving the current level of safety. 

H.1.1 Major Accomplishments 

• Approved instrument approach procedures for triple 
parallel runways at 5,000 feet apart. 

• Completed testing of Airport Movement Area 
Safety System (AMASS) at San Francisco Interna¬ 
tional Airport. 

• Successfully demonstrated automatically controlled 
runway status light system at Boston Logan Interna¬ 
tional Airport. 

• Developed standards for stop bar system for control¬ 
ling aircraft movement in low visibility. 

• Developed the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance 
System (TCAS) which will be installed on all airliners 
operating in the United States. 

• Demonstrated digital Automated Terminal Informa¬ 
tion System (ATIS) at three airports. 

• Began field development of Center-TRACON 
Automation System (CTAS). 

• Implemented Converging Runway Display Aid 
(CRDA) at Lambert St. Louis International Airport. 

• Approved procedures for 5,000 certified Global 
Positioning System (GPS) non-precision approaches 
at 2,500 airports in the United States. 

• Completed avionics certification standards for 
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). 


• Completed avionics certification standards for 
supplemental GPS use over the ocean. 

• Provided regulatory and implementation materials in 
support of 1,000 foot vertical separation standard in 
the North Atlantic. 

• Developed flexible track generation and traffic 
advisory capabilities in the Central Pacific. 

• Validated innovative deicing protection technologies 
and certification techniques. 

• Established multi-agency program to provide real¬ 
time weather information to pilots and controllers. 

• Demonstrated improved thunderstorm forecasting 
capability. 

• Completed ground testing of airborne humidity 
sensor. 

• Completed flight experiments of wind shear detec¬ 
tion system. 

• Developed traffic management display system, 

• Began implementation of automated demand 
resolution functions, 

• Delivered testbed for digital voice communications. 

• Developed prototype two-way data communications 
system for ATC clearances. 

• Established predeparture clearance procedures at 
31 airports. 

• Developed a long- and short-term pavement 
research plan. 

• Completed development of layered elastic theory for 
pavement design. 

• Completed design of pavement testing machines. 

The FAA has developed a description of the Air 
Traffic Management (ATM) system of the future that has 
broad support from the RE&D Advisory Committee, 
aviation system users, and the aviation industry as a 
whole, including the international community through 
the International Civil Aviation Organization (iCAO). A 
strong RE8cD program is essential to bringing this vision 
of the future to operational reality. Among the elements 
of the ATM system of the future are: 


Appendix H -1 



Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


• Satellite communications technology for air-to- 
ground communications over oceans and sparsely 
populated areas. 

• Satellite navigation systems to provide location 
information over oceans and less developed parts of 
the world and provide high quality approach 
guidance to any runway end anywhere in the world. 

• ATC digital data link communications to connect 
aircraft systems with ATC automation systems and 
increase safety by reducing misunderstood communi¬ 
cations. 

• Airborne collision avoidance systems, in themselves 
a major safety tool, have the potential to create, in 
the cockpit, a valuable picture of the traffic situation 
around the aircraft. Working with the ATC system, 
these capabilities will lay the basis for a system 
having greater capacity and enhanced safety, 

• Flight management systems, increasingly available in 
modern transport aircraft, can facilitate major 
improvements in working with ATC to create optimal 
flight profiles. 

• Air traffic management and control automation 
technology will create major improvements in 
strategic flow management across the country. 


providing users with more direct routes. Automation 
in terminal airspace will significantly increase 
capacities while reducing controller workload. 

• Better air traffic surveillance systems, e.g., Mode S 
secondary surveillance radar, satellite and terrestrial- 
based Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS), 
new surface surveillance tools, and fast-scan radars, 
will revolutionize the ability to track multiple aircraft 
positions, 

• Better ways to acquire and use weather and environ¬ 
mental data are on the horizon. Major strides have 
been made in detecting wind shear, gathering winds 
aloft data, and forecasting severe storms. Reducing 
the impact of wake vortices, a detriment to airport 
capacity, is possible. 

• Airway Facilities Operation Control Center will 
improve the operational integrity of all fielded 
systems. 

The projects described above are explained in detail 
in the following sections: Capacity and Air Traffic 
Management Technology; Communications, Navigation, and 
Surveillance; Weather; and Airport Technology. 


Appendix H - 2 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


H.2 Capacity and Air Traffic Management Technology.H-4 

H.2.1 Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) (021 -110).H-4 

H.2.2 Oceanic Air Traffic Automation (021 -140).H-5 

H.2.3 Terminal ATC Automation (TATCA) (021 -180). H-6 

H.2.4 Airport Surface Traffic Automation (ASIA) (021 -190). H-7 

H.2.5 Tower Integrated Display System (TIDS) (021-210).H-8 

H.2.6 Multiple Runway Procedures Development (021-220). H-9 

H.2.7 Wake-Vortex Separation Standards Reduction (021-230).H-10 

H.2.8 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) (022-110).H-11 

H.2.9 Vertical Flight Program (022-140).H-12 

H.2.10 Flight Operations and Air Traffic Management Integration (022-150).H-13 

H.2.11 Separation Standards (023-120)...H-14 

H.2.12 Aviation System Capacity Planning (024-110).H-15 

H.2.1 3 National Simulation Capability (NSC) (025-110).H-16 

H.2.14 Operational Traffic Flow Planning (025-120).H-17 

H.2.15 Air Traffic Models and Evaluation Tools (025-130).H-19 

H.2.16 Airway Facilities Future Technologies (026-110).H-20 

H.2.17 Terminal Radar (ASR) Replacement Program.H-21 

H.2.18 Los Angeles Basin Consolidation.H-21 

H.2.19 Traffic Management System (TMS).H-22 

H.2.20 LORAN-C Systems.H-23 

H.2.21 Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS).H-23 

H.2.22 Automated En Route Air Traffic Control (AERA). H-24 

H.3 Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance.H-26 

H.3.1 Aeronautical Data Link Communications and Applications (031 -110).H-26 

H.3.2 Satellite Communications Program (031-120).H-27 

H.3.3 NAS Telecommunications for the 21 st Century (031 -1 30).H-28 

H.3.4 Satellite Navigation Program (032-110). H-29 

H.3.5 Navigation Systems Development (032-120).H-30 

H.3.6 Terminal Area Surveillance System (033-110).H-31 

H.4 Weather.H-32 

H.4.1 Aviation Weather Analysis and Forecasting (041 -110).H-32 

H.4.2 Airborne Meteorological Sensors (041-120).H-33 

H.4.3 Integrated Airborne Wind Shear Research (042-110).H-34 

H.4.4 Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS).H-35 

H.4.5 Aviation Weather Products Generator (AWPG).H-36 

H.5 Airport Technology.H-37 

H.5.1 Airport Planning and Design Technology (051 -110). H-37 

H.5.2 Airport Pavement Technology (051 -120).H-38 

H.5.3 Airport Safety Technology (051-1 30).H-39 

H.5.4 Low-Level Wind Shear Alert System (LLWAS).H-42 

H.5.5 VORTAC Program.H-42 

H.5.6 Microwave Landing System (MLS).H-43 

H.5.7 Runway Visual Range (RVR) Systems.H-44 

H.5.8 Visual NAVAID Systems.H-44 

H.5.9 Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) for Closely Spaced Parallel Runways.H-45 


Appendix H - 3 

















































Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


H.2 Capacity and Air Traffic Management Technology 


H.2.1 Advanced Traffic 

Management System 
(ATMS) (021-110) 

Responsible Division: ARD-100 

Contact Person: Stephen M. Alvania, 

202/267-3078 

Purpose 

To reduce delays and enhance operating efficiencies 
through a highly automated traffic management system. 

The ATMS program is the FAA research and develop¬ 
ment effort in direct support of the operational En¬ 
hanced Traffic Management System (ETMS). The ATMS 
is used to investigate automation and technology applica¬ 
tions that will enhance the operational capabilities of the 
FAA Traffic Management System. The ATMS program is 
structured as the development of a sequence of evolution¬ 
ary flow management capabilities which, once deter¬ 
mined to be operationally beneficial, migrate to the 
operational ETMS system through a common develop¬ 
ment/testbed facility. The ATMS evolutionary stages 
currently defined are: Aircraft Situation Display (ASD) to 
display the traffic situation; Monitor Alert (MA) to 
automatically alert flow managers to projected congestion 
and delay conditions; Dynamic Special Use Airspace 
(DSUA) to integrate military airspace planning into the 
civil flow management process; Automated Demand 
Resolution (ADR) to generate alternative flow manage¬ 
ment strategies that deal with the projected conditions; 
Strategy Evaluation (SE) to evaluate the operational 
impact of those alternative strategies; and Automated 
Execution (AEX) to automatically select and implement 
the “best” strategy. 


Program Milestones 

The Aircraft Situation Display (ASD) and Monitor 
Alert (MA) functions have been deployed as part of the 
operational ETMS at the Air Traffic Control System 
Command Center (ATCSCC), all ARTCCs, and selected 
TRACONs. 

Prototype Automated Demand Resolution (ADR) 
algorithms are being designed and incorporated into the 
ATMS testbed for evaluation. During FY93 and FY94, 
these algorithms were tested and refined. Migration to 
the ETMS is expected in FY95. 

The development of the Strategy Evaluation (SE) 
function began in FY93 with migration to the ETMS 
anticipated in FY96. 

The development of initial Dynamic Special Use 
Airspace (DSUA) algorithms began in FY93 and will 
continue with migration to the ETMS anticipated in 
FY97. 

The Automated Execution (AEX) function will 
provide the data communications that will support the 
ADR and SE functions. AEX will be significantly more 
sophisticated than previous stages. Development of this 
function will occur concurrently with the ADR and SE 
functions. . 

Products 

• Aircraft Situation Display (ASD) functionality 

• Monitor Alert (MA) functionality 

• Prototype Automated Demand Resolution (ADR) 

functionality 

• Prototype Strategy Evaluation (SE) functionality 

• Prototype Automated Execution (AEX) functionality 

• Prototype Dynamic Special Use Airspace (DSUA) 

functionality 


Appendix H - 4 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


H.2.2 Oceanic Air Traffic 

Automation (021-140) 

Responsible Division: ARD-20 

Contact Person: Jim McDaniel, 

202/267-3534 

Purpose 

To increase oceanic air traffic capacity and efficiency by 
providing automation for oceanic airspace. 

The current oceanic environment has no radar 
coverage. Navigation is handled using only aircraft on¬ 
board systems; air traffic operations are performed either 
manually or with limited automation. Air/ground 
communications are through a third party service 
provider via high frequency radios. 

When fully developed, the automated oceanic air 
traffic management system will provide airspace structur¬ 
ing that will reduce controller workload and safely 
increase system capacity to help cope with the ever- 
increasing demand for transoceanic travel. This project 
will combine three oceanic RE&D projects: ADS, Oceanic 
Traffic Planning System (OTPS), and Oceanic Automa¬ 
tion. 

Research and development studies will identify new 
air traffic control procedures and the automation neces¬ 
sary to increase airspace users operating efficiency. The 
studies will focus on airspace utilization, system develop¬ 
ment, and advanced functions. 

The OTPS project will provide oceanic traffic 
managers with automated information gathering tech¬ 
niques and route development and analysis tools to 
provide better fuel economies and time efficiencies to 
users in oceanic airspace. Development efforts include 
the functions of generating flexible tracks to take 
advantage of favorable wind conditions, providing traffic 
managers with a traffic display system to graphically 
display aircraft positions over the oceanic airspace,, and a 
track advisory function that interactively provides 
airlines, before their oceanic gateway entry, with gateway 
loading delays for air carriers, and reduces workload for 
controllers. Also, traffic management capabilities will be 
developed for automating the transfer traffic manage¬ 
ment information between international ATC facilities 
and aeronautical operation controls (AOCs). All of these 
oceanic traffic management functions will eventually be 
integrated with the domestic enhanced traffic manage¬ 
ment system (ETMS). 

Another project is developing ground-based systems 
using ADS technology and satellite communications links. 
Development efforts will upgrade oceanic display and 
planning system (ODAPS) technology with new displays 


and controller input-output devices. Future developmen¬ 
tal efforts will include electronic ATC clearance delivery 
to aircraft, enhanced conflict detection and resolution, 
and electronic flight data displays. 

Standards, requirements, and procedures will be 
thoroughly tested to validate system performance and 
capabilities prior to any production decision. An initial 
testing capability exists at the Oceanic Development 
Facility (ODP) and it will be enhanced to conduct the 
full-range testing that will be required, such as using real 
satellites, real ground/earth stations, and aircraft cockpits 
to identify total system performance and highlight areas 
needing improvements. 

Program Milestones 

In FY93, a Separation Improvement Program Plan 
was developed and analysis was completed for a U.S.-led 
initiative to reduce oceanic separation standards. The 
ground/ground data communications function that lays 
the groundwork for full two-way data link communica¬ 
tions between pilots and controllers was completed. An 
interim situation display was installed at ODF. 

In 1995, efforts will continue toward coordinating 
industry standards in the areas of avionics characteristics 
and minimum operational performance standards. 
Engineering trials in the Atlantic and Pacific will be 
completed. These trials will be used for developing 
requirements and standards for ADS functions, dynamic 
rerouting, track generation, and other oceanic automa¬ 
tion features. 

Also in 1995, an ODAPS central processor replace¬ 
ment effort and an oceanic electronic flight data display 
computer human interface study will be completed. 

These studies will be used in 1996 with a study on ADS 
reporting rates to support the transition of ODAPS to an 
advanced oceanic automation system. 

Electronic flight data and a conflict detection/ 
resolution capability will be delivered to the ODF in 1997. 
Development will continue on display enhancements for 
integration into the interim situation display hardware. 
The ODF will be completed in 1995 when the cockpit 
interface to the end-to-end simulation capability is 
installed. 

In 1996 through 1998, studies for advanced func¬ 
tions will be completed, the air traffic management 
project will expand the South Pacific strategic planning 
system concept to incorporate foreign traffic manage¬ 
ment systems. Also during that time, a final software 
version of the electronic flight strips and conflict detec¬ 
tion/resolution capability will be completed to provide 
controllers with aircraft separation recommendations. 


Appendix H - 5 



Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


Products 

• Ground/ground data communications capability 

• Oceanic controller situation display 

• Oceanic traffic planning and management function¬ 
ality into domestic TMS 

• Oceanic airspace coordination function 

• Automated data interchange/transfer to and from 
foreign Civil Aeronautics Administrations 

• Two-way communications between aircrews and 
oceanic controllers 

• Enhanced conflict detection/resolution capability 

• Next generation flight data processor 

• Track advisory capability for Anchorage and New 
York oceanic centers 


H.2.3 Terminal atc Automation 
(TATCA) (021-180) 

Responsible Division: ARD-40 

Contact Person: Chuck Friesenbahn, 

202/267-3808 

Purpose 

To develop automation aids to assist air traffic controllers 
and supervisors by providing advisories designed to optimize 
theflow of trajfic in the terminal area and to facilitate the 
early implementation of these aids at busy airports. 

The TATCA program consists of three projects to 
assist air traffic controllers. These projects are: the 
Converging Runway Display Aid (CRDA), the Center- 
TRACON Automation System (CTAS) and the Controller 
Automation Spacing Aid (CASA). CRDA provides 
geometric spacing aids for aircraft by means of software 
changes within existing ARTS terminal radar processors. 

A Federal Aviation Order (7110.110) governing depen¬ 
dent converging instrument approaches utilizing CRDA 
was signed November 30,1992. 

The CTAS project is now in full-scale field develop¬ 
ment and consists of the following tools: a comprehensive 
traffic planning and scheduling tool known as the Traffic 
Management Advisor (TMA) for the Air Route Traffic 
Control Center (ARTCC), a Descent Advisor (DA) for en 
route controllers, a turn and speed advisor for terminal 
controllers known as the Final Approach Spacing Tool 
(fast) and an ascent trajectory synthesis tool for depart¬ 
ing aircraft known as Expedite Departure Path (EDP). 

Longer term TATCA activities focus on fully devel¬ 
oped terminal automation techniques integrated with 
other ATC and cockpit automation capabilities of the 
Advanced Automation System (AAS) and other ATC and 
cockpit automation capabilities. 


Program Milestones 


TMA is currently being evaluated and demonstrated 
in the Denver ARTCC. Further field evaluation for TMA 
and FAST will take place at the Dallas/Fort Worth Center 
in FY93 and continue in 1994. Laboratory development 
of DA and EDP is continuing. 


Appendix H - 6 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


Products 


Major CRDA milestones include: 

• Begin national implementation 07/92 

Major TMA milestones include: 

• Field Concept Development and Evaluation 08/92 

• Limited Deployment 10/94 

FAST milestones include: 

• Fast Functionality in FDADS 08/92 

• Field Concept Development/Evaluation 05/93 

• Begin Limited Deployment 04/96 

DA milestones include: 

• Develop Prototype Software 07/93 

• Deploy DA in ISSS 04/95 

• Develop DA in ACCC 04/98 

EDP milestones include: 

• Field Concept Development 04/95 

• Begin Limited Deployment 04/97 

CASA milestones include: 

• Begin Limited Deployment 06/95 

TATCA/AAS milestones include: 

• Modification to the System Level 06/94 

Specification for the AAS 

• Integrated TATCA with ACCC 06/94 


H.2.4 Airport Surface Traffic 
Automation (ASIA) 

(021-190) 

Responsible Division: ARD-50 

Contact Person: John Heurtley, 

202/646-5566 

Purpose 

To provide controllers with automatically generated 
alerts and cautions in all weather conditions and data TAGS 
to identify all aircraft and special vehicles on the airport 
movement area. 

To develop airport surface surveillance^ communicationsy 
and automation techniques that will provide an effective 
runway incursion prevention capability by using ground 
sensor primaiy radar Airport Surface Detection Equipment 
(ASDE-3), Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS)y 
Differential-Corrected Global Positioning System (DGPS)y 
and Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS). 

The ASTA program has historically consisted of two 
major elements: surface safety automation and surface 
traffic automation. The surface safety automation 
element is composed of the Airport Movement Area 
Safety System (AMASS) and the Runway Status Light 
System (RSLS). ASDE-3/AMASS provides automatically 
generated alerts and cautions of impending runway 
incursion situations directly to the controllers. AMASS is 
currently in acquisition, but additional research and 
development of staged improvements using sensors other 
than the ASDE-3 may be undertaken. The RSLS auto¬ 
matically operates lights at all runway entranceways and 
at the take-off hold position to directly indicate to the 
pilots that the runway is “hot,” i.e., there is an airplane on 
close final approach or on departure. RSLS is presently 
being implemented at Boston Logan International 
Airport for operational suitability assessment from 1995 
to 1996. 

The surface traffic automation element will develop 
means to provide identification TAGS for all aircraft and 
vehicles on the airport movement area and all aircraft in 
ramp and limited gate areas. The TAGS are to be dis¬ 
played on the ASDE-3 display. Also to be developed is a 
surface traffic planner that will be integrated in an 
optimal manner with TATCA automation for aircraft on 
approach and DSP automation for aircraft on departure. 
Surface traffic planning automation will assist the tower 
and ramp controllers in reducing taxi-out delays and 
thereby increase airport capacity. 

The surface traffic automation part of ASTA consists 
of three subsystems. Commercial Air Carrier Identifica¬ 
tion combines Differential Global Positioning System 


Appendix H - 7 




Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


(DGPS) and other surface sensors with a surveillance data 
link to provide positive identification of all commercial 
air carriers. General Aviation/Vehicles Identification will 
likely use a form of positioning TAG determination based 
on the MODE-A 4096 code. Traffic Planner/Conform- 
ance Monitor will process track and flight data to provide 
the controller with automated traffic plan assistance in all 
weather conditions and will also provide taxi route 
conformance monitoring. 

All airports that are slated to receive ASDE-3/AMASS 
equipment under the F&E program will also receive TAGS 
and the ASTA Traffic Planner. For those airports not 
equipped with ASDE-3/AMASS, other airport surface 
sensors, such as the DGPS surveillance data link coupled 
with a “low-cost” ASDE may be used. 

Program Milestones 

The ASTA project was started in Pf89 to reduce the 
risk of runway incursions and improve airport capacity 
through increased efficiency of aircraft surface move¬ 
ments and better departure traffic management. In FY90, 
alternative capabilities for reducing runway incursions 
were identified. In FY93, contracts were awarded to 
demonstrate alternative technologies to prevent runway 
incursions, the third AMASS was established at Boston 
Logan International Airport to provide an ASTA DGPS 
testbed, and the RSLS was successfully demonstrated to 
industry at Boston Logan. 

In 1994, a Request For Proposal (RFP) for limited 
competitor selection will be issued, and contract award 
will be June 1995. Full Scale Development (FSD) for the 
commercial aircraft TAGS subsystem will be May 1996, 
with first Operational Readiness Date (ORD) June 1998. 
FSD for general aviation/vehicle TAGS will be September 
1996, with first ORD March 1999. The ASTA Traffic 
Planner FSD (first implementable package) is planned for 
March 1997, with first ORD July 1999. 


H.2.5 Tower Integrated Display 
System (TIDS) (021-210) 

Responsible Division: ARD-100 

Contact Person: Bob Sheftel, 202/267-7645 

Purpose 

To consolidate the displays and instrumentation used in 
towers for airport environmental data and control equip- 
menty thus facilitating the installation of future tower systems 
such as TCCC. 

This project is divided into two phases. In Phase I, a 
market survey will be conducted to determine the 
availability of systems meeting the requirements of Air 
Traffic with a minimal development effort. The results of 
the market survey will be used to determine an initial set 
of TIDS requirements and an appropriate acquisition 
strategy so as to field TIDS in the near term. These 
requirements will be developed through a team effort 
within the FAA. Documentation for transition to a 
Facilities and Equipment (F&E) program will be devel¬ 
oped, including the program documents and production 
specifications to support implementation of the initial 
TIDS. 

