![](media/image1.jpeg){width="8.75in" height="1.4958333333333333in"}

**LAAS Benefits Analysis**

**Update to Preliminary Findings**

**LAAS Safety and Societal Benefits**

**August 31, 2004**

**Table of Contents**

[[Introduction]{.smallcaps} - 3 -](#introduction)

[[Summary of Changes from February 2004 Preliminary
Findings]{.smallcaps} - 4
-](#summary-of-changes-from-february-2004-preliminary-findings)

[[Important Considerations for Interpreting Results]{.smallcaps} - 5
-](#important-considerations-for-interpreting-results)

[[Safety Benefits]{.smallcaps} - 6 -](#safety-benefits)

[[Societal Benefits]{.smallcaps} - 11 -](#societal-benefits)

[[Continuation of U.S. technology leadership in air
navigation]{.smallcaps} - 12
-](#continuation-of-u.s.-technology-leadership-in-air-navigation)

[[International LGF and LAAS Avionics Sales Revenue]{.smallcaps} - 13
-](#international-lgf-and-laas-avionics-sales-revenue)

[[Noise Abatement and Mitigation]{.smallcaps} - 14
-](#noise-abatement-and-mitigation)

[[Reduced Impact on Environmentally Sensitive Areas]{.smallcaps} - 18
-](#reduced-impact-on-environmentally-sensitive-areas)

[[LAAS Complements Homeland Security]{.smallcaps} - 20
-](#laas-complements-homeland-security)

[[LAAS and JPALS Offer Civilian and Military
Compatibility]{.smallcaps} - 22
-](#laas-and-jpals-offer-civilian-and-military-compatibility)

[[Expansion of Air Commerce to Smaller Communities]{.smallcaps} - 23
-](#expansion-of-air-commerce-to-smaller-communities)

[[Increased Reliability of Air Service]{.smallcaps} - 24
-](#increased-reliability-of-air-service)

[[Appendices]{.smallcaps} - 26 -](#appendices)

[[Appendix A:]{.smallcaps} [Airports Included in this
Study]{.smallcaps} - 26 -](#appendix-a-airports-included-in-this-study)

[[Appendix B:]{.smallcaps} [List of Acronyms]{.smallcaps} - 29
-](#appendix-b-list-of-acronyms)

[[Notes and References]{.smallcaps} - 31 -](#notes-and-references)

# [Introduction]{.smallcaps}

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is transforming the navigation
infrastructure of the national airspace system (NAS), from a
ground-based to a Global Positioning System (GPS)-based architecture.
Part of this transformation entails the acquisition of augmentation
systems to improve the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the GPS
signals. The Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) is one of these
systems, specifically designed to support aircraft operations in the
terminal, approach, surface, and departure operational domains.

The FAA contracted with IBM Business Consulting Services to provide an
independent analysis that estimates the benefits attributable to LAAS
beyond those provided by existing and planned navigation services. These
benefits are estimated over a 20 year period (2009-2028), at 120
selected airports[^1], and for five distinct user groups; major and
regional passenger airlines, cargo carriers, corporate jet operators,
and general aviation (GA) operators in Alaska. This analysis serves as
an update of previous studies[^2] [^3] [^4] [^5] as well as a more
comprehensive and detailed evaluation of contributions that can be
expected from LAAS. The analysis is based on independent research, and
is supported by inputs solicited from both service providers and airline
industry stakeholders, including validation of methodology, data, and
output. The results of this analysis will be used to support the FAA,
the airlines, and other stakeholders in their procurement and
implementation decisions related to LAAS.

The first stage of the benefits analysis, completed in November 2003,
involved the establishment of the navigation capabilities baseline
against which all LAAS benefits would be measured[^6]. The second stage,
completed in December 2003, entailed determining the incremental
capabilities provided by LAAS, above and beyond this baseline[^7]. In
February 2004, IBM delivered a Preliminary Findings report, which
described a series of analyses conducted to estimate the monetized
incremental benefits that can be expected from implementation of LAAS,
relative to the baseline. In June 2004, IBM completed an update on the
efficiency section of the February 2004 preliminary analysis of the LAAS
benefits, and the findings were documented in a report. The current
document updates the preliminary findings related to safety and societal
benefits results. A final report encompassing all of the benefits will
be published in October 2004.