Phase II will be initiated in parallel with Phase I, 
Phase II will assess and integrate TIDS enhancements 
packages to meet the full range of Air Traffic’s TIDS 
requirements. 

Program Milestones 

TIDS has been in hold status since mid-FY'93 
pending a decision on the deployment of TCCC. In FY94, 
a specification and statement of work for an initial TIDS 
contract was completed in preparation for release of an 
RFP. Upon receipt of a decision to proceed, the specifica¬ 
tion and statement of work will be revised and contract¬ 
ing activity will resume. Integrated Operational Test and 
Evaluation activities will be completed using the TIDS 
prototype, and this will lead to a potential initial TIDS 
deployment. TIDS enhancement activities will continue, 
leading to a potential first enhancement package. Other 
enhancement packages will continue to be investigated. 


Products 

• Initial TIDS requirements 

• Prototype TIDS 

• TIDS enhancement requirements 

• TIDS enhancement prototype 


Appendix H - 8 




1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


H.2.6 Multiple Runway Procedures 
Development (021-220) 

Responsible Division: ARD-100 

Contact Person: Gene Wong, 202/267-3475 

Purpose 

To develop ATC concepts and procedures to reduce airport 
delays by more fully utilizing the capacity of multiple runway 
configurations during Instrument Meteorological Conditions 
(IMC). 

Air traffic procedures and flight standards criteria for 
simultaneous dual, triple, and quadruple Instrument 
Flight Rules (IFR) parallel approaches will be developed 
and validated. Requirements and techniques for im¬ 
proved surveillance, navigation, and ATC display capabili¬ 
ties will be developed to support these procedures. 

Studies sponsored by the FAA and the aviation 
industry have identified technical and operational 
concepts with the potential to reduce airport arrival 
delays by better utilizing multiple runway configurations 
in IMC. These concepts include the use of improved and 
current monitoring systems for conducting simultaneous 
approaches to dual, triple, and quadruple parallel run¬ 
ways, Improved monitoring technology includes preci¬ 
sion runway monitor (PRM) systems, as well as high 
resolution ATC displays with controller alert aid and 
Airport Surveillance Radar-9 (ASR-9) or Mode S. Such 
displays are referred to as the Final Monitor Aid (fMA). 
Promising concepts will be validated through ATC 
simulations and, in some cases, full-scale demonstrations 
at airports. 

Multiple IFR parallel approach procedures for Dallas/ 
Ft. Worth Airport, which has planned the addition of 
third and fourth parallel runways, were developed in 
order to gain technical and operational insights, as well as 
to help expedite the implementation of such procedures. 
This procedure was site specific and was developed based 
on the use of current ARTS displays and ASR-9. This was 
followed by the development of national standards for 
triple and quadruple IFR parallel approaches based on the 
current ARTS display and ASR-9 capabilities. 

The FAA has completed demonstrations of electroni¬ 
cally scanned and ^‘back-to-back” antenna PRM technolo¬ 
gies resulting in the acceptance of simultaneous ap¬ 
proaches to parallel runways spaced as closely as 3,400 
feet. This project will conduct additional analyses and 
simulations to investigate the combined use of improved 
data rate PRM technology with highly accurate naviga¬ 
tion/landing systems, such as satellite navigation system, 
microwave landing system, and state-of-the-art autopilot 
to further reduce the spacing standards of parallel 


runways. The results of these studies for dual parallel 
runways will also provide the basis for the analysis of 
spacing standards for closely spaced triple parallel 
runways. The final phase of the multiple runway proce¬ 
dures development will focus on quadruple parallel 
runways. 

Program Milestones 

In FY91, simulation evaluation of simultaneous IFR 
approaches to triple parallel runways spaced 5,000 feet 
apart, using ASR and ARTS displays, was completed. 
Simulations of triple parallel IFR approaches to runways 
spaced 4,300 feet apart using ASR-9 and high-resolution 
color displays with automated alerts were performed in 
FY92. Additional simulations to investigate the feasibility 
of using high-resolution color displays with automated 
alerts and ASR-9 to reduce dual and triple parallel runway 
spacing standards to 4,000 feet were conducted in FY92. 
Simulations of dual and triple runways spaced 3,000 feet 
apart, using the PRM system, were conducted in FY92. 
Simulation evaluation of the use of offset localizer and 
PRM to reduce the dual parallel runway standard to 3,000 
feet were initiated in FY92. 

In FY93, the FAA approved national standards for 
triple simultaneous parallel approaches. Such approaches 
may be conducted to runways spaced a minimum of 
5,000 feet apart using current surveillance equipment 
(ARTS controller displays and ASR-9 radar sensors), 
provided that the airport elevation is less than 1,000 feet 
above sea level. At higher elevations, or for runway 
spacings between 4,300 and 5,000 feet, triple simulta¬ 
neous approaches may be conducted if the monitor 
controller uses an FMA display. 

The thinner air at higher elevations leads to higher 
ground speeds for aircraft on final approach. These 
higher ground speeds in turn mean that in the event of a 
blunder on final approach, the blundering aircraft can 
cross the distance between the parallel runways more 
quickly. Simulations of the new Denver International 
Airport (den) (elevation 5,200 feet) conducted at the 
FAA Technical Center confirmed this effect. However, 
these simulations also confirmed the benefit of using 
FMA displays, which enable the controller to detect a 
blunder much sooner than the current ARTS displays. 
FMAs have been installed at DEN, and the first triple 
simultaneous instrument approaches in the world will be 
conducted when the new airport opens in FY94. 

Simulations to be conducted at the FAA Technical 
Center in FY94 will help to establish national standards 
for dual simultaneous approaches to runways as close as 
3,000 feet. Such operations would be beneficial at New 
Yorks John F. Kennedy International Airport (jFK), 
where Runways 22R and 22L are 3,000 feet apart, and at 
Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), where a new 
commuter runway is planned to be built at that spacing. 


Appendix H - 9 



Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


Products 

• Recommendation on ATC procedures 

• Simulation analysis of ATC procedures 

• Flight procedures and system requirements for 
simultaneous IFR approaches to triple and quadruple 
parallel runways using existing and improved runway 
monitoring systems 

• Technical reports on simulation results and risk 
analyses 


H.2.7 Wake-Vortex Separation 
Standards Reduction 
(021-230) 

Responsible Division: ARD-200 

Contact Person: Cliff Hay, 202/267-3021 

Purpose 

To safely reduce separation standards by understanding 
wake-vortex strength^ duration, and transport characteristics, 
especially the effects of vortices in the terminal environment. 
Reduction in separation standards will enhance airspace use, 
increase airport capacity, and decrease delays in instrument 
meteorological conditions (IMC). 

Data from tower fly-by tests will be combined with 
new data to determine actual traffic spacing being used 
under visual flight rules (VFR) conditions. Vortex 
strength, decay, and transport characteristics, as well as 
the meteorological conditions that affect these character¬ 


istics, will be examined at selected airports. Flight test 
simulations will be designed and conducted to determine 
if reducing the separation standards currently being used 
under IFR conditions is feasible. Closely spaced parallel 
and converging runways and departure sequencing will 
also be studied through simulation. Existing aircraft 
weight classifications will be reviewed to determine 
whether the weight classifications and corresponding 
separations can be modified to improve single runway 
operations. 

Program Milestones 

In FY93, appropriate high traffic airports were 
selected for data collection for capacity analyses. Data 
will be analyzed in FY94 to develop new parallel runway 
separation criteria for FAA approval in FY9S. 

Work will continue on a joint effort with NASA to 
develop models and simulation techniques that character¬ 
ize wake-vortex hazards. Flight tests will be conducted to 
validate the models and simulations. In parallel with 
these models and simulations, work will continue on 
developing algorithms to integrate sensor inputs and 
provide the information to ATC automation systems by 
the year 2000. 

Products 

• Feasibility report on reducing separation standards in 
the terminal area 

• Recommendations on aircraft weight classifications 

• Separation algorithms to TATCA based on leading/ 
following aircraft types 


Appendix H - 10 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


H.2.8 Traffic Alert and Collision 
Avoidance System (TCAS) 
( 022 - 110 ) 

Responsible Division: ARD-200 

Contact Person: Tom Williamson, 202/267- 

8465 

Purpose 

To develop, demonstrate, and assist in implementing an 
independent airborne collision avoidance capability to 
increase safety in the National Airspace System by reducing 
the potentialfor midair collisions and increase capacity by 
using the improved cockpit display capability for simultaneous 
approaches to parallel runways and pilot maintained in-trail 
spacing. 

There are three TCAS versions, each with successively 
increasing capability. TCAS I generates traffic advisories to 
assist pilots in locating potential midair collision threats. 
TCAS I is under evaluation through a Limited Implemen¬ 
tation Program (LIP) on several types of in-service 
commuter aircraft. This program will provide operational 
and performance data on commercial TCAS I equipment 
in actual service. 

TCAS 11 equipment includes a Mode S transponder 
and is intended for installation in transport category and 
high performance general aviation aircraft. It provides 
traffic advisories and also compute vertical-plane resolu¬ 
tion advisories that indicate the direction the aircraft 
should maneuver to avoid collisions. Resolution adviso¬ 
ries between two aircraft are coordinated between aircraft 
using the integral Mode S transponder. TCAS II develop¬ 
ment and operational implementation have been com¬ 
pleted. Federal Aviation Regulations require that all 
aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats operating in 
U.S. airspace be equipped with TCAS II by December 30, 
1993. 

TCAS IV equipment, intended for installation in 
transport category aircraft, is designed to generate traffic 
advisories and resolution advisories in both the horizontal 
and vertical planes. Maneuvers will be coordinated 
between similarly equipped aircraft. The FAA is support¬ 
ing minimum operational performance standards (MOPS) 
development for TCAS IV by a RTCA special committee. 
The FAA has developed a plan to complete the remaining 
development and test efforts and evaluate the TCAS IV 
system on airline aircraft in a LIP. 


Program Milestones 

All 10 to 30 seat turbine-powered commuter aircraft 
must be equipped with TCAS I by February 9, 1995 in 
accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations. That same 
year, the FAA will continue a multi-year TCAS I transition 
program to assist aircraft operators with TCAS I imple¬ 
mentation. 

As mentioned above, all commercial turbine- 
powered aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats are 
required to be equipped with TCAS II in accordance with 
Federal Aviation Regulations. In 1995, the FAA will 
continue to work with the aviation community to resolve 
technical and operational issues associated with TCAS II 
implementation. Engineering support to develop logic 
modifications to reduce unnecessary alert rates will 
continue. 

A LIP will be conducted to determine the certifica¬ 
tion and operational requirements for TCAS IV. 

Products 

• Reports on TCAS I avionics evaluation to provide 
guidance for TCAS I certification and operation 

• Reports on TCAS II installation, certification, and 
operation on air carrier aircraft 

• TCAS II transition program report documenting 
TCAS II implementation program results and 
required modifications 

• TCAS II requirements document for TCAS II certifica¬ 
tion in transport category aircraft 

• ICAO standards and recommended practices for 
international certification and operational approval 
of TCAS II 

• RTCA MOPS for required performance of TCAS IV 
under standard operating conditions 

• Study assessing the safety characteristics of TCAS IV 

• Report on TCAS IV installation, certification, and 
operation in air carrier aircraft 


Appendix H - 11 




Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


H.2.9 Vertical Flight Program 
(022-140) 

Responsible Division: ARD-30 

Contact Person: Richard A. Weiss, 

202/267-8759 

Purpose 

To improve the safety and efficiency of verticalflight 
(VF) operations and increase NAS capacity through RE&D 
into air traffic rules and operational procedures^ heliport/ 
vertiport design and planning, aircraft/aircrew certification 
training, and applications of emerging technology. 

Program Milestones 

The Rotorcraft Master Plan (RMP) envisions 
advanced VF technologies providing scheduled short-haul 
passenger and cargo service for up to 10 percent of 
projected domestic air travel. To accomplish this ex¬ 
panded use of vertical flight, the FAA is responsible for 
developing the appropriate infrastructure and regulations 
in parallel v^ith industry’s actions and commitment to 
develop and operate market-responsive aircraft. 

The VF program is being executed through many 
concurrent projects and activities, which are divided into 
three technical sub-program areas: Air Infrastructure, 
Ground Infrastructure, and Aircraft/Aircrew. 

The Air Infrastructure sub-program will provide 
RE&D to enable safe, reliable, all-weather operations for 
VF passenger and cargo aircraft. The research results will 
include: developing non-precision and precision GPS 
terminal instrument approach and departure procedures; 
more compatible IFR approach and departure angles; 
improvements in low altitude navigation and air traffic 
control services using GPS, data link and SATCOM 
technologies; VF air route design; and noise abatement 
procedures. 

Ground Infrastructure research will address heliport 
and vertiport design and planning issues, including the 
terminal area facilities and ground-based support systems 
that will be needed to implement safe, all-weather, 24- 
hour flight operations. Developing obstacle avoidance 
capabilities is a critical design-related effort. Research 
will include applying lessons learned from detailed 
accident and rotorcraft operations analyses. Simulations 
will be used extensively to collect data, analyze scenarios, 
and provide training to facilitate safe operations. 

Aircraft/Aircrew research will develop minimum 
performance criteria for visual scenes and motion-base 
simulators; evaluate state-of-the-art flight performance 


for cockpit design technology; develop improved training 
techniques employing expert decision making, and 
develop crew and aircraft performance standards for 
determination of display and control integration require¬ 
ments. Research will also be conducted in support of the 
FAAs responsibilities to certificate both conventional and 
advanced technology VF aircraft. 

Products 

• Helicopter non-precision and precision GPS ap¬ 
proach terminal instrument procedures criteria 

• ATC route standards, procedures and models 

• Vertiport/heliport design standards 

• Improved VF noise planning tools 

• VF noise abatement procedures 

• Rotorcraft simulator standards 

• VF aircrew training and certification requirements 

• Cost/benefit assessments for deploying advanced VF 
technologies 

Schedule 

• Produced audio visual training aids and FY94 
workbooks to assist in training in expert 
decision making techniques 

• Published delay reduction analysis for a FY94 
Northeast Corridor civil tiltrotor-based 
short-haul transportation system 

• Delivered night vision enhancement device FY95 
operations and training materials 

• Publish advanced technology VF FY95 

performance and demonstration guidelines 

• Publish results of test and analysis of a FY96 

variety of heliport and vertiport design 
parameters, including minimum required 

VFR airspace for curved approaches and 
departures, minimum parking and 
maneuvering areas, marking and lighting, 
and rotorwash protection requirements 

• Conduct extensive VF noise data collection FY96 
from operational profiles 

• Publish Technical Report supporting FY96 

certification requirements of VF aircraft 

display formats 

• Publish national-level guidelines for joint FY96 

industry and local government advanced 
technology VF demonstration program 


Appendix H - 12 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


• Develop low noise conversion corridor FY97 

criteria for rotorcraft 

• Publish terminal area IFR procedures FY97 

for steep-angle approaches and departures 

• Publish simulation-based analysis of FY97 

pilot performance in an obstacle-rich 
environment, with results being used to 
evaluate necessary heliport and vertiport 

design criteria 

• Publish advanced technology rotorcraft FY98 
noise certification recommendations 


H.2.10 Flight Operations and Air 
Traffic Management 
Integration (022-150) 

Responsible Division: ARD-100 

Contact Person: Bill Blake, 202/267-7264 

Purpose 

To develop the capability to integrate aircraftflight 
management systems (FMS) with ground-based air traffic 
management (ATM) automation via data link to increase 
airspace capacity and ensure more efficientflight operations 
along more flexible conflict-free route trajectories. 

An important factor in ATM and FMS integration is 
developing automated communications between aircraft 
FMS and ground ATM computers. This will be accom¬ 
plished by developing a set of flight operations and air 
traffic management integration (FTMl)-specific data link 
operational requirements. FTMI operational concepts will 
be developed and validated via simulation experiments 
coupled with aviation community-supported flight trials. 

This project will establish the operational require¬ 
ments for flight operations procedures and standards fully 
utilizing existing FMS capabilities in the near-term to 
enhance system capacity and flight efficiency in oceanic, 
en route, and terminal airspace. This analysis will lead to 
standards for nationwide FMS-guided terminal operations 
by analyzing requirements for FMS-guided curved 
approaches to and departures from selected airports. 

A standard set of functional and operational require¬ 
ments to support the next generation ATM-compatible 
FMS will be developed. This effort will integrate existing 
and planned capabilities of the ATM system and the FMS/ 
flight deck. 


In addition to enhanced ATM and FMS integration, 
this project will explore the benefits of including the 
aeronautical operation control (AOC) component of the 
fight operations system to the integrated ATM/FMS. The 
information exchanged between AOC and ATM could 
provide fuel savings, more efficient use of airspace, and 
reduce delays. 

Program Milestones 

In FY93, an analysis to support flight standards for 
developing FMS-guided curved approaches at Minneapo¬ 
lis-Saint Paul International Airport (MSP) was com¬ 
pleted. Continued analyses to support development of. 
flight standards and procedures for both FMS-guided 
approaches and departures at selected airports will be 
completed in FY95. Nationwide FMS-guided terminal 
operations standards are expected in FY97. 

Simulation experiments involving route maneuvering 
in oceanic airspace to demonstrate FMS capabilities in 
improving flight efficiency in oceanic airspace will be 
conducted in FY94 and FY95. Flight trials will be 
conducted with commercial airlines to validate proce¬ 
dures generated as a result of these simulations. Analysis 
of simulation experiments and flight trials is expected to 
result in flight standards by the year 2000. 

Efforts will continue in FY95 to develop a functional 
and operational requirements document for advanced 
FMS capabilities to ensure full integration of flight 
management and ATM operations. 

Products 

• Data to support flight operations procedures and 
standards for FMS-guided operations in terminal, 
domestic en route, and oceanic airspace and on the 
airport surface. Candidate ATM procedures to 
support FMS-ATM-AOC integration via data link 

• Integrated FMS-ATM automation system operational 
concept document 

• New FMS-ATM system capabilities document 

• FMS-ATM automation interface requirements 
document 

• FMS-ATM integration requirements document 

• Revisions to two-way data link clearance data 
dictionary 


Appendix H - 13 




Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


H.2.11 Separation Standards (023- 

120 ) 

Responsible Division: ARD-100 

Contact Person: Carl Bowlen, 202/267-7047 

Purpose 

To provide quantitative guidance for domestic and 
international efforts to establish minimum safe horizontal 
and vertical separation standards. 

Tests will be conducted to provide quantitative 
guidance based on statistical analysis to support decision¬ 
making to reduce vertical and horizontal (lateral and 
longitudinal) separation requirements. This activity 
consists of model development, data collection, data 
reduction, and analysis and includes: (1) the investigation 
of the effect on separation standards of imposing tighter 
required navigational performance specifications, (2) 
determination of the effect of tolerating mixtures in the 
total aircraft population of both old and new specifica¬ 
tions, and (3) investigations of the potential for the safe 
improvement of separation requirements in a system with 
advanced future navigation, communications, and air 
traffic management systems. This effort will also help 
establish separation requirements based on Automatic 
Dependent Surveillance (ADS), Area Navigation (RNAV), 
and other developing technologies for supporting 
reduced permissible separation minima. 

The oceanic horizontal separation standards program 
will analyze separation standards in the North Atlantic, 
West Atlantic, Central East Pacific, and North Pacific 
route systems. It will examine the impact of various 
system improvements on safe minimal lateral and 
longitudinal spacings for oceanic traffic. As oceanic 
control becomes increasingly flexible through improved 
communications and enhanced automation, this program 
will establish appropriate separation standards to improve 
system efficiency while maintaining and acceptable level 
of safety. 

Onboard, time-based navigation capabilities and 
associated ATC procedures will be analyzed to determine 
the effects of changing from a distance to a time-based 
longitudinal separation standard. 

The vertical separation program has determined the 
feasibility of reducing the vertical separation minimum 
between FL290 and FL410 from 2,000 to 1,000 feet, thus 
adding six additional flight levels in this altitude range. 
Efforts in this area are aimed at implementing RNAV 
initially in the North Atlantic and then the Pacific. Full 
implementation in NAS is scheduled for January 1998. 
This change will provide the ATC system with enhanced 


flexibility to accommodate user-preferred flight profiles 
and will lead to substantial savings in user fuel costs. 

Program Milestones 

In FY90, the ICAO guidance material for world-wide 
and regional reduction of the high-altitude vertical 
separation standard from 2,000 to 1,000 feet was 
finalized and approved. 

In FY91 the national guidance material amending 
current Pacific track longitudinal separation standards 
was completed. This amendment resulted in application 
of a 10-minute separation minimum. 

In FY93, agreement was reached for implementation 
of a reduced vertical separation minimum in NAS 
minimum navigation performance specification (MNPS) 
airspace with operational trials commencing January 1, 
1997. Beginning in the spring of 1995, height-keeping 
performance will be evaluated to ensure compliance with 
published altimetry and altitude keeping performance. 

In FY94-9S, ICAO guidance material for separation 
standards in the horizontal plane will continue to be 
developed. The four major items are area navigation 
(RNAV), Required Navigation Performance (RNP), 
Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS), and General 
Guidance on Separation Standards for Airspace Plan¬ 
ners. The goal is to complete RNAV guidance in 1994- 
1995. The RNP was requested by the ICAO Future Air 
Navigation Systems (FANS) committee and has implica¬ 
tions for the world-wide use of global positioning system 
(GPS) and establishing separation standards. The RNP 
guidance material for en route of types was approved in 
1993. The introduction of ADS will provide near real time 
surveillance and communications in many areas that 
presently depend on pilot reports over high frequency 
communications. A new methodology is being developed 
to provide quantitative guidance for establishing separa¬ 
tion standards reflecting new technologies. These new 
technologies include ADS, satellite-based navigation, 
enhanced communications, and advances in the air traffic 
management system. This effort is expected to be 
completed in 1995-1996. The final major effort is the 
continued work on developing general guidance on 
separation standards for airspace planners. This effort is 
expected to be completed in FY96. 

Products 

Horizontal Separation Standards 

• Reports on the feasibility of reduced horizontal 

separation in oceanic airspace 


Appendix H -14 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H; New Technology 


• Reports on simulation and test results for reduced 
horizontal oceanic separations 

• Data packages for international coordination of 
horizontal oceanic separation standards 

• Requirements for implementation of reduced 
horizontal oceanic separation standards 

Vertical Separation Standards 

• Data analysis and operational tests and evaluation of 
reduced vertical separation 

• Support for rulemaking on vertical separation 
standards 

• Input to ICAO documents 

• Support for implementation of reduced vertical 
separation minimums in Pacific airspace 

• Monitoring of height keeping performance with 
implementation of reduced vertical separation 
minimums in North Atlantic MNPS airspace 


H.2.12 Aviation System Capacity 
Planning (024-110) 

Responsible Division: ASC-100/200 

Contact Persons: Jitn McMahon, 202/267-7425 

Nick Johnson, 202/267-9817 

Purpose 

To establish a forum, sponsored and supported by the 
FAAy in which airport management, local FAA, airline, 
commuter, and industry groups, and airport planning 
consultants work together to develop technically feasible 
alternatives for improving airport and airspace capacity and 
reducing delay. 

Capacity design team studies have been established 
at various airports where the need for capacity improve¬ 
ment has been identified. The studies typically investi¬ 
gate application of new air traffic control procedures, 
navigation aids, system installations, airport develop¬ 
ment, and other prospective capacity improvements. 
Alternatives are then evaluated using state-of-the-art 
computer simulations. The simulations provide a measure 
of the potential benefits of these improvement alterna¬ 
tives in terms of hours of delay reduction and allow the 
FAA to refine modeling techniques while gaining opera¬ 
tional benefits through assistance to the capacity design 
team studies. 


Program Milestones 

The 1993 Aviation System Capacity Plan was pro¬ 
duced, analyzing the benefits of new airport develop¬ 
ment, airspace changes, new technology, and progress in 
implementing improved air traffic control procedures to 
support airport, airspace, and procedures improvements. 
In addition, final reports for airport capacity design team 
studies at Albuquerque, Boston-Logan, Cleveland, Port 
Columbus, Eastern Virginia (Richmond, Norfolk, and 
Newport News/Williamsburg), Fort Lauderdale- 
Hollywood, Houston Intercontinental, Indianapolis, and 
Minneapolis-Saint Paul were issued. Airport capacity 
design team studies are underway at Dallas-Fort Worth, 
Las Vegas, and Portland. A terminal airspace study was 
completed for San Bernardino International Aiport. 
Airspace design teams for New York (Phase II), Jackson¬ 
ville, Atlanta, and Miami/San Juan were completed in 
FY93 and final reports were issued in FY94. 

In FY94, tactical initiatives will be underway for New 
Yorks LaGuardia Airport, Orlando International 
Airport, and Los Angeles International Airport. In 
addition, terminal airspace studies are underway for 
Philadelphia, Salt Lake City, and Tampa. A terminal 
airspace study is also planned for San Antonio. Regional 
design studies are planned for the San Francisco Bay 
Area, the Los Angeles Basin, and the New York Metro¬ 
politan Area. Airport capacity design team updates are 
underway for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and 
Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport. . 

From 1995 to 1998, simulations and flight demon¬ 
strations will be conducted to determine if the use of 
TCAS can be expanded to provide separation assistance. 

Products 

• Aviation System Capacity Plans 

• Airport Capacity Design Team Reports 

• Airspace Analysis Technical Reports 

• Aviation Capacity Enhancement Action Plans 

• Near- and long-term capacity enhancement report 


Appendix H -15 



Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


H.2.13 National Simulation 

Capability (NSC) (025-110) 

Responsible Division: AOR-20 

Contact Person: Randall J. Stevens, 

202/287-8504 

Purpose 

To establish the NSC to assess proposed subsystems, 
aviation procedures, airspace organization, and human 
factors in an integratedfashion to determine the definition of 
the 21st century NAS. 

The NSC provides a means of analyzing and experi¬ 
menting with alternative concepts for potential NAS 
development, as well as a capability for hands-on 
development of prototype configurations for future NAS 
integration. This enables improved assessment of new 
concepts, high-level system design, new technologies, 
system requirements, and potential problems and issues. 
Resulting requirements specifications for procuring NAS 
equipment will be more accurate, complete, and achiev¬ 
able. 

Program Milestones 

NSC began an active experimentation program in 
March 1992 at the Integration and Interaction Labora¬ 
tory (I-Lab) at MITRE in Mclean, Virginia. During the 
balance of FY92, an active experimentation program was 
conducted, examining alternatives for interaction 
between traffic flow management and controller automa¬ 
tion aids in the en route and terminal airspace. This 


initial phase of experiments concluded at the end of 
FY93. Also in FY93, a series of visualization exercises was 
conducted in support of initiatives from the FAA s Office 
of System Capacity and Requirements (ASC) to expand 
the use of TCAS as a separation assistance tool. Two 
exercises were run, one for closely-spaced parallel 
approaches into San Francisco International Airport and 
another to demonstrate an in-trail climb procedure 
proposed by United Air Lines. In FY94, a new series of 
experiments and visualization exercises will be conducted, 
examining integration issues associated with the time- 
phased implementation of AERA with CTAS, Traffic Flow 
Management (TFM), data link, and advanced weather 
products. 

NSC began an active experimentation in November 
1992 at the FAA Technical Center, using resources from 
both the Human Factors Laboratory and the Oceanic 
Development Facility. In FY93, experiments were run 
assessing alternative oceanic traffic control procedures 
needed for the introduction of new reduced vertical 
separation minimums in the North Atlantic. This work 
was completed in early FY94. Additionally in FY94, 
experimentation will be conducted exploring expansion 
of the in-trail climb procedure and in dynamic aircraft 
route planning in oceanic airspace. 

Products 

• Operational NSC experimentation capability to 
support assessments of interactions and inter¬ 
operations between ATC autoniation elements and 
aircraft and assessments of human performance in 
those systems 

• Simulation results from alternative configurations of 
proposed future systems and procedures 


Appendix H - 16 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


H.2.14 Operational Traffic Flow 
Planning (025-120) 

Responsible Division: AOR-200 

Contact Person: Mark Salanski, 202/287-8526 

Purpose 

To provide near-term improvements in national level 
traffic flow management and influence the development of 
future traffic management systems. 

The Operational Traffic Flow Planning (OTFP) 
program has the following goals: 

• Quickly prototype decision support tools to supple¬ 
ment the expertise of the traffic flow management 
specialists of the Air Traffic Control System Com¬ 
mand Center (ATCSCC), 

• Develop strategies to resolve demand-capacity 
imbalances — using advanced operations research 
techniques and computer modeling. 

• Analyze ATCSCC policies and procedures to ensure 
they benefit National Airspace System (NAS) users. 

• Coordinate research efforts with other FAA programs 
to enhance nationwide operational traffic manage¬ 
ment. 

The OTFP program is organized around a flexible 
plan for improving traffic flow management. It is 
designed so that developers can routinely make program 
adjustments based on changing operational concepts or 
advances in technologies. All project efforts are organized 
to quickly supplement the experience of national traffic 
management specialists and improve the selection of 
traffic flow management strategies. 

OTFP research projects are organized into the 
following coordinated framework: 

Strategy Development Tools 

The OTFP system will generate optimal strategies for 
current or anticipated NAS conditions. It will provide the 
TFM specialist with one or more efficient strategies to 
consider. Models being developed for this program 
include the High Altitude Route System (HARS), 
Planned Arrival and Departure System (PADS), Knowl¬ 
edge-Based Flow Planning (SMARTFLOW), and Opti¬ 
mized Flow Planning (OPTIFLOW). 

Demand Assessment Tools 

Tools that access and analyze TFM information. 
Tools include Daily Decision Analysis System (DDAS) 
and the Flight Simulation Monitor (FSM), DDAS enables 
the ATCSCC to anticipate route and schedule changes 
made by the airlines and then examine associated 


capacity impacts. FSM enables air traffic managers to 
visualize the airlines’ flight cancellations and substitu¬ 
tions. 

Performance Measurement Tools 

Tools that evaluate proposed flow management 
strategies and resolve demand/capacity imbalances in the 
NAS include the Daily Flow Simulation Model 
(FLOWSIM) and the NAS Simulation Model (NASSIM). 
FLOWSIM models traffic between all major U.S. airports 
up to 24 hours in advance. NASSIM analyzes the resource- 
limited throughput in the NAS and graphically presents 
this data. 

Capacity Assessment Tools 

These systems enable the ATCSCC to estimate NAS 
resource use and workload. The Critical Sector Detector 
(CSD), being developed by OTFP, determines which (if 
any) en route airspace sectors might reach controller 
workload saturation in the near future. 

Policies and Procedures Research 

These research efforts help traffic management 
specialists in the ATCSCC enact policies and procedures 
that affect all users of the NAS. The primary OTFP effort 
which could affect FAA policies and procedures research 
is the FAA-Airline Data Exchange (FADE). FADE seeks to 
evaluate how up-to-the-minute airline schedules affect 
traffic flow management decisions. OTFP researchers are 
assessing the viability of dynamically exchanging data 
with the airlines and assessing if updated demand 
information can influence air traffic management 
decision making, specifically in regards to ground delay 
programs. 

TFM Decision Support Tool Testbed 

OTFP tools are linked to a common data source to 
allow accurate modeling and analysis of the NAS or any of 
its components. The Continental U.S. National Airspace 
Data Access Tool (CONDAT) consolidates and translates 
data from several diverse and often inconsistent sources 
into a single standardized repository. 

Program Milestones 

In FY94, the HARS capabilities were expanded to 
include enhanced communications software for FAA/ 
airline interactive planning. Also accomplished in FY94: 
a demonstration/ evaluation of PADS was completed; the 
FLOWSIM field prototype was developed; the CONDAT 
prototype demonstration and testing was completed; the 
initial NASSIM prototype testbed was developed; develop¬ 
ment, demonstration, and testing were completed for the 
SMARTFLO field prototype; and the FSM, the ground 
delay program substitution visualizer, was implemented 
as a field prototype. 


Appendix H -17 



Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


BARS - Field prototype development will continue in 
order to provide follow-on enhancements to enable full 
track generation and traffic optimization for high altitude 
traffic anywhere within the United States. It will also 
develop the integration necessary to provide 
interoperability with national and oceanic traffic manage¬ 
ment systems. In 1995, ADS and data link system 
interfaces will be developed to provide real-time commu¬ 
nications between ATCSCC and the full range of airspace 
users. This effort will complete BARS development and 
the resulting technologies will migrate into OPTIFLOW. 

PADS - This functional prototype, scheduled for 
ATCSCC testing in 1995, will provide a real-time ability 
to develop airport departure and arrival scheduling plans 
that optimize daily traffic flows for long-range flights 
between major city-pairs. The field prototype develop¬ 
ment and demonstration is planned for 1995-1996. 
Delivery of the PADS field prototype in 1996 will enable 
ATCSCC and traffic management units (TMUs) to 
interactively plan with commercial aviation dispatchers to 
develop optimized high altitude flight sequencing in 
conjunction with the BARS and OAS traffic models. 

OPTIFLOW - Operations research for this model will 
be completed in 1995. The initial prototype testbed 
demonstration and ATCSCC evaluation will begin in 
1995. The field prototype development will follow in 
1996 with field prototype demonstration and evaluation 
planned for late 1996 and early 1997. Field prototype 
delivery is planned for 1997. 

FLOWSIM - The integration of this model with other 
tools will be completed in 1995. 

CONDAT - Development and integration of this 
model will continue through 1997. 

NASSIM - Operations research for predicting and 
simulating detailed daily traffic and flow strategies will 
continue in 1995. This model will use and integrate many 
technologies and tools developed for other projects 
(BARS, PADS, FLOWSIM, and OPTIFLOW). The initial 
prototype demonstration and evaluation is planned for 
1995. Follow-on field prototype development is planned 
for 1995-1996 with field prototype demonstration and 
evaluation scheduled to begin in 1997. Field prototype 
delivery to ATCSCC and TMUs is planned for late 1997. 

SMARTFLO - Delivery of this model to ATCSCC is 
scheduled for 1995. 

DDAS - Testbed prototype development for dynamic, 
digital data exchange of scheduling information between 
the ATCSCC and airline scheduling facilities will continue 
in 1995. Prototype demonstration and testing is sched¬ 
uled for 1995. Integration with other OTFP projects will 
follow in 1995-1997. 

FSM - Prototype development will be completed in 
1995. ATCSCC analysis and integration will continue for 
planned fielding in 1995-1997. 


Products 

Demand Assessment Tools 

• Daily Decision Analysis System (DDAS) for automa¬ 
tion tools to quickly analyze airline schedule change 
impacts 

• Ground Delay Program Substitution Visualizer 
(GSUBV) to demonstrate the TFM effects of airline 
substitution practices 

• Flight Simulation Monitor (FSM) to examine in real 
time which airplanes are being moved in response to 
a ground delay program 

Performance Assessment Tools 

• Daily Flow Simulation Model (FLOWSIM) for fast¬ 
time national pacer airport traffic flow simulation 

• NAS Simulation Model (NASSIM) for detailed NAS¬ 
wide traffic prediction and simulation 

Strategy Development Tools 

• High Altitude Route System (BARS) for optimized 
fuel-efficient jet routes 

• Planned arrival and departure system (PADS) for 
developing optimal departure and arrival scheduling 
plans 

• Knowledge-Based Flow Planning (SMARTFLO) for 
quick response flow advisories to expert systems 

• Optimized Flow Planning (OPTIFLOW) for dynamic 
national traffic flow optimization 

TFM Decision Support Tool Testbed 

• Continental U.S. National Data Access Tool 
(CONDAT) to provide a common data source for all 
OTFP simulation and optimization efforts 

• OTFP System to integrate functions of the individual 
project initiatives 

Policies and Procedures Research 

• FAA/ Airline Data Exchange (FADE) to evaluate how 
up-to-the-minute airline schedules affect traffic flow 
management decisions 


Appendix H - 18 




1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


H.2.15 Air Traffic Models and 

Evaluation Tools (025-130) 

Responsible Division: AOR-200 

Contact Person: Steve Bradford, 202/287-8519 

Purpose 

To produce modeling and analytic took to support 
operational improvements, airspace and airport design, 
environmental analysis, investment decision-making, and 
ATC system design analysis. 

The tools developed by this project will provide ATC 
with the ability to rapidly plan, evaluate, and update 
operational changes to accommodate the more dynamic 
airport/airspace environment. These models will respond 
to the dynamic changes resulting from satellite naviga¬ 
tion and increased ATC and cockpit automation. This 
program will emphasize improvements to existing models 
and new model development. Modeling products will be 
improved to make them simpler, faster, more effective, 
and more widely used and accepted. 

Development will focus on integrated airport and 
airspace modeling. Previously developed models, such as 
the National Airspace System Performance Analysis 
Capability (NASPAC) and SIMMOD, will be made easier, 
faster, and more flexible to use. The Sector Design 
Analysis Tool (SDAT) is used in redesigning en route 
airspace to increase capacity and balance controller 
workload. SDAT derivatives are the terminal airspace 
sector design analysis tool (T-SDAT) and the regional 
airspace sector design analysis tool (r-SDAT). These will 
provide new capabilities for evaluating terminal and 
multi-center en route airspace design. Another analytical 
tool, the critical sector detector (CSD), will be developed 
to determine when airspace sectors will reach critical 
traffic density levels based on controller workload limits. 


Program Milestones 

In FY94, SIMMOD capabilities were established in an 
ARTCC, a TRACON, and an FAA regional office. Also, new 
SIMMOD logic is being developed to increase simulated 
traffic dynamic control and account for en route system 
dislocations. In 1995, SIMMOD capabilities will be 
established at additional FAA regions and en route 
centers. In 1996, a new version (SIMMOD Version 3) will 
be released to accommodate future airspace requirements 
for user-preferred direct routing. 

In FY94, R-SDAT was developed. R-SDAT imple¬ 
mentation is expected in 1995. T-SDAT testing will be 
conducted in 1995, with completion/implementation 
scheduled for 1997. Work will continue in 1995 on CSD 
development with completion/implementation scheduled 
for 1996. 

In 1995, work will continue on developing a user- 
friendly workstation production version of NASPAC. The 
current version of NASPAC is a prototype developed by 
the MITRE Corporation that considers various perfor¬ 
mance measures for determining NAS-wide impacts from 
proposed system improvements. The production model 
will permit analysts to conduct studies more easily and 
quickly, and will provide more sensitivity to proposed 
changes in the overall airspace system design. In 1995, an 
initial NASPAC production model will be released. 

NASPAC testing will be conducted at the FAA Technical 
Center through 1996, with implementation expected in 
1997. 

Products 

• Enhanced SIMMOD airport and airspace simulation 
model 

• SIMMOD capability installed in ARTCCs, TRACONs, 
and FAA regional offices 

• NASPAC U.S. airspace simulation production model 

• SDAT, T-SDAT, and R-SDAT 

• Critical sector detector (CSD) 


Appendix H - 19 


Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


H.2.16 Airway Facilities Future 
Technologies (026-110) 

Responsible Division: ANS-300 

Contact Person: Brenda Boone, 202/267-7313 

Purpose 

To develop the concept of operationSy methodsy policiesy 
standardsy organizational structures, and functions, validate 
them in a near~operational testbed environment, and prepare 
an orderly transition strategy to achieve the new Airway 
Facilities (AF) infrastructure needed to support the future 
National Airspace System (NA^). This will be accomplished 
through the development and use of simulation models and 
distributed and dedicated testfacilities for assessing alterna¬ 
tive operational and support concepts and methodologies. 

The traditional AF role is changing dramatically as a 
result of new technology, a changing work force, and 
increasing levels of automated management of AF 
systems. The AF RE&D Plan is intended to focus indi¬ 
vidual projects, activities, and related applied research 
toward the common goal of realizing acquisition readi¬ 
ness for the AF infrastructure by the year 2000. The plan 
will specify the guidelines for determining the AF 
operational, organizational, functional, and technological 
baselines as well as analyzing their mutual interdepen¬ 
dencies. The plan will also specify a program implemen¬ 
tation process to ensure that RE&D in each of the areas is 
integrated and that the products lead to an integrated 
overall system to meet AFs future needs. 

Models will be developed through rapid prototyping 
to evaluate promising operational concepts. Proposed 
procedures and operational concepts will be tested in 
simulated operational environments and scenarios. 
Alternative organizational structures will be developed 
and modeled for assessment and refinement. Evaluation 
tools will be provided to measure the correlation among 
operational concepts, organizational structures, func¬ 
tional capabilities, and technological capabilities. 

This project will develop a testbed to investigate 
various scenarios associated with new technologies such 
as remote maintenance monitoring, the Operational 
Control Center, and AF interfaces with satellite systems. 
Expert diagnostic, predictive, and resolution tools 
(EDPRTs) will be developed to support preventative 
maintenance and to help isolate and solve equipment 
problems. The testbeds will be used to develop require¬ 
ments and design approaches for the EDPRT tools and to 
investigate their use in simulated operational environ¬ 
ments. Applications for an intelligent tutoring system 
(its) will be identified to provide additional interactive 


tools to increase AF productivity. These tools will be fully 
integrated with the EDPRTs. 

By defining and developing alternative concepts of 
operations and then testing them in a near-operational 
environment using models, tools, and specialized tests, 
including actual systems and equipment, this project will 
achieve a validated operations and support concept. This 
validated concept will enable the project to develop an 
orderly transition strategy to move AF incrementally from 
today s traditional approach to an integrated, centralized 
AF infrastructure fully supportive of the NAS. 

Program Milestones 

In FY94, a technology assessment to identify key 
technologies applicable to AF operations was completed. 
In 1995, work will continue on developing the AF 
testbed. In 1996, testbed requirements will be complete, 
leading to an Operational Control Center prototype and 
GPS software interface in 1998. Analysis results should be 
available in 1997 and 1998 for developing policies, 
procedures, and standards. 

In 1995, work on integrated modeling tools will be 
initiated to identify organizational alternatives and to 
simulate future AF system responsibility/functions in the 
NAS. These simulation models should be completed in 
1996. Work will begin on organizational structure 
analysis tools in 1996 with completion planned for 1997. 
The models and tools will be used in 1996-1997 to 
develop, evaluate, and validate AF strategies, concepts, 
and methodologies for modernization within the NAS. 
The models will also be used to measure performance for 
allocating procedures and technologies used in systems 
management. Promising concepts and methodologies will 
be evaluated. The concepts and methodologies will 
undergo final validation in 1998 via field testing at 
selected locations. AF operational standards will then be 
developed. 

Development will begin on the ITS and the EDPRTs 
in 1996. Prototypes will be completed in 1998 with 
operational systems available in 1999. Additional ITS/ 
EDPRT development needs will be identified as new 
technology becomes available. 

Products 

• AF research program plan 

• AF system testbed 

• Expert diagnostic, predictive, and resolution tools 

• Intelligent tutoring systems 

• Validated concept of operations, methods, policies, 
standards, organizational structures, and functions 

• AF transition strategy 

• Integrated management information system perfor¬ 
mance requirements 


Appendix H - 20 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


H.2.17 Terminal Radar (ASR) H.2.18Los Angeles Basin 

Replacement Program Consolidation 


Responsible Division: ANR-200 

Contact Person: Gerald Taylor, 202/606-4622 

Purpose 

To provide economical radar service at airports with air 
traffic densities high enough to justify the service and upgrade 
the highest density airports with the latest state-of-the-art 
equipment. 

ASR-4/5/6 radars need to be replaced because of the 
decreasing availability of spare parts and the high- 
maintenance workload. Furthermore, repair parts for the 
ASR-4/5/6 radars are in short supply. A total of 96 ASR- 
4/5/6 radars are being replaced. c5f these, 40 ASR-4/5/6 
sites are being upgraded to ASR-9's, 40 ASR-4/5/6 s are 
being upgraded to ASR-8’s, and 16 ASR-4/5/6's are being 
upgraded to ASR-7 s, a procedure called “leapfrogging.” 

Program Milestones 

The first ASR-9 Operational Readiness Demonstra¬ 
tion (ORD) was in FY90 and the first leapfrog ORD was in 
FY91. The last leapfrog ORD is scheduled for FY96, and 
the last ASR-9 ORD is planned for FY96. 

Products 

• Procure 134 radars 

• Replace 96 radars 

• Leapfrog 56 radars 


Responsible Division: ANS-300 

Contact Persons: Jonathan Dorfman, 

202/267-8680 
John McCartney, 
310/297-8680 

Purpose 

To consolidate five Los Angeles Basin Terminal Radar 
Approach Control Facilities (TRACONs) to be known as the 
Southern California TRACON. This new facility will enhance 
traffic management in Southern California and allow more 
efficient use of the airspace. 

The Los Angeles Basin is created by the Pacific 
Ocean and the San Rafael, Sierra Madre, Techachapi, 

San Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Ana 
Mountain ranges. The basin area is approximately 75 
miles wide and 100 miles long. The major portion of this 
airspace below 10,000 feet is currently controlled by 
TRACON facilities located at Los Angeles, Burbank, El 
Toro (coast), Ontario, and San Diego. These five 
TRACON facilities provide instrument flight rule services 
for 29 airports within their respective areas of jurisdic¬ 
tion. This includes eight major air carrier airports and 
five military airfields. Instrument operations in Southern 
California have increased greatly over the last two years. 
Forecasts call for well over 3,000,000 operations by the 
year 2000. 

Products 

This consolidation will enhance safety, improve 
airspace utilization, and provide an IFR air traffic control 
system approach for the major hub and satellite reliever 


airports in Southern California. 

• Start site adaptation 01/90 

• Building contract award (completed) 09/91 

• Building occupancy date 02/93 

• Los Angeles TRACON consolidated 02/94 

• Coast TRACON consolidated 05/94 

• Burbank TRACON consolidated 10/94 

• Ontario TRACON consolidated 04/95 

• San Diego TRACON consolidated 09/95 

• Project completed 02/96 


Appendix H - 21 


Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


H.2.19 Traffic Management System 
(TMS) 

Responsible Division: ANA-600 

Contact Person: William L. Umbaugh, 202/ 

287-2708 

Purpose 

To upgrade the present flow control system into an 
integrated Traffic Management System (TMS) which operates 
at the national level through the Air Traffic Control System 
Command Center (ATCSCC) and the local level through 
traffic management units (TMUs). 

The upgrading of the traffic management system is 
designed to improve air traffic system efficiency, mini¬ 
mize delays, expand services, and be more responsive to 
user requirements. The TMS functions include various 
flow management programs with integrated metering 
functions such as the Departure Sequencing Program 
(DSP), En route Spacing Program (ESP), and the Arrival 
Sequencing Program (ASP) and Enhanced TMS (ETMS) 
functions such as the Aircraft Situation Display (ASD) 
and Monitor Alert (MA). 

Program Milestones 

Phase II has provided the Enhanced Traffic Manage¬ 
ment System, which is a computer network that imple¬ 
ments the aircraft situation display (ASD) and monitor 
alert (MA) functions developed by the Advanced Traffic 
Management System (ATMS) research and development 
program, for the Air Traffic Control System Command 


Center (ATCSCC), all Air Route Traffic Control Centers 
(ARTCCs), and several Terminal Radar Approach Control 
Centers (TRACONs). New computer systems with color 
graphics workstations have also been provided to the 
ATCSCC, TMUs, and the FAA Technical Center, which 
interface with the Traffic Management Computer 
Complex (TMCC), the host computers, and the ETMS 
computers to provide enhanced information displays and 
near real-time flight data. The Arrival Sequencing 
Program (ASP) and En Route Spacing Program (ESP) 
Package 1 metering enhancements to the host computers 
have also been provided. 

Follow-on activities to Phase II will include provid¬ 
ing automation equipment to non-en route facilities, 
relocating the ETMS computers from the development 
location to an FAA facility, providing an enhanced high 
data rate interface between the Host and ETMS comput¬ 
ers, integrating DSP into the TMS and providing meter 
list display capabilities for the ARTCCs. Other activities 
will include implementing ATMS functions on the ETMS, 
providing TMS hardware and software in the Advanced 
Automation System time frame until the next generation 
TMS becomes operational, and improving traffic manage¬ 
ment performance analysis capabilities by developing 
standards, procedures, and tools to facilitate the accurate 
reporting, collection, and analysis of NAS data. 

Products 

• The TMS computer complex is located at the FAA 
Technical Center. ETMS computers are currently 
located at the John A. Volpe National Transportation 
Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

• Computer program suitable for adaptation and use at 
20 domestic ARTCCs and selected TRACONs. 


Appendix H - 22 


1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


H.2.20 LORAN-C Systems 

Responsible Division: ANN-300 

Contact Person: Charles B. Ochoa, 

202/267-6601 

Purpose 

To conduct necessary procurement and implementation 
projects to meet FAA responsibilities for the use ofLORAN-C in 
the NAS, 

LORAN-C is the government s navigation aid for 
coastal areas of the United States, including southv^estern 
Alaska. Signal coverage was increased in 1991 over the 
mid-continent area and now all 48 contiguous states have 
LORAN-C service. Low-cost avionics have made LORAN- 
C an attractive area navigation aid for general aviation; it 
has been approved for en route and non-precision 
approach use under instrument conditions. One goal 
remains: to bring LORAN-C into maximum use in the 
NAS as a supplemental aid by completion of the installa¬ 
tion of signal monitors to support non-precision ap¬ 
proaches throughout the NAS. The signal monitors will 
provide the seasonal time difference correction informa¬ 
tion required to accurately perform a non-precision 
approach. 

Program Milestones 

Two new LORAN-C chains of stations were com¬ 
pleted in the U.S. mid-continent in April 1991. LORAN- 
C monitor units consist of two parts: monitors and 
interface electronics to VOR equipment. Signal monitors 
were installed at 196 sites. Installation will be completed 
in 1994 when interface electronics are placed in the host 
facilities. 

Products 

• LORAN-C Signal Monitor System 

• LORAN-C mid-continent transmitters 


H.2.21 Automatic Dependent 
Surveillance (ADS) 

Responsible Division: ARD-30 

Contact Person: Jim McDaniel, 202/267-9870 

Purpose 

To support the development and implementation of an 
Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) function to 
improve safety and provide economic benefits to users of 
oceanic airspace^ as well as to aid oceanic controllers in 
effectively controlling oceanic airspace^ with evolutionary 
applications to domestic airspace. 

The ADS function will provide for improvements in 
tactical and strategic control of aircraft. Automated 
processing and analysis of position reports will result in 
nearly real-time monitoring of aircraft movement. The 
capability of ADS to provide timely and high-integrity 
aircraft position data via a satellite air/ground link will 
permit possible reduction in separation standards, as well 
as increase accommodation of user-preferred routes and 
trajectories. 

The program will be developed in conjunction with 
the Oceanic Data Link (ODL) capability, which will add 
two way digital data communications for air traffic 
command and control. 

Program Milestones 

Implementation of ADS will be at the Oakland and 
New York Centers only. Oakland Center is scheduled for 
April 1996. 

Products 

• ADS mod operational at Oceanic Development 
Facility (ODF) 

• Perform engineering/HF trials 

• Complete avionics development support standards 

• Develop international ADS standards and operational 
procedures (SOPS) 

• Develop minimum operational performance stan¬ 
dards (MOPS) 

• ADS installed at Oakland and New York Centers 


Appendix H - 23 




Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


H.2.22 Automated En Route Air 
Traffic Control (AERA) 

Responsible Division: AAP-200 

Contact Person: Gary Rowland, 202/376-6559 

Purpose 

To provide an interactive software capability within the 
en route ATC automation system that is more accommodating 
to the routing preferences of the airspace users. 

Specifically, AERA will provide the capability to: (1) 
permit most aircraft on IFR flight plans to fly user- 
preferred direct routes and altitude profiles, which will 
result in time and fuel savings, (2) increase the safety of 
the system by reducing the potential for operational 
errors, (3) increase system capacity by integrating en 
route metering with local and national flow control, and 
(4) increase controller productivity by increasing the 
number of control services that a control team can safely 
manage. 

AERA, when fully integrated into the en route 
automation system evolving from the Initial Sector Suite 
System (ISSS), was planned for implementation in two 
steps. Introductory AERA Services (lAS) and Full AERA 
Services (FAS). IAS was envisaged as an interim step for 
ease of transition, risk reduction, and early provision of 
benefits. IAS uses the four-dimensional flight path 
trajectory modeling to support the following features: 

• Flight plan conflict probe ,which will predict 
potential violations of separation standards between 
aircraft and between aircraft and special use (e.g., 
restricted) airspace 

• Sector workload analysis, which will calculate and 
display personnel workload measures to supervisors 
and specialists to assist them in balancing sector 
staffing levels 

• Trial flight plan function, which will allow control¬ 
lers to evaluate alternative clearances prior to issuing 
them to aircraft 

• Automated reconformance, which will adjust the 
calculated trajectory to reflect the aircraft’s actual 
flight path and notify the controller of each adjust¬ 
ment in order to maintain system safety 

• Automated replan, which will aid the controller in 
granting conflict-free user requests at the earliest 
possible time 

Approximately one year after the implementation of 
the integrated IAS, the remaining FAS capabilities will be 
implemented. These extend IAS from detecting potential 
conflicts to providing the controller with suggested 
resolutions. The automation generated resolutions will 


avoid the predicted conflict, not cause additional conflicts 
and minimize the deviation from the aircraft’s preferred 
route. 

In 1993, a plan for Early AERA was generated. The 
objectives of Early AERA are to: 

• Take advantage of emerging AAS technology to 
introduce AERA to sector controllers earlier than 
possible with the fully integrated lAS/FAS implemen¬ 
tation approach 

• Implement with minimum impact on ISSS develop¬ 
ment schedule and cost 

• Reduce the risk to implementation of IAS and FAS 

• Provide benefits to airspace users earlier than 
otherwise possible 

Each AERA development package will undergo a 
series of rigorous engineering and validation steps 
consisting of algorithmic development, operational 
suitability evaluations, computer performance functional 
specification generation, software design and develop¬ 
ment, and comprehensive operational test and evaluation. 

Program Milestones 

Functional specifications for the AERA 1 functions 
were completed in FY84. AERA 1 research and develop¬ 
ment was completed in early FY85. Modifications to the 
original AERA 1 functionality were made in FY92 to 
transform AERA 1 into Introductory AERA Services (lAS). 
IAS development, operational evaluation, and implemen¬ 
tation will be accomplished as part of the AAS contract. 

AERA 2 functional specifications were completed in 
FY86. Prototype laboratory evaluations were completed in 
Fy90, and detailed algorithmic and computer/human 
interaction specifications were produced. 

AERA 2 design and analysis began in FY90 as part of 
the AAS contract. In FY92, activities were adjusted to 
accommodate the revised approach to Full AERA Services 
implementation. AERA 2’s automated problem resolution 
capability and supporting functions will continue to be 
designed and developed as part of the AAS contract in 
coordination with IAS development. This software will 
undergo operational evaluations in ATC laboratory 
simulations. After operational suitability has been 
demonstrated, the software will be finalized and imple¬ 
mented. 

From December 1991 through November 1992: (1) 
AAS specifications were revised to reflect the new 
approach to Full AERA Services implementation; (2) 

AERA design activities under the revised implementation 
approach continued and algorithmic and computer- 
human interface risk reduction demonstrations were 
conducted; (3) analysis of the extendibility of the detailed 


Appendix H - 24 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


ACCC design to IAS was completed, as well as preliminary 
extendibility analysis to FAS. 

In 1993 and early 1994, a high-level strategic plan 
was generated for an Early AERA functionality and 
procurement approach. Meetings were held with the 
AERA team to generate operational concepts for provid¬ 
ing AERA benefits early , and an early AERA core require¬ 
ments review was conducted. Planning meetings for 
integrating AERA and other new systems into the post- 
ISSS en route system have been initiated. 


Products 


• AERA will provide key en route traffic conditions and 
prediction data to the Traffic Management System 
(TMS). The upgraded traffic management system will 
be integrated with AERA to keep both short- and 
long term traffic planning coordinated 

• The AAS ACCC step has been replanned to include 
IAS and FAS incremental development, as well as 
Early AERA benefits 

• Weather products provided by the Center Weather 
Processor (CWP) will be used by AERA. More 
accurate wind data will improve AERA performance 

• Aeronautical Data-Link, interfaced through AAS, 
will provide automated controller/pilot data and 
advisory interchange 


Appendix H - 25 



Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


H.3 Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance 


H.3.1 Aeronautical Data Link 
Communications and 
Applications (031-110) 

Responsible Division: ARD-60 

Contact Person: Ron Jones, 202/287-7088 

Purpose 

To develop and validate domestic and international data 
communications standards and data link services associated 
with the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN) as 
well as special purpose air/ground data link capabilities. 

To provide the technical framework for all NAS 
systems that plan to implement data link services and 
applications. 

Communications 

Communications standards for aviation use will be 
developed, validated, and standardized. Domestic 
standards are being developed with the Radio Technical 
Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) and international 
standards with ICAO. ATN standards are currently being 
validated with industry participation. 

Extended use of the Mode S Squitter for delivering 
GPS-based aircraft position reports will be investigated. 
This automatic dependent surveillance (ADS) concept 
will provide a technology that will support airport surface 
traffic automation (ASTA) in developing an airport 
surface surveillance system. Also, this technology will 
serve as a basis for future cockpit traffic information 
systems. 

Applications 

Data link services in oceanic, en route, terminal, and 
tower environments are being defined through a coordi¬ 
nated effort between the air traffic and aviation user 
communities and will be developed and evaluated by a 
team made up of air traffic controllers, pilots, and other 
system users. Demonstrations will be conducted with 
both ground and airborne system users to validate overall 
operational system effectiveness. 


Operational and procedural benefits of data link 
applications will be verified using full-fidelity airborne 
and ground simulation facilities. The tower ATC services 
will be evaluated at selected airports in a fully operational 
environment with participating air carriers. Routine and 
hazardous weather applications will be demonstrated and 
evaluated in various simulation and airborne testbed 
facilities. Weather and aeronautical services such as 
traffic advisories, digital automatic terminal information 
service (ATIS), and ADS-Mode S Squitter applications 
will also be validated using this approach. 

Program Milestones 

In Fy94, ATN internetwork communications stan¬ 
dards were completed, computer-generated voice and 
digital ATIS was developed, and RTCA flight information 
services minimal operational performance standards 
(mops) were completed. 

Operational procedures development will continue 
for ATC air/ground data link applications in the en route, 
terminal, and tower environments in 1995. First opera¬ 
tions for initial terminal ATC data link services are 
planned for 1996-1997. Operations for initial en route 
data link services are planned for 1997-1998. 

ICAO standards and recommended practices for 
Mode-S data link and ATN will be published in 1997 for 
the initial ATN. RE&D activities will continue through 
1999 to support development and validation of standards 
that extend the ATN for international operations and 
management. ATN research, through a cooperative flight 
test program sponsored by FAA and industry, will validate 
ATN standards and will provide ATN operating experi¬ 
ence. This will be completed in 1997. 

Initial weather and aeronautical data link functions 
will be deployed in 1996. As a result, functional specifi¬ 
cations will be completed in 1997 for the next generation 
aeronautical and weather data link services, with imple¬ 
mentation targeted for the year 2000. 

Development efforts will continue on surface/air 
surveillance applications that use ADS techniques based 
on GPS aircraft position information. These applications 
will use Mode-S Squitter for delivering this data to 
airport surface and terminal surveillance systems. 
Demonstrations are planned for 1995. 


Appendix H - 26 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


Products 

• U.S. and international ATN data communications 
and applications standards 

• Specifications for production automation and 
communication systems that use/support data link 

• Prototype systems to support operational data link 
service evaluations 

• Demonstration test beds for developing advanced 
weather, flight information, and ATC services 

• Testbed for ATN development, evaluation, and 
validation 


H.3.2 Satellite Communications 
Program (031-120) 

Responsible Division: ARD-60 

Contact Person: Dennis Weed, 202/287-7091 

Purpose 

To develop the standards and perform the required 
testing to support mobile satellite communications (SATCOM) 
operational use for civil aviation^ beginning with oceanicy 
offshorCy and remote regions. 

To extend this capability to enhance NAS communica¬ 
tions and surveillance functions. 

Developing Satellite Communications Data 
Capabilities for Oceanic and Remote Regions 

The FAA will support RTCA Special Committee 165 
to develop minimum operational performance standards 
(mops) and ICAO standards and recommended practices 
(SARPs) for frequency coordination. SARPs validation will 
be performed using simulation, analysis, testing, and 
demonstration. A ground test facility will be developed to 
conduct system end-to-end and radio frequency (RF) 
tests to validate standards not currently validated by 
manufacturers' data. Flight tests will be performed to 
evaluate state-of-the-art equipment and system enhance¬ 
ments. Aeronautical mobile satellite service (AMSS) 
testing will be conducted with industry and FAA devel¬ 
oped equipment. Simulation will be used to evaluate the 
planned architecture performance. 


Developing Satellite Communications Voice 
Capabilities for Oceanic and Remote Regions 

This initiative will provide satellite voice capability 
between the cockpit and the Air Route Traffic Control 
Center (ARTCC) in oceanic flight information regions. A 
guidance document will be produced, in conjunction with 
RTCA, describing the full range of technical requirements 
to provide satellite voice capability. An architecture will 
be developed that will enable controllers to send and 
receive direct satellite voice communications. Flight trials 
will be conducted with major airlines to demonstrate and 
evaluate satellite voice capabilities. 

Implementing Satellite Communications 
Services in Oceanic and Remote Regions 

Technical expertise, analyses, and data will be 
provided to the Communications/Surveillance Opera¬ 
tional Implementation Team (C/SOIT) to develop 
operational regulations and procedures that implement 
satellite communications. The benefits derived from 
SATCOM require a combined effort among ATN, ADS, 
ARTCC automation, and SATCOM. Technical data will be 
collected from bilateral and multilateral engineering 
trials. This initiative will integrate real-time end-to-end 
communications and communication capabilities into the 
Oceanic Development Facility. 

Developing Satellite Communications Ser¬ 
vices for Selected Domestic Applications 

The currently defined oceanic aeronautical mobile 
satellite service (AMSS) system may have applications in 
domestic areas such as offshore or mountainous regions 
where very high frequency (VHF) does not penetrate. It 
may also be possible to use Low Earth Orbiting or 
Medium Earth Orbiting systems to provide reliable and 
efficient data/voice capability that meets domestic 
requirements at a reasonable cost. This project will 
conduct feasibility studies and evaluations on lower cost, 
light-weight satellite communications avionics for 
general aviation and rotorcraft. 

Program Milestones 

In FY94, ICAO AMSS SARPs were developed and 
validated, engineering trials for satellite communications 
voice capabilities in oceanic and remote regions were 
conducted, communications/surveillance operational 
implementation team plan was published, and require¬ 
ments definition on alternative SATCOM technologies for 
domestic applications were completed. 


Appendix H - 27 





Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


Verification of ICAO AMSS MOPS and SARPs will be 
completed in 1998 for SARPs compliance certification 
and ICAO approval. RTCA guidance documentation on 
SATCOM voice avionics will be published in 1995. 
Architecture provisions based on this documentation will 
be completed in 1996 for ground interface with FAA 
equipment. Data collection will continue through 1995 
from Pacific and Atlantic engineering trials. This data 
will be provided to the C/SOIT for regulatory and 
procedural implementation guidance. The feasibility of 
lower cost, light-weight SATCOM avionics for general 
aviation and rotorcraft will be determined in 1996. In 
1995, research will be initiated on long term alternatives 
for providing SATCOM service in domestic areas with 
planned completion in 1999. 

Products 

• International aeronautical mobile satellite service 
(AMSS) standards and recommended practices 
(SARPS) with ICAO 

• Minimum operational performance standards 
(mops) for AMSS with the Radio Technical Com¬ 
mission for Aeronautics (RTCA) 

• AMSS voice communications architecture 


H.3.3 NAS Telecommunications for 
the 21st Century (031-130) 

Responsible Division: ASE-200 

Contact Person: Cindy Peak, 202/287-8621 

Purpose 

To develop the next generation NAS communications 
system by evaluating alternatives in new communication 
technology to satisfy future operational NAS requirements and 
goals. 

The current priority of this project is to improve the 
air/ground communications system to accommodate the 
increasing traffic load for the 21st century. Competition 
for additional frequency spectrum is intense and will 
constrain internationally allocated VHP frequencies. 
Expanding VHP system capacity will require new VHP 
radios for both the PAA and user communities. 

The overall objectives of this project are to focus 
RE&.D funding on leveraging new technology, reducing 
communication system cost, and adhering to a disci¬ 
plined systems engineering approach. 


New technologies will be explored to quantify their 
performance in meeting NAS capacity and reliability 
requirements. Key factors include using commercial 
equipment whenever possible, streamlining operations, 
developing a transition plan, and integrating with other 
NAS elements. A cost/benefit study will be completed for 
each potential technology and a tradeoff analysis among 
alternatives will be performed. 

Accommodating evolving national and international 
communication standards and applying global address¬ 
ing, routing, and network management technologies will 
be incorporated into design of the system. System 
requirements, operational concepts, system design, and 
appropriate standards will be developed for an air/ground 
digital voice and data communication system. Technol¬ 
ogy transfer efforts will be initiated to facilitate industry 
participation in system development. System elements 
will be thoroughly prototyped and tested. 

Program Milestones 

In FY94, a prototype radio system was developed 
and flight tested. A U.S. position on VHP spectrum 
utilization for ICAO was developed. Procurement specifi¬ 
cations will be prepared in 1995 to support a request for 
proposal in 1996 with a contract award expected in 1997. 
Initial installation of the new system is expected to begin 
in 1998. 

Products 

• Internationally compatible requirements and 
standards for a new VHP air/ground communication 
system 

• Operational concept document for the new commu¬ 
nication system 

• New VHP communication system design specifica¬ 
tions 

• New VHP communication system prototype, includ¬ 
ing flight demonstrations 

• Request for proposal for system procurement 


Appendix H - 28 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


H.3.4 Satellite Navigation Program 
(032-110) 

Responsible Division: ARD-70 

Contact Person: Joe Dorfler, 202/267-7219 

Purpose 

To develop augmentations to satellite navigation 
systems, such as the Global Positioning System (GP^), to 
support procedures, and standards for oceanic, en route, 
terminal, non-precision approach, precision approach, and 
airport surface navigation using a single set of required 
avionics in order to improve safety, capacity, service flexibil¬ 
ity, and operating costs. 

The initial focus of this program has been to develop 
standards and methods to use GPS without augmentation 
as a supplemental aid to meet civil aviation requirements 
down to non-precision approach. The next phase 
includes investigating GPS augmented for Required 
Navigation Performance (RNP), an internationally 
defined measure of a navigation systems performance 
within a defined airspace, for en route, airport surface, 
departure, and precision approach applications, including 
curved and missed approach guidance. GPS augmented 
for RNP will constitute a “stand-alone” configuration with 
required redundancy. 

A satellite navigation testbed will be established at 
the FAA Technical Center to verify theoretical analyses, 
collect data in a realistic environment, simulate “worst 
case” scenarios, and provide a means to analyze perfor¬ 
mance data. 

Program Milestones 

In FY93, Technical Standard Order (TSO) C-129 for 
GPS avionics used as a supplemental means of navigation 
for oceanic and domestic en route, terminal, and non¬ 
precision approach flight phases was developed. The FAA 
Flight Standards and Certification Services authorized 
the use of C-129 GPS receivers for flight phases down to 
non-precision approach, other than for localizer-based 
approaches. In FY94, the first non-precision instrument 
approach procedure based on GPS Terminal Instrument 


Procedures (TERPS) criteria was developed. Also in FY94, 
Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards 
(MASPS) for Special Category (SCAT) I approaches using 
local-area differential GPS were published. It is expected 
that, by the end of FY94, Minimum Operational 
Performance Standards (MOPS) for GPS avionics aug¬ 
mented for RNP with Long-Range Navigation-C (LO- 
RAN-C) and the GPS Wide-Area Augmentation System 
(WAAS) will be completed. A functional specification for 
the WAAS was developed, which will support precision 
approaches throughout the CONUS about 1998. A 
navigation testbed developed at the FAA Technical 
Center demonstrated WAAS capability through cross¬ 
country flights using WAAS integrity and differential 
correction information relayed through an International 
Maritime Satellite (INMARSAT) 2 satellite. 

In FY95, MOPS for GPS augmented for RNP using 
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and inertial 
systems will be completed. Demonstrations using GPS for 
oceanic, domestic en route, and terminal operations and 
for non-precision and precision approaches will continue. 
These demonstrations will support the development of 
standards and operational procedures to permit expanded 
use of satellite navigation for civil aviation. Research on 
GPS CAT Il/lII approach feasibility will be completed by 
1995. This research will be used to support the evaluation 
of candidate navigation architectures for the future NAS. 

GPS augmented for RNP is expected to be imple¬ 
mented in oceanic airspace in 1995 and in domestic en 
route airspace through non-precision approach by 2000. 
GPS supplemented precision approaches to CAT I will be 
approved for private use in 1994/1995 and for public use 
in 1998. 

Products 

• Satellite-based instrument approach procedures 

• MOPS and a TSO for avionics to support use of GPS 
as a supplemental means in the NAS 

• MOPS and TSOs for avionics to meet RNP in the NAS 

• Augmentation requirements for GPS to meet civil 
aviation RNP 

• MASPS for SCAT I instrument approaches 


Appendix H - 29 



Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


H.3.5 Navigation Systems 

Development (032-120) 

Responsible Division: ASE-300 

Contact Person: Dave Olsen, 202/287-8763 

Purpose 

To identify and evaluate technologies and new concepts 
for future radio-navigation systems and to develop require¬ 
ments for a smooth transition into satellite-based navigation. 

The emphasis of this project is to support the 
development of a NAS transition strategy that will 
provide guidance for a major shift to satellite technology. 
The project will focus on resolving current navigation 
system supportability, the transition to satellite-based 
navigation, and potential phase-out of ground-based 
systems. This project also supports the Federal Radio- 
Navigation Plan (FRP) biennial revision and provides 
input to the joint Department of Transportation (DOT) 
and Department of Defense (dOD) Positioning 8c 
Navigation (POS/NAV) Group. 

Research will continue on current ground-based 
system supportability issues until a transition to satellite 
technology is completed. Potential operating cost 
reductions, performance enhancements, or new func¬ 
tional additions to navigation aids now operated by the 
FAA will be identified. The potential to enhance naviga¬ 
tion aids will be examined and available technology will 
be identified. Algorithms for enhancements will be 
developed and applied in laboratory simulations to test 
their effectiveness. One example of this is improving the 
VOR antenna system to reduce sensitivity to the site 
environments. 

Studies and analyses will be performed to support 
completion of the concept of Required Navigation 
Performance (rNP) for final approach and landing 
operations. The results from these efforts will be used to 
develop recommendations on the RNP criteria. The 
recommendations will be provided to the ICAO All 
Weather Operations Panel (AWOP), the Satellite Opera¬ 


tional Implementation Team (SOIT), and RTCA, Inc. 
special committees for incorporation into appropriate 
standards. 

Studies and analyses will be performed to support 
the FRP. Based on research results, recommendations will 
be made on the appropriate system mix to be included in 
the FRP. A national aviation standard will then be 
prepared and maintained for each system approved for 
use in the NAS. 

Program Milestones 

In FY94, an intitial capability was developed to issue 
NOTAMS on GPS satelite outages. Further work is 
underway to develop airport specific GPS NOTAMS. The 
1994 Federal Radio-Navigation Plan will be published in 
December 1994. Support to the development of a NAS 
transition strategy will continue, and a recommended 
strategy will be provided in 1995. 

National aviation standards for the GPS/LORAN-C 
and GPS Integrity Broadcast/Wide Area Augmentation 
System (GIB/WAAS) will be developed in 1996. These 
standards will he used by manufacturers to develop 
Technical Standard Order approved equipment. Research 
on current navigation system supportability for VOR, 

NDB, and TACAN will be completed in 1995, leading to a 
recommendation on replacement system procurement. 

Work will begin on developing the next edition of 
the Federal Radio-Navigation Plan in 1995. A final GPS 
NOTAM capability will be implemented in 1997 to 
support GPS RNP requirements. 

Products 

• Support development of a NAS transition strategy 

• Reports on enhancing performance and reducing 
costs of existing ground navigation systems 

• GPS notice to airmen (NOTAM) capability 

• National aviation standards for radio-navigation 
systems 

• Recommendation for the NAS system mix 

• Biennial FRP publication 


Appendix H - 30 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


H.3.6 Terminal Area Surveillance 
System (033-110) 

Responsible Division: ARD-90 

Contact Person: Jim Rogers, 202/267-9077 

Purpose 

To develop the next generation terminal area surveil¬ 
lance system (TASS) by defining system requirements, 
determiningfiuture operational concepts, assessing emerging 
technology applicability, benefits, and risks, and developing 
advanced capabilities in veeather and aircraft detection and 
weather prediction. 

More timely and accurate aircraft and weather 
detection capabilities will reduce system delays and 
separation criteria. The next generation TASS will be able 
to detect dry microbursts at useful ranges; measure wind 
fields from which wake vortex predictions can be made; 
detect ice, water, hail, and tornadoes; and support aircraft 
surveillance operations with seamless coverage and 
flexible routing tailored to the specific terminal site. 

Operations research analysis techniques will be used 
to assess and identify practical airspace safety and 
capacity enhancing features in emerging technology. New 
terminal surveillance sensors will use a modular architec¬ 
ture to provide for site adaptation and upgrade at 
minimal cost. One option analyzed may be to combine 


primary surveillance radar and hazardous/non-hazardous 
weather detection in a single high data rate multi¬ 
function radar. For all options analyzed, the potential 
cost savings will be balanced against the additional 
program risk that may be incurred. Demonstration 
experiments will be conducted to reduce the potential 
risk of future development. The results from these 
experiments will lead to multiple selections for prototype 
development and testing. 

Program Milestones 

In FY94, TASS operational requirements were defined 
and a simulation program established to quantify benefits 
and reduce technical risks. TASS alternative analyses will 
be completed in FY95, and contracts will be awarded for 
demonstration/validation (DEMVAL) of selected designs. 
The DEMVAL phase will be completed in FY99, and a 
contract will be awarded for full-scale development of the 
best design. A production contract is planned for FY02. 

Products 

• Operational requirements and design concepts 

• Technical requirements feasibility assessments 

• Full-scale development prototype 

• Production contract 


Appendix H - 31 


Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


H.4 Weather 


H.4.1 Aviation Weather Analysis 
and Forecasting (041-110) 

Responsible Division; ARD-80 

Contact Person: Ken Klasinski, 202/287-7081 

Purpose 

To participate in interagency activities to better under¬ 
stand aviation weather phenomena such as icing forecasts; en 
route and transition turbulence, ceiling, and visibility; 
thunderstorm and microburst prediction; wind analysis and 
forecasting; and oceanic weather observation, analysis, and 
forecasting 

To develop models and algorithms for generating 
nowcast and short-term aviation specific products. 

To develop and test computer-aided training modules for 
the users of newly developedforecasting methods and products. 

The U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP) is a 
congressionally-mandated interagency program under the 
lead of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis¬ 
tration (nOAA). The FAA will participate in the USWRP to 
address regional and local scale weather phenomena that 
are unique to aviation. 

The major objective for icing forecasting improve¬ 
ments is to develop an aircraft structural icing forecast 
capability that will provide accurate delineation of actual 
and expected icing areas by location, altitude, duration, 
and potential severity. Added capabilities include the 
ability to forecast the onset, intensity, and cessation of 
structural icing on the ground to support deicing activi¬ 
ties. 

The major objective for detecting and avoiding clear 
air turbulence will be to develop a model for short-term 
en route and transition turbulence forecasting using 
wind, temperature, and moisture data. A variety of 
models will be developed and applied to forecasting wind 
flow patterns, downbursts, wind direction changes, wind 
shear, and gust fronts for the lower atmosphere. 

This research is being coordinated with and accom¬ 
plished through an interagency agreement with the 
National Science Foundation, National Center for 
Atmospheric Research, and universities. Prototype 
products developed through the Aviation Weather 
Analysis and Forecasting Project will be tested and 
evaluated by the Aviation Weather Development 
Laboratory (AWDL) at Boulder, Colorado and the 


Experimental Forecast Facility (EFF) at Kansas City, 
Missouri. 

Program Milestones 

In FY94 winter icing forecasting techniques were 
field tested at Denver ARTCC. 

Field testing and demonstrations on winter icing 
forecasting techniques for the Chicago and east coast 
ARTCCs will be accomplished in 1996 and 1998, respec¬ 
tively. Denver test results will undergo analysis at the 
Aviation Weather Development Laboratory in 1995, 
Chicago results in 1997, and east coast results in 1999. 
Improvements in icing forecasts will continue in 2000 
using high resolution humidity data available from the 
airborne humidity sensor being developed by the Air¬ 
borne Meteorological Sensors Project. 

In 1995, research will continue on automating 
forecasted changes in ceiling and visibility at airports. 
This development will transition to the Integrated 
Terminal Weather Systern/Aviation Weather Products 
Generator in 1998. Further improvements will be 
developed between 1998 and 2000 using the high 
resolution humidity data from the airborne humidity 
sensor. 

Products 

• Precise and usable algorithms and/or numerical 
models related to icing, turbulence, convective 
initiation, visibility, ceiling, and snowstorm forecast¬ 
ing 

• New mesoscale numerical data assimilation and 
prediction models adapted to aviation needs and new 
methods for nowcasting 

• New prototype aviation weather products of AWDL 
and EFF test and evaluation 

• Automated techniques for detecting, quantifying, 
and forecasting meteorological events 


Appendix H - 32 


1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


H.4.2 Airborne Meteorological 
Sensors (041-120) 

Responsible Division; ARD-80 

Contact Person: Ken Klasinski, 202/287-7081 

Purpose 

To develop specialized airborne meteorological sensors to 
provide three-dimensional basic meteorological data needed to 
create accurate icing, turbulence, and visibility forecast 
products to provide early hazardous weather warning in the 
terminal area and en route airspace. 

This project will develop meteorological sensors to 
measure humidity and icing that can be carried aboard 
aircraft to provide near real-time three-dimensional 
weather data that is currently not available from remote 
sensors. The data obtained from these airborne sensors 
will automatically be transferred to FAA and the National 
Weather Service weather processing systems by the 
Meteorological Data Collection and Reporting System 
(MDCRS) operated by ARINC. 

The technology developed will provide design 
guidelines and engineering data to support industry 
production and certification initiatives for airborne 
meteorological sensors. Aviation weather products that 
are developed as a result of these sensors will be provided 
to air carriers in the test and validation phase to validate 
the user requirements and encourage rapid deployment in 
the air carrier fleet. Prototype airborne sensors will be 
evaluated in conjunction with the operational testing of 
the Integrated Terminal Weather System and Aviation 
Weather Products Generator. 

Research will be carried out to determine the most 
cost-effective approach for providing a turbulence index, 
or rather, an index that determines how various aircraft 
respond to turbulence encounters. Airframe motion 
estimates of turbulence must be corrected for airspeed, 
wing loading, and airframe type to give a universal 
turbulence index. Candidate designs will be tested in an 


aircraft and the resulting predictions compared with the 
results of turbulence encounters. Algorithms to estimate 
turbulence areas will be developed and tested operation¬ 
ally at the Integrated Terminal Weather System and 
Aviation Weather Products Generator prototype test 
sites. 

Program Milestones 

In FY94, a Request For Proposal (RFP) for a proto¬ 
type humidity sensor and sensor flight certification was 
initiated. Also, turbulence index algorithms were devel¬ 
oped. In 1995-1996, experimental humidity sensors will 
undergo flight test evaluation/demonstration and 
operational utility assessments. If these assessments 
suggest a significant cost-benefit from more rapid 
humidity profile updates, multiple off-the-shelf sensors 
will be recommended for procurement in 1997. 

The turbulence index algorithm will be flight tested 
in 1995-1996 to determine the correlation between the 
index and aircraft performance. This algorithm will be 
passed on to air carriers in 1997 for implementation. 

In 1998, work will begin on detecting icing aloft 
using both ground-based and airborne sensors. 

Products 

• Prototype humidity and icing sensors 

• Certification of sensors that measure humidity and 
icing aboard air carrier aircraft 

• Design guidelines, engineering data, and functional 
requirements for the sensors 

• Turbulence index algorithms for using the sensor 
data to provide improved turbulence products 

• Automated humidity and clear air turbulence reports 
downlinked from air carrier aircraft 


Appendix H - 33 



Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


H.4.3 Integrated Airborne Wind 
Shear Research (042-110) 

Responsible Division: ARD-'200 

Contact Person: Cliff Hay, 202/267-3021 

Purpose 

To develop, test, and analyze systems that provide an 
improved operational capability to detect, monitor, and alert 
flight crews to wind shear hazards. 

This project is divided into two areas. The first, 
airborne wind shear advanced technology, addresses the 
equipment certification issues. The second, wind shear 
training applications for Federal Aviation Regulations 
(far) Parts 91 and 135, addresses the training and flight 
crew certification issues. 

Airborne Wind Shear Advanced Technology 

This work will support the development of standards 
for airborne wind shear equipment and is being accom¬ 
plished through a cooperative agreement with the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 
The technology developed will provide design guidelines 
and engineering data to support industry production and 
certification initiatives for advanced wind shear warning 
systems and flight crew decision aids. The data will be 
provided to FAA certification, regulatory, and compliance 
offices. The technology will be transferred to manufac¬ 
turers and operators to accelerate their development and 
certification programs resulting from FAR 121.358 
requirements. 

Flight tests will be conducted to evaluate onboard 
airborne wind shear sensor performance by flying the test 
aircraft into wind shear conditions. Additional flight tests 
will uplink and evaluate available ground products to 
support time-critical information processing and display 
in the cockpit. The ground-based ATC system will be 
supplied airborne-derived information via downlink. 

Further research will investigate new applications for 
wind shear sensor technology with an integrated systems 
approach developed in the joint NASA/FAA wind shear 
program. Results from this research will be applied to 
clear air phenomena. 

Wind Shear Training Applications for FAR 
Parts 91 and 135 

The first task of this project will be to define the 
issues of implementing wind shear pilot certification in 
the field. This will combine all the FAR Parts 91, 135, 
and 121 products into a comprehensive set of documents. 


The next task will be to define pilot certification require¬ 
ments for wind shear escape and recovery. 

The overall wind shear training applications portion 
is being carried out in three phases. Phase 1 dealt with 
crew examination. Phase 2 is developing the four wind 
shear products, and Phase 3 will address wind shear 
training support issues. 

Program Milestones 

In FY94, mountain rotor hazard characterization and 
definition was completed. Also, Phase 3 of Wind Shear 
Training Applications for FAR Parts 91 and 135 was 
completed. This successfully concludes this research area. 

Further research in airborne wind shear advanced 
technology will concentrate on three specific clear air 
phenomena: mountain rotor, clear air turbulence, and 
wake vortices. For all three areas, a method will be 
developed to characterize and measure the phenomena 
and then advanced sensor technology will be applied to 
detect and provide a hazard warning. 

Mountain rotor research and flight tests will be 
completed in 1995 and sensor development is expected 
for 1996. Definition of wake vortices will continue in 
1995, as will flight tests, with sensor development 
expected in 1997. Clear air turbulence research efforts 
will begin in 1996, with flight tests expected in 1997, and 
sensor development in 1999. A final demonstration of 
sensor capabilities will include a Category II low visibility 
approach for closely-spaced parallel runway operations. 
Advanced sensor development for low visibility surface 
operations will begin in 1997. 

This project will integrate the output from airborne 
and ground-based systems to ensure the detection, 
warning, and avoidance of hazardous clear air phenom¬ 
ena. This integration will be accomplished in conjunction 
with air traffic control during the development cycle for 
the three major areas of research. 

Products 

• Recommendations based on study of wind shear 
effects on aircraft performance 

• Atmospheric model for lowest 1,000 feet of the 
atmosphere 

• Sensor technology assessments for microwave radar, 
coherent pulsed Hdar, and passive infrared and sensor 
integration into the flight deck 

• Wind shear hazard algorithm used with ground-to- 
air data link to provide information on the flight 
deck 

• Operational requirements for airborne wind shear 
warnings 


Appendix H - 34 




1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


H.4.4 Integrated Terminal 

Weather System (ITWS) 

Responsible Division: ARD-80 

Contact Person: Ken Klasinski, 202/287-7081 

Purpose 

To develop a system that voill integrate all the terminal 
weather sensors to provide near-term automated weather 
information and predictions in easily understood graphical 
form. 

Air traffic controllers in tower cab and TRACON 
facilities rely on a number of terminal area weather 
sensors, which collectively provide large amounts of data. 
The interpretation of this data is performed manually 
and is labor intensive, and the data from the various 
sensors may be confusing. The need to interpret large 
amounts of confusing data interferes with normal air 
traffic control functions. However, the main shortcoming 
of the present system is that it cannot anticipate short¬ 
term weather changes that affect safety, capacity, and 
efficiency. Specifically the present system cannot accu¬ 
rately predict changes in weather elements, e.g., ceiling, 
visibility, wind shear, microbursts, and thunderstorms, 
and the impact of these changes on terminal area 
operations. 


The ITWS is focused on providing safety and 
planning products to Air Traffic Control Specialists 
(ATCSs) from the current time out to about 30 minutes. 

It will collect all of the weather data available in the 
airport terminal area, from both ground-based and 
airborne sensors. These include Next Generation 
Weather Radar (NEXRAD), Terminal Doppler Weather 
Radar (TDWR), Automated Weather Observing System 
(AWOS)/Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS), 
Low-Level Wind Shear Alert System (LLWAS), and 
aircraft-reported data via the congressionally mandated 
Meteorological Data Collection and Reporting System 
(MDCRS). These products include wind shear and 
microburst warnings, storm cell information, lightning 
that may affect airport operations, terminal area winds 
aloft, runway winds, short-term ceiling and visibility 
predictions, and snowfall rate predictions to assist in 
ground de-icing decisions. 

Program Milestones 

The ITWS will be deployed at the 45 airports 
associated with the TDWR. Initial deployment of the 
ITWS will provide well-defined, beneficial products 
available as an initial systems capability, followed by 
enhancement packages when both the required input 
systems and algorithms become available. The ITWS is in 
the demonstration/validation phase. Demonstration sites 
are Orlando, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Memphis Interna¬ 
tional Airports. 


Appendix H - 35 



Appendix H; New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


H.4.5 Aviation Weather Products 
Generator (AWPG) 

Responsible Division: ARD-80 

Contact Person: Ken Klasinski, 202/287-7081 

Purpose 

To produce high-resolutioriy accuratSy and timely 
automated graphical predictions of weather variables that 
impact aviationy such as icing and turbulenccy which will be 
easily understood by air traffic control specialists (ATCSs). 

Accurate weather forecasts are not available in the en 
route domain of the National Airspace System (NAS) on 
a time scale comparable to that of other U.S. flights, i.e., 
30 minutes to several hours. Current weather informa¬ 
tion systems can only report the present state of the 
weather and forecast future weather with very low 
resolution. National Weather Service (NWS) forecasts are 
based on 12-hourly observations spaced 200 miles apart 
across the U.S. With these observational limitations, the 
high-resolution forecasts needed by the aviation commu¬ 
nity are not available or possible. Continued manual 
analysis, such as that performed by NWS meteorologists 
to identify specific aviation weather impacts, e.g., icing 
and turbulence, cannot provide the product timeliness 
and resolution required to significantly reduce related 
delays. On a national scale, the poor forecast resolution 
and slow update frequency result in advisories that are 
ineffective due to broad overwarning. Also, the present 
system does not provide the graphical depiction of 
aviation weather impacts necessary to promote rapid 
assimilation by ATCSs. 

The AWPG program will be a joint effort with the 
NWS and will capitalize on their new super-computing 
capabilities, the increased resolution of the national 
weather data base through new sensor systems such as 
NEXRAD and wind profilers, the development of models 
dealing with small-scale weather phenomenon that are of 
major importance to aviation, and the automatic conver¬ 
sion of the NWS computer generated weather data 
forecasts to weather information that impacts aviation. 
These efforts by the NWS will be made possible through 
the development of the Aviation Gridded Forecast 


System (AGFS), which will produce the automated 
prediction of weather variables that impact aviation. 

The AWPG will receive weather forecast data from 
the NWS and generate specific weather observation, 
warning, and forecast products to ATCSs in Automated 
Flight Service Stations (AFSSs), Air Route Traffic 
Control Centers (ARTCCs), and the Air Route Traffic 
Control System Command Center (ATCSCC), without 
intervening meteorological interpretation. This capability 
will be made available to users via existing and planned 
NAS platforms, e.g., WARP. 

The AWPG is divided into two components, an 
analysis and forecast component and a product genera¬ 
tion component. The first component is the Aviation 
Gridded Forecast System (AGFS) that is being developed 
for the FAA by NOAA s Forecast Systems Laboratory. It 
will provide the numerical and statistical techniques to 
automatically generate a high-resolution analysis and 
forecast of aviation impact variables (AIVs), namely 
winds, temperature, icing, turbulence, cloud base height, 
visibility, hail, and convective precipitation. The AGFS 
will be incorporated into the NWS supercomputer 
software for operational generation of AIVs. 

The second component, AWPG product generation 
software, is being developed to convert the AFGS into 
user-specific products for use by air traffic controllers. As 
new products are developed and tested, they will be 
incorporated into existing and planned NAS subsystems 
as preplanned product improvements. 

The AWPG product generation development is being 
transferred to private industry. Use of Cooperative 
Research and Development Agreements with private 
weather service companies will be utilized throughout the 
product demonstration and validation period. 

A vital input to the model generation of the AGFS is 
aircraft reported data via the congressionally mandated 
MDCRS. 

Program Milestones 

The AWPG is in the demonstration/validation phase. 
Demonstration sites include Minneapolis ARTCC, Fort 
Worth ARTCC, Fort Worth AFSS, Denver AFSS, and the 
ATCSCC. 


Appendix H - 36 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H; New Technology 


H.5 Airport Technology 


H.5.1 Airport Planning and Design 
Technology (051-110) 

Responsible Division: ACD-100 

Contact Person: Satish Agrawal, 609/485-6686 

Purpose 

To improve existing design standards pertain ing to 
runways, taxiways, aprons, and gates and develop standards 
and advisory information to be used in planning and 
designing airports, terminals, and ground access systems. 

Ever increasing travel demand and projected growth 
in traffic in the next 15 years will influence airport 
design, layout, and configuration, and require improved 
landside facilities. A major concern facing the U.S. air 
transportation industry is how to manage increases in air 
traffic with improved safety, reduced delays, and minimal 
operational constraints. 

As advances in air traffic control and other airport 
improvements increase airside efficiency and capacity, 
passenger facility capacity and access to the airport will 
become a limiting factor. Optimum airport utilization 
will require that there be a smooth and uninterrupted 
flow of passengers, cargo, and airplanes between the 
various elements of the airport system. 

The goal of this program is to eliminate runway 
acceptance rate as a limiting factor in maximizing airport 
capacity. This will be achieved by reducing the runway 
occupancy time as much as practical. It will also require 
optimizing the geometry of runway and taxiway exits 
which will allow aircraft to negotiate turns safely at 
higher speeds. Research will also be conducted to 
optimize existing airport facility designs to balance the 
relationships between access roads for public and private 
transportation and parking lots. Clearances and design 
requirements of future aircraft will be identified and the 
adequacy of current airport designs for those require¬ 
ments will be reviewed. Simplified methods will be 
developed for determining terminal, curbside, and airside 
capacities. 


Program Milestones 

In FY94, an analysis on current airport designs for 
compatibility with new transport aircraft was completed. 
Also, an airport accessibility index tool was developed. 

In 1995, an initial taxiway system design and flow 
rate evaluation for triple and quadruple parallel runways 
will continue and design standards will be completed. 
Design advisory circulars will be re-examined to deter¬ 
mine how airports should be planned and designed to 
accommodate new unique aircraft configurations with 
larger wingspans. Standards for the Boeing 777 will be 
completed in 1995 and standards for future growth 
aircraft will be completed in 1997. 

Planning guidance for ground access to airports and 
for terminal building design will be developed in 1995 
and an airport financial performance review will be 
completed in 1996. 

Products 

• Technical data to support advisory material, regula¬ 
tions, and guidance used by industry and the FAA 

• Computer programs and user guides for use by 
industry and the FAA airport community 

• Design standards for terminals and parallel runway 
configurations 

• Terminal design simulation guidance and models 

• Aircraft/terminal compatibility analyses 


Appendix H - 37 



Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


H.5.2 Airport Pavement 

Technology (051-120) 

Responsible Division: ACD-100 

Contact Person: Satish Agrawal, 609/485-6686 

Purpose 

To reduce the massive costs of pavement expenditure by 
at least 10percent by the year 2010 through a research 
program featuring: (1) pavement design and evaluation, (2) 
materials and construction methods, and (3) repairs and 
maintenance techniques. 

There are approximately 650 million square yards of 
pavement at U.S, airports. Replacement value is expected 
to exceed SlOO billion and there are limited practical 
possibilities for adding to or replacing major pavement 
systems. The Federal Government and the aviation 
community are spending approximately $2 billion 
annually on pavement as well as additional costs of delay 
resulting from operational interruptions due to construc¬ 
tion and maintenance. A significant portion of the $2 
biUion is spent replacing, repaving, rehabilitating, 
repairing, and maintaining pavement surfaces. During 
this decade, an estimated $40.5 billion in federal and 
local funds will be required to provide a more efficient 
and integrated public-use airport system under the FAAs 
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Of 
this total, about $17 billion will be spent on constructing, 
maintaining, and rehabilitating airport pavements. The 
majority of this money will be spent at the most heavily 
used airports carrying the largest aircraft. 

Specific projects will be undertaken to develop an 
advanced method for pavement design that will reduce 
pavement design and construction costs, pavement 
failures, maintenance costs, pavement down time, and 
aircraft delay costs. Initially, a pavement design method 
based on layered elastic theory will support U.S. aircraft 
manufacturer efforts to introduce new and heavier 
aircraft. An internationally accepted basis for evaluating 
if airports can accommodate new aircraft will be pro¬ 
vided. Methods for nighttime and cold weather construc¬ 
tion will be developed and methods for pavement 
evaluation and failure prediction will be improved in 
order to extend pavement life by at least 20 percent. 

Pavement Design and Evaluation 

Research in pavement design and evaluation area will 
focus on developing an advanced pavement design 
method that can be applied to the design of both flexible 
and rigid pavements. Efforts will first be concentrated on 


completing the layered elastic design method followed by 
more rigorous design methods such as finite element 
analysis to accurately model material properties. As part 
of validation of the layered elastic theory, full-scale 
pavement testing will be required using a facility that can 
accommodate multi-wheel configurations simulating the 
newer aircraft. The facility will provide aircraft response 
and pavement performance characteristics accurately. 
Evaluation of aircraft response and pavement perfor¬ 
mance will also be initiated at major new airports by 
installing advanced instrumentation and sensor systems 
in runways and taxiways. Research will also be conducted 
to develop design criteria and methods for design, 
evaluation, performance, and serviceability of pavements 
at airports in cold regions. 

Pavement Materials and Construction 

Research in this area will include: developing 
methods to specify and use new or improved materials as 
substitutes for the conventional materials used for 
pavement construction; identifying factors affecting the 
durability of airport pavements and development of 
criteria for efficient use of devices, construction materials, 
and construction techniques; performing evaluation of 
coal-tar mixes; using roller-compacted concrete as a 
construction technique; and using geotextiles and grid 
type materials for strengthening airport pavements. 

A new program will be initiated for organizing long¬ 
term data collection on pavement performance modeled 
on the Strategic Highway Research Program. This new 
program will be known as the National Airport Pave¬ 
ment Registry and Demonstration Program and will 
annually identify significant new airport construction to 
determine life-cycle costs and other performance factors. 

Pavement Maintenance and Repairs 

Research efforts in this area will include: determin¬ 
ing probable causes of significant distress and life-cycle 
cost of pavements and developing criteria and guidance 
to effectively use seal-coating materials for enhancing 
pavement longevity. 

Special life-cycle cost studies on heavy concrete 
pavements at Dulles and Dallas-Fort Worth Airports will 
be carried out because these pavements are at the end of 
their design lives. Pavement sections that show signifi¬ 
cantly more or less distress than average will be identified 
and their condition related to the number of stress 
repetitions, subsurface conditions, and other factors. The 
results will be used to develop guidelines for concrete 
pavement average life span, life-cycle costs, and to 
support developing new design methodologies. 


Appendix H - 38 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


Program Milestones 

In FY94, layered elastic theory development was 
completed and design specifications for the National 
Pavement Test Machine were completed. 

In 1995, the ten-year runway data collection effort 
will continue at the new Denver Airport using the newly 
installed pavement sensors. These sensors will measure 
the pavement response to repeated heavy aircraft loading. 
The data collected will be used to validate pavement 
design theories. This data collection effort will be 
completed in 2002. Computer software development 
using the predictive design and analysis methodology will 
continue in 1995, resulting in a stress-strain graphic 
display in 1999. New tests for material characterization 
will be completed in 1998 and controlled experiments 
under various applied and environmental loading 
conditions will be formulated to assure the methodology's 
accuracy. Studies will be initiated on durability of asphalt 
mbces and improved shoulder designs. 

In 1995, work will continue on collecting and 
analyzing data that relate pavement performance to FAA 
design and construction standards. This effort will result 
in a comprehensive airport pavement data base in 2001. 
Criteria and methods for design, evaluation, perfor¬ 
mance, and serviceability of pavements at airports in cold 
regions will be completed. 

In 1995, studies on pavement life-cycle costs and the 
National Airport Pavement Registry and Demonstration 
Program will be completed. Also in that year, national 
pavement test machine development will be completed. 
Pavement design tools based on layered elastic analysis 
and/or finite element analysis will be completed in 1997. 

Products 

• Technical data for pavement design and design life, 
evaluation, materials, construction, maintenance, and 
repair 

• Software and user guidelines for pavement design 
and analysis 

• National pavement test capability 

• Pavement design tool 


H.5.3 Airport Safety Technology 
(051-130) 

Responsible Division: ACD-100 

Contact Person: Satish Agrawal, 609/485-6686 

Purpose 

To develop new technologies in four research areas: (1) 
safe and efficient aircraft operations on runway surfaces; (2) 
new emerging technologies in lightings signings and marking 
materials for improved visual control systems; (3) new 
materials^ methods^ and equipment to improve the capability 
and cost-effectiveness of airport rescue andfirefighting 
services; and (4) materialsy methodsy and devices to control 
birds and wildlife in the airport environment. 

Runway Surface Technology 

The condition of the runway surface is a critical 
concern at airports. Snow, ice, water, and rubber deposits 
can result in slipperiness, causing aircraft to lose control 
during braking and making surface movements hazard¬ 
ous. In recent years, grooved runways to control surface 
water have greatly reduced hydroplaning. However, 
aircraft accidents from overshooting or veering off 
contaminated runways remain a problem. 

During the last 11 years, there have been 130 
accidents involving aircraft overruns and veeroffs. The 
accidents involved runway surfaces that were either dry or 
covered with water, ice, snow, or slush. The three major 
aircraft accidents during the last 10 years have focused 
national attention to the question of runway slipperiness 
and loss of control during landings and takeoffs. 

The goals of this program are to eliminate runway 
slipperiness as a cause of accidents by the year 2000 and 
to stop all aircraft within the extent of the runway. To 
achieve this goal, extensive research, testing, and evalua¬ 
tion will be conducted to develop new techniques, 
materials, procedures, and equipment to efficiently 
remove ice, snow, and rubber deposits. Also, research will 
continue on developing methods to prevent ice and snow 
accumulation on airport surfaces. New materials and 
methods will be investigated to decelerate aircraft safely, 
should there be an overrun. 

Visual Guidance 

Safe and efficient airport ground operations, 
especially at night and under low visibility conditions, 
require that pilots and vehicle operators receive conspicu¬ 
ous and unambiguous information from lights, signs, and 
other markings. Improvements in these visual aids are 


Appendix H - 39 


Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


one of the key elements in the FAA s Runway Incursion 
Program. 

During the past 15 years, there have been seven air 
transport surface collision events in the U.S. These 
accidents have brought into focus the need for providing 
visual guidance to aircraft in low visibility conditions. 

The goal of this program area is to eliminate, by the 
year 1997, deficiencies in the visual guidance systems and 
procedures that may contribute to surface collision 
accidents. This goal would require research efforts in two 
general areas: visual guidance “control” technology to 
develop an automated system for aircraft movement on 
airport surfaces, and developing state-of-the-art light 
sources and applications. These will include fiber optics, 
laser sources, and holographic techniques. Technology 
will also be developed to evaluate new visual guidance 
systems and procedures, particularly during low visibility 
conditions, on a computer-based simulation system. 

Rescue and Firefighting 

The analysis of aircraft accidents involving external 
fuel fires has shown that, although external fire is 
effectively extinguished, secondary fires within the 
fuselage are difficult to control with existing equipment 
and procedures. Large amounts of smoke, toxic gases, 
and high temperature levels in the passenger cabin can 
cause delay in evacuation and pose severe safety hazards. 
Reductions in off-runway response times will be achieved 
by developing a new truck suspension system that 
improves traction in soft sand, wet, and uneven ground 
conditions. 

The goal of this program area is to increase passen¬ 
ger survival rate in post-crash fires by providing a safe 
evacuation route through the aircraft cabin in a timely 
manner. This goal would require research and testing to 
develop firefighting systems that can effectively be used 
to control both external and internal cabin fires. Research 
will be conducted to reduce vehicle response times during 
nighttime and in low visibility conditions to develop new 
training techniques for rescue and firefighting personnel. 
Improvements in response times and proper equipment 
development are needed for operations in poor visibility 
conditions. 

Improvements in soft terrain and off-road 
firefighting vehicle capabilities will be needed to cope 
with expanded airport runway configurations into the 
year 2000 and beyond. New methods, procedures, and 
firefighting chemicals will be developed for use with large 
capacity aircraft, double-decked aircraft, and/or aircraft 
made from advanced materials. 

Chemicals used in firefighting training facilities are 
raising concerns about environmental damage. Research 
will investigate methods to maintain a high level of 


performance for firefighting services, while minimizing 
air pollution and ground water contamination. 

Wildlife 

The presence of wildlife at and near airports poses a 
potential threat to movements of aircraft and other 
ground vehicles. In spite of various control devices in use 
to keep birds away, over one thousand incidents of bird 
strikes are reported every year. Many more incidents are 
known to occur, but are not reported. 

The goals of this program are to increase airport 
safety and decrease damage to aircraft by reducing bird 
strikes. These goals require research efforts in developing 
effective regional wildlife habitat management to 
minimize or eliminate sources of bird attraction at 
airports. Research will also be conducted to identify 
active and passive harassment techniques that can 
effectively control the presence of birds and other wildlife 
at airports. These techniques and methods will help 
airport owners and operators in complying with FAA 
airport certification regulations. Land use sighting 
compatibility guidance will be provided by researching 
relationships among birds, airports, and landfills. 

Program Milestones 

In FY94, installation standards for a plastic foam 
arrestor system were completed, a technical report on 
runway sand application rates was completed, technical 
data for developing U.S. runway stop-bar standards was 
provided, an advisory circular on minimum rescue and 
firefighting capabilities at general aviation airports was 
published, and the third report on wildlife harassment/ 
deterrent techniques for airports was also published. 
Specifications for a firefighting penetrating nozzle boom 
and standards for fire extinguishing agents to replace 
Halon 1211 were developed in FY94. 

Runway Surface Technology 

In 1995, standards will be issued on runway sand 
application rates. In 1996, research will be completed on 
microwave debonding on runway ice. Also, testing will be 
completed on innovative methods of ice removal, with a 
final report in 1997, leading to an advisory circular in 
1998. In 1997, a universal performance specification will 
be completed for removing runway rubber deposits. Also, 
research will begin on advanced aircraft arresting systems 
for new generation transport aircraft. Standards for an 
advanced aircraft arresting system are expected to be 
issued in 2005. 


Appendix H - 40 


1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


Visual Guidance 

In 1995, standards will be issued for improved 
airport pavement markings based on technical research 
into factors such as durability and visibility under dry or 
wet conditions. Visual simulator enhancements will be 
completed for testing new and improved lighting systems 
under all weather conditions. A study on automatic 
traffic control logic and procedures will be initiated in 

1996. This study will lead to developing design standards 
for an automated taxiway guidance system in 1998. 
Advanced technology lighting sources will be investi¬ 
gated in 1996 to develop more efficient airport visual 
guidance systems. The most promising technologies will 
be integrated into enhanced lighting systems by the year 
2000 . 

Rescue and Firefighting 

In 1995, work will continue on evaluating a pen¬ 
etrating nozzle s ability to suppress aircraft cabin fires. A 
study will continue on identifying the most cost-effective 
technology to provide enhanced vision and location 
definition for rescue vehicles responding to emergencies 
under poor visibility conditions. Work will continue on 
providing fire truck crews with information for efficient 
rescue operations following a crash. Efforts will continue 
on evaluating the rescue firefighting standards against 
requirements to control and extinguish fires in aircraft 
containing composite material. 

An evaluation will be initiated in 1995 for aircraft 
rescue and fire fighter training simulators. A study will 
begin on a generic, full-scale firefighting training facility 
that meets both environmental concerns and operational 
requirements. Based on this research, the current training 
advisory circular will be updated for a standardized, 
generic firefighting training simulator. This is expected 
for 1997. 

In 1995, an evaluation will be initiated on develop¬ 
ing post-crash fire protection requirements for advanced 
double-decker aircraft seating up to 1000 passengers. In 

1997, the current fire protection advisory circular will be 
updated to include the new generation transport aircraft 
such as the Boeing 777. It is expected that the advisory 
circular will be updated in the year 2000 to include fire 
protection for aircraft in the 600 to 800 passenger 
capacity and in 2006 to include aircraft up to 1000 
passengers. 


In 1996, an advisory circular will be published to 
cover technologies that deal with firefighting procedures 
for advanced composite aircraft and structures. In 1996, 
an advisory circular will be published to cover technolo¬ 
gies that improve response during poor visibility condi¬ 
tions for firefighting vehicles. Research will be conducted 
to evaluate soil stabilization methods to support airport 
rescue and firefighting vehicles. 

Wildlife 

The second regional airport habitat management 
study will continue in 1995. Research on a fourth wildlife 
harassment/deterrent technique and landfill study will 
continue. The first regional habitat study at Atlantic City 
will be completed in 1995, with a final report expected in 
1996, and a Mid-Atlantic U.S. advisory circular expected 
in 1997. The third regional habitat study will begin in 
1996. Final reports on the fourth and fifth wildlife 
harassment/deterrent techniques will be finished in 1995 
and 1996 respectively. Regional habitat management 
studies will be initiated and completed at a rate of every 
two years until the ten regional studies are completed. 
These regional airport studies are expected to continue 
through 2008, with advisory circulars published one year 
after the final reports. 

The primary thrust of the above research efforts is to 
identify and document the effectiveness and applicability 
of new wildlife habitat management and harassment/ 
deterrent techniques for use on or near airports to 
mitigate bird or wildlife hazards. Knowledge of bird 
relationships to existing and new solid waste facilities will 
establish a sound scientific basis to evaluate potential bird 
attraction effects on or near airports. 

Products 

• Technical data supporting rules, regulations, and 
advisory circulars on runway surface maintenance 

• Technical data and design criteria for lighting and 
marking systems for airports, heliports, and 
vertiports 

• Technical data on tests and evaluation of firefighting 
agents, full-scale systems, and rapid response all- 
terrain firefighting vehicle 

• Technical data and advisory circulars on wildlife 
habitat management, bird harassment techniques, 
and landfill studies 


Appendix H - 41 



Appendix H; New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


H.5.4 Low-Level Wind Shear Alert 
System (LLWAS) 

Responsible Division: ANW-400 

Contact Person: Steve Hodges, 202/267-7849 

Purpose 

To monitor winds in the terminal area and alert the 
piloty through the air traffic controller, when hazardous wind 
shear conditions are detected, since these conditions occurring 
at low altitude in the terminal area are hazardous to aircraft 
encountering them dming takeoff orfinal approach. 

Program Milestones 

The LLWAS program was initiated in early 1975. 
Among the sensors evaluated were pressure jump 
detectors, pulsed and CW Lasers, acoustic Doppler 
systems, pulsed Doppler radar, and arrays of anemom¬ 
eters. The last technique was selected as the most cost- 
effective approach. Doppler radar promised the best 
capability at the time, but the technology was not 
sufficiently mature and the cost and technical risks were 
high. Full-scale development began in 1976, resulting in 
the evaluation of LLWAS at six airports. Production was 
initiated in 1978, 110 LLWAS units are now operating. 

The program to upgrade the systems began in 1985 
and contracts were awarded in 1987. The upgrade 
provided new processors and significantly improved the 
algorithm which increased the probability of detection 
and reduced the false alarm rate. This program was 
completed in the spring of 1991. 

The LLWAS-Network Expansion (LLWAS-NE) 
upgrade, planned for nine airports, will provide improved 
microburst detection and identification. It will also 
provide new displays for controllers and provide runway 
oriented wind shear information. The LLWAS-NE has 
been operationally tested and evaluated at Orlando 
International Airport, and, as a result of this testing, 
software errors are being corrected by the LLWAS-NE 
contractor. The new Denver International Airport 
LLWAS-NE was placed in operation February 1994 and 
will be officially commissioned when the new airport 
opens. The remaining LLWAS-NEs will be commissioned 
in 1996. The LLWAS-NE will provide an integrated wind 
shear alert when the system is collocated with a Terminal 
Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR). 

Products 

• One hundred and ten production systems, including 

spares, training, and documentation. 


H.5.5 VORTAC Program 

Responsible Division: ANN-300 

Contact Person: Charles B. Ochoa, 

202/267-6601 

Purpose 

To form a modern cost-effective national navigation 
network which provides required coverage through the 
replacement, relocation, conversion, and establishment of 
VORTAC, VOR/DME, and VHP Omnidirectional Range Test 
(VOT). 

Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Ranges 
(VOR) with Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) or 
Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) are en route air naviga¬ 
tional and approach aids used by pilots to conduct safe 
and efficient flights and landings. 

From FY82 through FY89, the FAA replaced 950 
vacuum tube-type VOR and VORTAC systems with 
modern solid-state equipment. New Remote Mainte¬ 
nance Monitoring compatible DME systems will replace 
existing DME systems at 40 VOR/DME sites. The DME 
units removed from these sites will be redeployed to ILS 
sites. 76 tube-type VOTs have been replaced with solid- 
state equipment, and 35 new VOT facilities have been 
established. VOR/DME facilities are being relocated to 
accommodate route structure changes, real estate 
considerations, and site suitability. Conventional VORs 
are being converted to Doppler VORs to solve siting 
problems and to obtain required signal coverage. Opera¬ 
tional requirements that arise in various geographic areas 
require the establishment of VHF navigational aid 
services. Provisions have been made to establish 70 VOR/ 
DME sites including new VOR/DME equipment at non- 
Federal takeover locations. DME systems will be added at 
47 sites equipped with VOR only. 

Program Milestones 

All vacuum tube-type VOR and VORTAC equipment 
has been replaced with solid-state equipment which has 
embedded remote monitoring and control capabilities. 
DME service will be provided at all VOR facilities. A 
revised network plan will be developed to redistribute 
VORs to meet operational requirements during the 
transition from a ground-based navigational system to a 
satellite-based system. Tube-type VOT equipment has 
been replaced with solid-state equipment. VOR/DME and 
VOT sites will be established to meet operational require¬ 
ments. 


Appendix H - 42 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


In FY90, the VOR/DME contract was awarded, the 
VOR/DME system design review was completed, and the 
design qualification test for VOX was completed. Plans 
are to issue a DME-only contract during FY95. A contract 
to procure all required Doppler VOR conversion equip¬ 
ment is currently in place. 

Products 

• To date, 725 VORTACs, 145 VOR/DMEs, and 80 VORs 
have been replaced, 35 VOTs have been established, 
and 76 VOTs have been replaced. 

• In the next ten years, the FAA plans to establish 70 
VOR/DMEs, establish 40 DMEs at VORs, replace 47 
DMEs at VORs, reinstall 47 DMEs at ILSs, and convert 
94 VORs to DSB DVOR. 


H.5.6 Microwave Landing System 
(MLS) 

Responsible Division: ANN-200 

Contact Person: Gary Skillicorn, 

202/267-6675 

Purpose 

To develop and implement a new common civil/military 
precision approach and landing system that will meet the full 
range of user operational requirements well into the future. 

MLS is currently the international standard replace¬ 
ment for the Instrument Landing System (ILS), and there 
are vendors in several countries that manufacture at least 
the Category I version of the MLS. There are also several 
manufacturers of the basic avionics sets. Some users are 
questioning the benefits of equipping with MLS, given 
possible alternatives of improvements in the ILS and the 
potential use of satellite-based systems for precision 
approaches. Other users are willing to equip with MLS to 
take advantage of its inherent advantages over ILS. 

Program Milestones 

In 1984, the FAA awarded a contract to Hazeltine 
Corporation for 178 MLSs. However, the contract was 
terminated in 1989, and only two systems were delivered. 
From 1988 to 1992, the FAA conducted a demonstration 
program to show the economic and operational benefits 
of MLS. Under this program, the estimated costs associ¬ 
ated with various avionics configurations were also 
generated. In March 1992, a final report on the demon¬ 
stration program was sent to Congress, All nine projects 
in the program are complete except the deployment of all 
Category I MLSs, the DME/P interrogator development, 
and the delivery of the combined MLS/GPS receiver. 

The FAA currently has three contracts for MLS 
systems. The first contract is with Allied-Signal for the 
delivery of 26 Category I FAR Part 171 systems. Three of 
these MLSs were installed. The other two contracts are 
with Wilcox Corporation and Raytheon Corporation for 
the design, development, and testing of six first article 
Category II/III MLSs from each contractor.These two 
contracts were terminated in 1994. A recommendation 
on a replacement system for ILS is expected in 1995. 

Products 


• Category I MLSs (28) 


Appendix H - 43 



Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


H.5.7 Runway Visual Range (RVR) 
Systems 

Responsible Division: ANN-400 

Contact Person: Calvin Miles, 202/267-6038 

Purpose 

To establish and modernize existing Runway Visual 
Range (RVR) systems on qualifying Category /, //, 111 a/b ILS 
and MLS runways. RVRs support precision approach landing 
operations. 

RVR equipment provides real-time measurement of 
visual range along the runway. The RVRs in the NAS 
utilize old technology and cannot be economically 
upgraded to satisfy the requirements of the NAS in the 
1990s and beyond. A new generation RVR has been 
conceived to economically satisfy all future NAS operating 
and maintenance requirements. 

Program Milestones 

A contract has been awarded to procure 528 RVR 
systems. The RVR systems have completed all factory 
required testing. Production systems are scheduled for 
delivery in FY94-95. 

Products 

• 528 RVR systems with proper documentation 


H.5.8 Visual NAVAID Systems 

Responsible Division: ANN-300 

Contact Person: Charles B. Ochoa, 202/267- 

6601 

Purpose 

To provide safety-related and safety enhancement visual 
NJIMID systems at airports. 

The facilities to be provided are: medium intensity 
approach lighting system with runway alignment 
indicator lights (mALSR), runway-end identification 
lights (REIL), precision approach path indicator (PAPi), 
omnidirectional approach lighting system (ODALS), and 
standard 2,400 foot high intensity approach lighting 
system with sequenced flashers (Category II configura¬ 
tion) (ALSF-2). 

This program also includes: 

• The procurement of equipment for the replacement 
or establishment of remote radio control capabilities 
for visual aids that meet the operational require¬ 
ments of air traffic control and remove complex 
manually activated coding methods. The new system 
will permit single-button control of each visual aid 
function. 

• The replacement of the existing rigid approach 
lighting tower structures with lightweight, low- 
impact-resistant structures that collapse or break 
apart upon impact to reduce damage to an aircraft 
should it strike an approach light tower during 
departure or landing. 

• The installation of threshold light bars to existing 
MALSR to provide a visual reference to the runway 
threshold to make the present system more effective 
in low-visibility conditions. 

• The replacement of visual approach slope indicators 
(VASIs) with PAPIs to satisfy the ICAO recommenda¬ 
tion for PAPIs at international runways and to satisfy 
Air Line Pilot Association (ALPA) and general 
aviation requests for PAPIs at all validated ap¬ 
proaches. 

• The accommodation of the installation of approach 
lighting systems at those runway locations where 
GPS approach procedures are planned to be initiated. 

The programming and implementation of visual 
NAVAID projects are based on each of the nine FAA 
regions submitting qualified candidates and the review 
and validation of these requirements by the FAA Head¬ 
quarters sponsoring organization within FAA funding 
guidelines. 


Appendix H - 44 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H: New Technology 


In addition, the President s Task Force on aircrew 
complement recommended the installation of vertical 
guidance capability at all air carrier runways, and those 
locations not equipped with vertical guidance devices will 
receive priority consideration. 

Products 

• Current Capital Investment Plan (CIP) planning 
envisions the installation of 200 additional MALSRs, 
300 REILs, 400 PAPIs, 200 ODALs, 20 ALSF-2s, and 
approximately 200 rigid approach lighting structure 
replacements in the FY94 and beyond time frame 


H.5.9 Precision Runway Monitor 
(PRM) for Closely Spaced 
Parallel Runways 

Responsible Division: ANR-300 

Contact Person: Byron Johnson, 202/606-4644 

Purpose 

To assess and demonstrate the feasibility of applying 
Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) to increase the aircraft 
arrival rate at ahports with closely-spaced parallel runways 
and develop the necessary equipment. 

To develop the necessary equipment to apply PRM at 
airports with closely-spaced parallel runways. 

An airport’s capacity to handle arriving aircraft is 
limited by the number of runways that are usable at any 
one time. In instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), 
the number of usable runways depends on the spacing 
between the runways. Without PRM — an enhanced 
radar and an associated controller display — simulta¬ 
neous (independent) approaches are only allowed if 
runways are spaced at least 4,300 feet apart. With PRM, 
the spacing required between closely spaced parallel 
runways is reduced to 3,400 feet. This change will allow 
more airports to conduct simultaneous independent 
approaches during inclement weather. 


This project demonstrates the increases in an 
airport’s arrival capacity that are possible with enhanced 
radar and controller displays. It will also produce a series 
of measurements on the effect of navigational accuracy, 
effect of the distance between the parallel runways, and 
response times of controllers, pilots, and aircraft. These 
measurements will also be useful for other similar 
applications such as runway spacings below 3,400 feet 
and triple and quadruple parallel runways. 

Program Milestones 

Two engineering models of secondary beacon radars 
were tested: an electronically scanned (E-scan) beacon 
radar capable of a 0.5 second update interval (compared 
with a 4.8 second update interval available from today’s 
radars), and a system that uses Mode S monopulse 
processing on back-to-back beacon antennas mounted on 
a conventionally rotating ASR system, capable of a 2.4 
second update interval. The demonstrations of both E- 
scan and Mode S, begun in 1989, used improved high 
resolution displays. Controller studies and flight test 
demonstrations were conducted in 1990. 

In FY90-91, engineering models were successfully 
demonstrated in conducting independent IFR approaches 
to parallel runways spaced 3,400 feet apart. Simulations 
of independent parallel IFR approaches to runways spaced 
3,000 feet apart using 1 mrad, 1 second update rate were 
conducted in FY91. Further research and development are 
underway for IFR approaches at spacings below 3,400 
feet. Results are expected in the latter part of 1994. 

Specifications have been incorporated into a limited 
production contract which was awarded for five E-Scan 
systems in March 1992. 

Products 

• Operational requirements definition 

• Automatic blunder-detection algorithms 

• Validated runway separation model 

• Measured performance of displays, blunder-detec¬ 
tion algorithms, and E-Scan and Mode S sensors 

• Evaluation and procurement specification for 
production sensors or sensor modifications 

• Operational procedures and guidelines 


Appendix H - 45 



Appendix H: New Technology 


1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix H - 46 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix I: Glossary 


Appendix I 

Glossary 


AAC.Advanced AERA Concepts 

AAF.Army Airfield 

AAP.Advanced Automation, FAA 

AAS.Advanced Automation System 

ACARS.ARINC Communications Addressing and 

Reporting System 

ACCC.Area Control Computer Complex 

ACD.Engineering, Research and Development 

Service, FAA 

ACE.Airport Capacity Enhancement 

ACF.Area Control Facility 

ADR.Automated Demand Resolution 

ADS .Automatic Dependent Surveillance 

ADSIM.Airfield Delay Simulation Model 

AERA.Automated En Route Air Traffic Control 

AEX.Automated Execution 

AF.Airway Facilities 

AFB.Air Force Base 

AGFS.Aviation Gridded Forecast System 

AGE.Above Ground Level 

AIP.Airport Improvement Program 

AIRNET.Airport Network Simulation Model 

AIV.Aviation Impact Variable 

ALP.Airport Layout Plan 

ALS.Approach Lighting System 

ALSF-II.Approach Light System with Sequenced 

Flashers and CAT II modification 

AMASS.Airport Movement Area Safety System 

AMSS.Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service 

ANA.Program Director for Automation, FAA 

AND.Associate Administrator for NAS Devel¬ 

opment, FAA 

ANG.Air National Guard 

ANN.Program Director for Navigation and 

Landing, FAA 

ANR.Program Director for Surveillance, FAA 

ANS.NAS Transition Implementation Service, 

FAA 

ANW.Program Director for Weather and Flight 

Service Stations, FAA 


AOC.Aeronautical Operational Control 

AOR.Operations Research Service, FAA 

APO.Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, FAA 

APP.Office of Airport Planning and Program¬ 

ming, FAA 

ARD.Research and Development Service, FAA 

ARF.Airport Reservation Function 

ARINC.Aeronautical Radio Incorporated 

ARSA.Airport Radar Surface Area 

ARTCC.Air Route Traffic Control Center 

ARTS.Automated Radar Terminal System 

ASC.Office of System Capacity and Require¬ 

ments, FAA 

ASCP.Aviation System Capacity Plan 

ASD .Aircraft Situation Display 

ASDE.Airport Surface Detection Equipment 

ASE.NAS System Engineering Service, FAA 

ASOS.Automated Surface Observation System 

ASP.Arrival Sequencing Program 

ASQP.Airline Service Quality Performance 

ASR.Airport Surveillance Radar 

ASTA.Airport Surface Traffic Automation 

ATC.Air Traffic Control 

ATCAA.Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace 

ATCSCC.Air Traffic Control System Command 

Center 

ATIS.Automated Terminal Information Service 

ATN.Aeronautical Telecommunications 

Network 

ATMS.Advanced Traffic Management System 

ATO.Air Traffic Operations Service, FAA 

ATOMS .Air Traffic Operations Management 

System 

AWDL.Aviation Weather Development Labora¬ 

tory 

AWOS .Automated Weather Observing System 

AWPG.Aviation Weather Products Generator 

CAA.Civil Aviation Authority 

CAEG.Computer Aided Engineering Graphics 

CARF.Central Altitude Reservation Function 


Appendix I - 1 






































































Appendix I: Glossary 


1994 ACE Plan 


CASA.Controller Automated Spacing Aid 

CASTWG.Converging Approach Standards 

Technical Working Group 

CAT.Category 

CDTI.Cockpit Display of Traffic Information 

CFWSU.Central Flow Weather Service Unit 

CIP.Capital Investment Plan 

CNS...Communication, Navigation, and 

Surveillance 

CODAS.Consolidated Operations and Delay 

Analysis System 

CONDAT.CONUS National Airspace Data Access 

Tool 

CONUS.Continental United States 

CRDA.Converging Runway Display Aid 

CRS.Computer Reservation System 

CSD.Critical Sector Detector 

CTAS.Center-TRACON Automation System 

CTMA.Center Traffic Management Advisor 

CTR.Civil Tilt Rotor 

CVFP.Charted Visual Flight Procedures 

CW.Continous Wave 

CWSU.Center Weather Service Unit 

CY.Calendar Year 

DA.Descent Advisor 

DDAS.Daily Decision Analysis System 

DEMVAL.Demonstration/Validation 

DGPS.Differential GPS 

DH.Decision Height 

DLP.Data Link Processor 

DME.Distance Measuring Equipment 

DME/P.Precision Distance Measuring Equipment 

DOD.Department of Defense 

DOT.Department of Transportation 

DOTS.Dynamic Ocean Tracking System 

DSB.Double Sideband 

DSP.Departure Sequencing Program 

DSUA.Dynamic Special-Use Airspace 

DVOR.Doppler VOR 

ECVFP.Expanded Charted Visual Flight 

Procedures 

EDP.Expedite Departure Path 

EDPRT.Expert Diagnostic, Predictive, and 

Resolution Tool 

EFF.Experimental Forecast Facility 


EIS.Environmental Impact Statement 

EOF.Emergency Operations Facility 

ESP.En Route Spacing Program 

ETMS.Enhanced Traffic Management System 

EVAS.Enhanced Vortex Advisory System 

F&E.Facilities and Equipment 

FAA.Federal Aviation Administration 

FAATC .Federal Aviation Administration 

Technical Center 

FADE.FAA-Airline Data Exchange 

FAF.Final Approach Fix 

FANS.Future Air Navigation System 

FAST.Final Approach Spacing Tool 

FBO.Fixed Base Operator 

FDAD.Full Digital ARTS Display 

FL.Flight Level 

FLOWALTS.Flow Generation Function 

FLOWSIM.Traffic Flow Planning Simulation 

FMA.Final Monitor Aid 

FMS.Flight Management System 

FSD.Full-Scale Development 

FSM.Flight Simulation Monitor 

FT.Feet 

FTMI .Flight Operations and Air Traffic 

Management Integration 

FY.Fiscal Year 

GA.General Aviation 

GAO.General Accounting Office 

GDP. Gross Domestic Product 

GLONASS.Global Orbiting Navigational Satellite 

System 

GNSS.Global Navigation Satellite System 

GPS ..Global Positioning System 

GRADE.Graphical Airspace Design Environment 

HARS.High Altitude Route System 

HIRE.High Intensity Runway Lights 

HUD .Heads-Up Display 

HF.High Frequency 

ICAO.International Civil Aviation Organization 

IFCN.Inter-Facility Flow Control Network 

IFR.Instrument Flight Rules 

I-LAB.Integration and Interaction Laboratory 

ILS.Instrument Landing System 

IMC .Instrument Meteorological Conditions 


Appendix 1-2 



















































































1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix I: Glossary 


INMARSAT.International Maritime Satellite 

IOC.Initial Operational Capability 

ISSS.Initial Sector Suite System 

ITS.Intelligent Tutoring System 

ITWS.Integrated Terminal Weather System 

LDA.Localizer Directional Aid 

LIP.Limited Implementation Program 

LLWAS.Low Level Wind Shear Alert System 

LORAN.Long Range Navigation 

MA.Monitor Alert 

MALSR.Medium Intensity Approach Lighting 

System with RAIL 

MAP.Military Airport Program 

MAP.Missed Approach Point 

MASPS.Minimum Aviation System Performance 

Standards 

MCAS.Marine Corps Air Station 

MCF.Metroplex Control Facility 

MDCRS.Meteorological Data Collection and 

Reporting System 

MIT.Miles In Trail 

MLS.Microwave Landing System 

MNPS.Minimum Navigation Performance 

Specifications 

MOA.Military Operations Area 

MOPS.Minimum Operations Performance 

Standards 

MRAD.Milli-Radian 

MWP.Meteorologist Weather Processor 

NAS.Naval Air Station 

NAS.National Airspace System 

NASP.NAS Plan 

NASPAC.NAS Performance Analysis Capability 

NASPALS.NAS Precision Approach and Landing 

System 

NASSIM.NAS Simulation Model 

NATSPG.North Atlantic Special Planning Group 

NAVAID.Navigational Aid 

NCF.. National Control Facility 

NCP.NAS Change Proposal 

NEXRAD.Next Generation Weather Radar 

NFDC.National Flight Data Center 

NMC.National Meteorological Center 

NMCC.National Maintenance Coordination 

Complex 


NM.Nautical Mile 

NOAA.National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

NPIAS.National Plan of Integrated Airport 

Systems 

NSC.National Simulation Capability 

NTP.National Transportation Policy 

NTZ.No Transgression Zone 

NWS.National Weather Service 

OAG. Official Airline Guide 

ODALS.Omni-Directional Approach Lighting 

System 

ODAPS.Oceanic Display and Planning System 

ODF.Oceanic Development Facility 

ODL.Oceanic Data Link 

OMB.Office of Management and Budget 

OPTIFLOW.Optimized Flow Planning 

ORD.Operational Readiness Date 

ORD.Operational Readiness Demonstration 

OST.Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

OTFP.Operational Traffic Flow Planning 

OTPS.Oceanic Traffic Planning System 

PADS.Planned Arrival and Departure System 

PAPI.Precision Approach Path Indicator 

PCA.Positive Control Airspace 

PDC.Pre-Departure Clearance 

PRM.Precision Runway Monitor 

R&D.Research and Development 

RE8cD .Research, Engineering, and Development 

RAIL.Runway Alignment Indicator Lights 

rdSIM .Runway Delay Simulation Model 

REIL.Runway End Identifier Lights 

RFP.Request for Proposal 

rGCSP .Review of General Concepts of 

Separation Panel 

RMM.Remote Maintenance Monitoring 

RMP.Rotorcraft Master Plan 

RNAV.Remote Area Navigation 

RNP.Required Navigation Performance 

RNPC.Required Navigation Performance 

Capability 

rot .Runway Occupancy Time 

RSLS .Runway Status Light System 

rTCA .Radio Technical Commission for 

Aeronautics 


Appendix 1-3 
















































































Appendix I: Glossary 


1994 ACE Plan 


RVR.Runway Visual Range 

SAR.System Analysis Recording 

SARPS.Standards and Recommended Practices 

SATCOM.Satellite Communications 

SCIA.Simultaneous Converging Instrument 

Approaches 

SDAT.Sector Design Analysis Tool 

SDRS.Standardized Delay Reporting System 

SE.Strategy Evaluation 

SID.Standard Instrument Departure 

SIMMOD.Airport and Airspace Simulation Model 

SM.Statute Mile 

SMARTFLOW.. Knowledge-Based Flow Planning 

SMGC.Surface Movement Guidance and 

Control 

SMS.Simulation Modeling System 

SOIR.Simultaneous Operations on Intersecting 

Runways 

SOIWR.Simultaneous Operations on Intersecting 

Wet Runways 

STAR.Standard Terminal Arrival Route 

SUA.Special Use Airspace 

TACAN.Tactical Air Navigation — 

UHF omnidirectional course and distance 
information 

TASS.Terminal Area Surveillance System 

TATCA.Terminal ATC Automation 

TAVT.Terminal Airspace Visualization Tool 

TCA.Terminal Control Area 

TCAS.Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance 

System 


TCCC.Tower Control Computer Complex 

TDP.Technical Data Package 

TERPS.Terminal Instrument Procedures 

TFM.Traffic Flow Management 

TIDS.Tower Integrated Display System 

TMA.Traffic Management Advisor 

TMCC.Traffic Management Computer Complex 

TMS.Traffic Management System 

TMU.Traffic Management Unit 

TRACON.Terminal Radar Approach Control 

TSC.Volpe Transportation Systems Center 

TSO.Technical Standard Order 

TTMA.TRACON Traffic Management Advisor 

TVOR.Terminal VOR 

TWDR.Terminal Weather Doppler Radar 

USWRP.U.S. Weather Research Program 

VASI.Visual Approach Slope Indicators 

VF.Vertical Flight 

VFR.Visual Flight Rules 

VHF.Very High Frequency 

VMC .Visual Meteorological Conditions 

VOR.VHF Omnidirectional Range — course 

information only 

VORTAC.Combined VOR and TACAN Navigational 

Facility 

VOT.VOR Test 

WAAS.Wide Area Augmentation System 


Appendix 1-4 



















































1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix]: Index 


Appendix J 

Index* 


A__ 

ABQ^ See Albuquerque International Airport 
ACARS. See Communications Addressing and Reporting System 
ACE Plan. See Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan 
Advanced Traffic Flow Management System: 5-15 
Advanced Traffic Management System: 5-10, 5-16 
Aeronautical Radio Incorportated. 

See Communications Addressing and Reporting System 
Aeronautical Telecommunications Network: 5-13 
AIP. See Airport Improvement Program 
Air Route Traffic Control Centers: 1-6,1-8,1-9,1-10, 4-1, 4-2, 
4-3 

Air Traffic Control: 1-3, 3-1 

Air Traffic Control System Command Center: 5-16, 5-18 
Air Traffic Operations Management System: 1-11,1-12 
aircraft operating cost: 1-1 
Aircraft Situation Display: 5-16 
Airfield Delay Simulation Model: 5-20, C-3 
Airline Service Quality Performance: 1-11,1-12,1-13 
Airport and Airspace Simulation Model: 4-1, 5-20, C-3 
Airport Capacity Design Team: C-1 
Airport Capacity Design Team Updates: 2-21 
Airport Capacity Design Teams: 2-2,2-4, 2-5,2-7,2-8, 2-19, 
2 - 20 . 

See also Appendix F 
Potential Savings Benefits: 2-10 
Summary of Recommendations: 2-9 
Airport Development 

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport: 2-2. 

See also Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport 
Bergstrom Air Force Base: 2-2. 

See also Bergstrom Air Force Base 
Construction Projects: 2-3. 

See also Appendix D 
Denver International Airport: 2-2. 

See also Denver International Airport 
Existing Airports: 2-4, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6 
Construction: 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15. 

See also Appendix D 

Airport Improvement Program: 1-4, 2-7, 6-8, 6-14 
Airport Machine: 5-21 
Arport Movement Area Safety System: 5-2 
Arport Network Simulation Model: 5-20 
Arport Surface Detection Equipment: 5-2 
Arport Surface Traffic Automation System: 5-2 
Arport Surveillance Radar: 3-3 
Arport Tactical Initiatives: 2-19 


Airspace Capacity Design Projects: 1-3 

Airspace Capacity Studies: 4-1, 4-2 

Airspace Development: 4-1 

ALB. See Abany County Airport 

Abany County Airport: B-3 

Abuquerque International Airport: B-2, C-3 

AMASS. 5^^ Airport Movement Area Safety System 

ANC. 5^^? Anchorage International Airport 

Anchorage International Arport: B-1 

ARTCC. See Air Route Traffic Control Centers 

ARTS. See Automated Radar Terminal System 

ASQP. See Airline Service Quality Performance 

ASTA. See Arport Surface Traffic Automation System 

ATL. William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Arport 

Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. 

William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport 
ATOMS. feAr Traffic Operations Management System 
AUS. Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport 
Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport: 2-2, B-3. 

See also Arport Development: Austin Robert Mueller Munici¬ 
pal Airport 

Automated En Route Air Traffic Control: 5-10, 5-11 
Automated Radar Terminal System: 5-2, 5-6 
Automatic Dependent Surveillance: 5-10, 5-12 
Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan: 1-4 

B__ 

Baltimore-Washington International Arport: B-2 
BDL. Windsor Locks Bradley International Arport 
Bergstrom Ar Force Base: 2-2, 6-10, B-3. 

See also Airport Development: Bergstrom Air Force Base 
BHM. See Birmingham Municipal Airport 
Birmingham Municipal Airport: B-1 
BNA. See Nashville International Arport 
Boeing 747-400: 6-3 
Boeing 777: 6-3 
Boeing 777-200:2-19 

Boeing Field/King County International Arport: 2-21 

BOI. See Boise Ar-Terminal 

Boise Ar-Terminal: B-2 

BOS. See Boston Logan International Airport 

Boston Logan International Arport: 3-6, 3-7, B-2, C-3 

BSM. See Bergstrom Ar Force Base 

BUF. See Greater Buffalo International Arport 

Buffalo International Airport. 

, See Greater Buffalo International Airport 
BUR. See Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport 
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Arport: B-1 
B\VI. See Baltimore-Washington International Arport 


* A note concerning airport names and locations: 

This index does not reference the occurrences of airports that appear in any Tables or Figures. For a listing of Tables and 
Figures, please see the Table of Contents. For a listing of airport layouts and their locations, please refer to Appendix B. 


Appendix J -1 



Appendix}: Index 


1994 ACE Plan 


c 


Capacity improvements: 1-3 
Capital Investment Plan: 1-4 
CASA. See Controller Automated Spacing Ad 
CDTI. See Cockpit Display of Traffic Information 
Center-TRACON Automation System: 5-3, 5-4 
Charleston International Arport: B-3 
Charlotte/Douglas International Arport: B-2, C-3 
Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas Arport: B-3 
Chicago Midway Airport. See Midway Airport 
Chicago O’Hare International Arport. 

See O’Hare International Arport 
CHS. See Charleston International Arport 
Cincinnati International Arport. 

See Greater Cincinnati International Airport 
CIP. See Capital Investment Plan 
Civil Tiltrotor: 6-2 

Civil Tiltrotor Development Advisory Committ: 5-24 

CLE. See Cleveland Hopkins International Airport 

Cleveland Hopkins International Arport: B-3, C-3 

CLT. See Charlotte/Douglas International Airport 

CMH. See Port Columbus International Arport 

Cockpit Display of Traffic Information: 3-11, 5-2 

CODAS. See Consolidated Operations and Delay Analysis System 

Colorado Springs Municipal Arport: 2-12, B-2 

Communications Addressing and Reporting System: 1-12 

Consolidated Operations and Delay Analysis System: 1-12 

Controller Automated Spacing Ad: 5-3, 5-4 

Converging Approach Standards Technical Working Group: 3-9 

Converging Runway Display Aid: 3-2, 3-10, 5-3, 5-4, 5-9 

COS. See Colorado Springs Municipal Airport 

CRDA. See Converging Runway Display Ad 

CTAS. See Center-TRACON Automation System 

CVG. See Greater Cincinnati International Airport 

D 


DAL. See Dallas Love Field Arport 
Dallas Love Field Airport: B-3 

DaUas-Fort Worth International Arport: 2-12, 3-5, B-3, C-3 
Dane County Regional Arport. 

See Madison/Dane County Regional Arport 
DAY. See Dayton International Arport 
Dayton International Arport: B-3 
DCA. Washington National Arport 
Delay 

Airport Development: 2-1 
By Cause: 1-12 

Delay Problem Airports: 1-14, 1-16 
Phase of Flight: 1-13 
Sources of Delay: 1-11 

Air Traffic Operations Management System: 1-11 
Airline Service Quality Performance: 1-11 
Consolidated Operations and Delay Analysis 
System: 1-12 

DEN. See Denver International Arport and/or Denver Stapleton 
International Arport 

Denver International Airport: 2-2, 6-9, B-2. 

See also Arport Development: Denver International Arport 


Denver Stapleton International Airport: B-2 
Des Moines International Airport: B-2 
Descent Advisor: 5-5 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Arport: 2-12, B-2, C-3 
DFW. See DaUas-Fort Worth International Arport 
DGPS. See Differential Global Positioning System 
Differential Global Positioning System: 5-2, 5-3, 5-7, 5-8. 

See also Global Positioning System 
DSM. See Des Moines International Arport 
DTW. See Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Arport 

E 


E-SCAN Radar: 3-3, 5-6 

Eastern Virginia Region: C-3 

Economy: 1-2,1-3,1-19, 6-4 

El Paso International Airport: B-3 

ELP. See El Paso International Arport 

Enhanced Traffic Management System: 1-12, 5-16 

ETMS. See Enhanced Traffic Management System 

EWR. See Newark International Arport 

Expedite Departure Path: 5-5 

F 


FAA Operational Concept: 1-4,1-19,1-20 

FAA Strategic Plan: 1-4,1-19,1-20 

FAA Technical Center: 2-4, 2-7, 3-3, 3-4, 4-3, 5-6, 5-13, C-2 

Final Approach Spacing Tool: 5-5 

Final Monitor Ad: 3-4 

Flight Management System: 3-2 

FLL. See Fort Lauderdale International Arport 

FMA. See Final Monitor Ad 

FMS. See Flight Management System 

Fort Lauderdale International Airport: B-2, C-3 

Fort Myers sw Florida Regional Arport: B-2 

G 


GEG. See Spokane International Arport 

General Aviation: 2-8, 6-8 

Global Positioning System: 5-2, 5-7, 5-13, 5-14. 

See also Differential Global Positioning System 
GPS. See Global Positioning System 
Grand Rapids Kent County International Arport: B-2 
Graphical Airspace Design Environment: 5-23 
Greater Buffalo International Arport: B-3 
Greater Cincinnati International Arport: B-3 
Greater Pittsburgh International Arport: 3-5, 3-6, B-3, C-3 
Greater Rochester International Arport: B-3 
Greensboro Piedmont International Arport: B-2 
Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Arport: B-3 
Gross Domestic Product: 1-2 

GRR. See Grand Rapids Kent County International Arport 

GSN. See Saipan International Arport 

GSO. See Greensboro Piedmont International Arport 

GSP. See Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport 
Guam Agana Field: B-3 


Appendix J - 2 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix}: Index 


H_ 

Harrisburg International Arport: B-3 
Helicopters: 1-19, 5-23 
Heliports: 5-24 
High-Speed Rail: 6-18 

Hilo General Lyman International Arport: B-2 
HNL. See Honolulu International Airport 
Honolulu International Airport: B-2, C-3 
HOU. See Houston William P. Hobby Airport 
Houston Intercontinental Airport: B-3, C-3 
Houston William R Hobby Arport: B-3 

I_ 

lAD. Washington Dulles International Airport 
I AH. See Houston Intercontinental Airport 
ICT. See Wichita Mid-Continent Airport 
IND. See Indianapolis International Airport 
Indianapolis International Arport: B-2, C-3 
Instrument Approach Procedures: 3-1 
Airport applicability: 3-12 
Dependent converging procedures: 3-2, 3-10. 

See also Converging Runway Display Aid 
Dependent procedures: 3-1 

Parallel approaches: 3-2, 3-7, 3-8 
Independent converging procedures: 3-9 
Independent procedures: 3-1 

Parallel approaches: 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-8 
Wet runways: 3-2, 3-6 
Instrument Landing System: 5-6 
Intermodalism: 6-17 
Islip Long Island Arport: 2-12, B-3 
ISP. See Islip Long Island Arport 
ITO. See Hilo General Lyman International Arport 

J_ 

Jacksonville International Arport: 2-12, B-2 
JAX. Jacksonville International Arport 
JFK. fe John R Kennedy International Arport 
John F. Kennedy International Arport: 3-6, B-3 

K_ 

Kahului Arport: B-2 

Kailua-Kona Keahole Arport: 2-12, B-2 

Kansas City International Arport: 2-12, B-2, C-3 

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Arport: B-3 

KOA. See Kailua-Kona Keahole Arport 

L_ 

LaGuardia Arport: 2-19, B-3 

Lambert St. Louis International Arport: 3-10, B-2, C-3 

LAS. See Las Vegas McCarran International Airport 

Las Vegas McCarran International Arport: B-2, C-3 

LAX. See Los Angeles International Airport 

LBB. See Lubbock International Arport 

LGA. See LaGuardia Arport 

LIH. See Lihue Arport 

Lihue Arport: B-2 

Little Rock Adams Field: B-1 


Los Angeles International Arport: 2-19, B-1, C-3 
LouisviUe Standiford Field Arport: 2-12, B-2 
Lubbock International Airport: B-3 

M 


Madison/Dane County Regional Airport: B-3 

MAF. See Midland International Airport 

MCI. See Kansas City International Arport 

MCO. See Orlando International Airport 

MDT. See Harrisburg International Airport 

MDW. See Midway Airport 

MEM. See Memphis International Arport 

Memphis International Arport: 2-12, B-3, C-3 

Metropolitan Oakland International Arport: B-1, C-3 

MIA. See Miami International Arport 

Miami International Airport: 3-6, B-2, C-3 

Microwave Landing System: 5-3, 5-7, 5-8 

Midland International Arport: B-3 

Midway Arport: B-2, C-3 

Military Arfields: 6-9, 6-13 

Military Arport Program: 6-14 

Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport: B-3 

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Arport: B-2, C-3 

MKE. See Milwaukee General Mitchell International Arport 

MLS. See Microwave Landing System 

MSN. See Madison/Dane County Regional Arport 

MSP. See Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport 

MSY. See New Orleans International Arport 

N 


NAS. See National Airspace System 
NAS Performance Analysis Capability: 5-18, 5-21 
NAS Precision Approach and Landing System: 5-7, 5-14 
Nashville International Arport: 2-12, 3-5, B-3, C-3 
National Arspace System: 1-4,1-11, 5-1, 5-7, 5-16 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 1-12 
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems: 1-4, 2-1 
National Simulation Capability: 4-3, 5-1, 5-18 
National Transportation Policy: 1-4 
New Orleans International Arport: B-2, C-3 
Newark International Arport: B-2 
NGM. See Guam Agana Field 

NOAA. & National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
Norfolk International Arport: B-3 
NPIAS. & National Plan of Integrated Arport Systems 
NTP. National Transportation Policy 

o 


OAK. See Metropolitan Oakland International Airport 
Oakland Metro Int’l. 

See Metropolitan Oakland International Airport 
Oceanic ATC: 5-12, 5-17 
Oceanic Display and Planning System: 5-12 
Office of System Capacity and Requirements: 2-19,2-20, 4-1, 4- 
3,C-1 

Official Airline Guide: 1-11,1-12, C-3 

OGG. See Kahului Airport 

O’Hare International Airport: 3-6, B-2, C-3 

OKC. See Oklahoma City WiU Rogers World Airport 

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Arport: B-3 

OMA. See Omaha Eppley Arfield 


Appendix J - 3 



Appendix}: Index 


1994 ACE Plan 


Omaha Eppley Airfield: B-2 
ONT. See Ontario International Airport 
Ontario International Airport: 2-20, B-1 
Operational Traffic Flow Planning: 5-15, 5-17 
ORD. See O’Hare International Airport 
ORF. See Norfolk International Airport 
Orlando International Airport: 2-19, B-2, C-3 

p 


FBI. See West Palm Beach International Airport 

PDX. See Portland International Airport 

Philadelphia International Airport: 2-20, 3-6, 3-7, B-3, C-3 

PHL. See Philadelphia International Airport 

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport: B-1, C-3 

PIT. See Greater Pittsburgh International Airport 

Pittsburgh International Airport. 

See Greater Pittsburgh International Airport 
Port Columbus International Airport: B-3, C-3 
Portland International Airport: B-3 
Portland International Jetport: B-2 
Precision Runway Monitor: 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-8, 5-6 
PRM. See Precision Runway Monitor 
Providence Green State Airport: B-3 
PVD. See Providence Green State Airport 
PWM. See Portland International Jetport 

R_ 

Raleigh-Durham International Airport: B-2, C-3 
RDU. See Raleigh-Durham International Airport 
Regional Capacity Design Teams: 2-20 
Regional/commuter airlines: 6-1 
Reno Cannon International Airport: B-2 
RIC. See Richmond International Airport 
Richmond International Airport: B-3 
RNO. See Reno Cannon International Airport 
ROC. See Greater Rochester International Airport 
Rochester Monroe County Airport. 

See Greater Rochester International Airport 
Rotorcraft Master Plan: 5-23 
RSW. See Fort Myers SW Florida Regional Airport 
Runway Delay Simulation Model: 5-20, C-3 

s 


Sacramento Metropolitan Airport: B-1 
Saipan International Airport: B-3 

Salt Lake City International Airport: 2-12, 2-20, B-3, C-3 

SAN. See San Diego International Lindbergh Field 

San Antonio International Airport: 2-20, B-3, C-3 

San Bernardino International Airport: 2-20, 6-14 

San Diego International Lindbergh Field: B-1 

San Francisco International Airport: B-1, C-3 

San Jose International Airport: 2-12, B-1, C-3 

San Juan Luis Munoz Marin International Airport: B-3, C-3 

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport: B-1 

Sarasota-Bradenton Airport: B-2 

SAT. See San Antonio International Airport 

SDF. See Louisville Standiford Field Airport 

SEA. See Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 


Seattle-Tacoma International Airport: 2-21, B-3, C-3 

Sector Design Analysis Tool: 5-21 

SFO. See San Francisco International Airport 

SIMMOD. See Airport and Airspace Simulation Model 

SJC. See San Jose International Airport 

SJU. See San Juan Luis Munoz Marin International Airport 

SLC. See Salt Lake City International Airport 

SMF. See Sacramento Metropolitan Airport 

SNA. See Santa Ana John Wayne Airport 

Spokane International Airport: B-3 

SRQ^ See Sarasota-Bradenton Airport 

STL. See Lambert St. Louis International Airport 

STT. See Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas Airport 

Superjumbo jet: 6-3 

SYR. See Syracuse Hancock International Airport 
Syracuse Hancock International Airport: B-3 

T 


Tampa International Airport: 2-20, B-2 

TATCA. & Terminal Air Traffic Control Automation 

TCAS. Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System 

Terminal Air Traffic Control Automation: 5-3 

Terminal Airspace Studies: 2-20 

Terminal Airspace Visualization Tool: 5-22 

Terminal Area Surveillance System: 5-9 

Terminal Instrument Procedures: 3-9, 3-10 

The Research, Engineering, and Development Plan: 1-4 

Tiltrotor: 1-19, 6-2 

Tiltwing: 1-19 

TPA. See Tampa International Airport 

Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System: 3-11, 5-3, 5-8 

Traffic Flow Management: 5-15 

Traffic Management Advisor: 5-5 

Tucson International Airport: B-1 

TUL. See Tulsa International Airport 

Tulsa International Airport: B-3 

TUS. 6"^^ Tucson International Airport 

TYS. See Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport 

y_ 

Vertical Flight: 5-23. See also Helicopters; Tiltrotor; Tiltwing 
Vertiports: 5-24, 6-2 

w_ 

Wake Vortex Program: 3-7, 5-9 

Washington Dulles International Airport: 2-12, B-2, C-3 
Washington National Airport: B-2 
Weather: 3-1, 5-14 

West Palm Beach International Airport: B-2 
Wichita Mid-Continent Airport: B-2 
Wide Area Augmentation System: 5-8 
William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport: 2-21, B-2, 
C-3 

Windsor Locks Bradley International Airport: B-2 

X,Y,Z 


Appendix J “ 4 



1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix): Index 


Appendix) - 5 



Appendix}: Index 


1994 ACE Plan 


Appendix} - 6