**Structure of this Paper**

This document provides an update to the preliminary findings for safety
and societal benefits. This update is based on feedback received from a
wide variety of reviewers of the preliminary findings document,
delivered February 25, 2004. Feedback consisted of written comments, as
well as interviews and site visits with stakeholders in the FAA and the
aviation industry.

The updated safety benefits section of this paper describes in detail
some of the principal capabilities of LAAS and gives specific estimates
of quantified benefits expected from the implementation of LAAS. The
updated societal benefits are primarily qualitative descriptions.

# [Summary of Changes from February 2004 Preliminary Findings]{.smallcaps}

The following list highlights a number of important changes and
refinements made to the LAAS safety and societal benefits estimates
since the Preliminary Findings were delivered on February 25, 2004.

-   Safety

    -   Now includes 100% WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) and 0%
        WAAS scenarios

    -   Time period changed to 2009-2028

    -   Cat I IOC changed to 2009

    -   Cat II/III IOC changed to 2013

    -   Implement WAAS Cat I avionics equipage over 6 years beginning in
        2015

-   Societal

    -   Qualitative description of the continuation of U.S. technology
        leadership in air navigation

    -   Quantitative estimate of international LAAS Ground Facility
        (LGF) and LAAS avionics sales revenue to U.S. Manufacturers

    -   Qualitative description of noise abatement and mitigation

    -   Qualitative description of the reduced impact on environmentally
        sensitive areas

    -   Qualitative description of how LAAS complements Homeland
        Security

    -   Qualitative description of how LAAS and JPALS (Joint Precision
        Approach Landing) System) offer civilian and military
        compatibility

    -   Qualitative description of the expansion of air commerce to
        smaller communities

    -   Quantitative analysis of increased reliability of air service

# [Important Considerations for Interpreting Results]{.smallcaps}

This section describes several important points about the estimates of
LAAS benefits in this study. The points presented below are described
here to highlight their importance and to foster discussion of their
treatment in this study. IBM welcomes discussion of these, and any other
issues, that may impact the benefits estimates.

-   Safety

    -   The type of events that were used in this analysis are
        relatively rare events. Consequently, even one additional event
        in which an air carrier crashed could have a profound effect on
        the resulting accident rates and future benefit projections.
        This problem does not invalidate the results, but needs to be
        considered since these events are rare.

    -   The methods chosen to conduct the initial computer screening of
        the NTSB accident records were somewhat conservative and may
        have missed relevant cases. The effect of potentially not
        including all relevant cases is to make the associated benefit
        assumptions more conservative, understating the potential
        benefit of LAAS.

-   Societal

    -   IBM has investigated the potential quantitative LAAS Benefits
        that may be obtained through (1) sales of LAAS Ground Facility
        (LGF) and LAAS avionics to international airports and airlines,
        and (2) increased U.S. Airport Improvement Program and U.S
        airline revenue through a 1% increased load factor on 1% of
        operations. We recognize that these quantitative societal
        benefits are highly speculative, and are included only to
        illustrate the importance of economic impact LAAS may provide.
        These benefits estimates will not be incorporated in the total
        benefits derived from the efficiency benefits analysis.

    -   Many of these potential societal benefits may also be achieved
        through current or emerging procedures (*e.g.*, RNAV/RNP) or
        technologies (*e.g.*, WAAS). Therefore, further investigation
        should be considered to determine if, and by how much, LAAS may
        uniquely provide these benefits.

# [Safety Benefits]{.smallcaps}

This section presents a summary of methods and findings from the
evaluation of potential LAAS safety benefits. The full safety analysis
report, from which this section is drawn, was produced by the Flight
Safety Foundation (FSF), a recognized authority in the field of aviation
safety analysis. The full FSF report is available separately (Please
refer to the FSF's *Safety Benefits of the*

*Local Area Augmentation System* report for details).

**Introduction**

Currently, there are many different types of navigation-based approaches
to runways at the more than 4,000 public use airports with paved
runways.[^8] These airports have well over 10,000 runways, of which more
than 1,150 have instrument landing system (ILS) precision
approaches[^9]. The balance of these runways has no instrument
approaches or uses a variety of less precise non-precision instrument
approaches.

A precision approach provides the pilot with both vertical and
horizontal guidance to the end of the runway. The ability to maintain a
constant reference to the vertical and horizontal path to the runway
enhances the ability of a pilot to fly a stable approach. According to
the Flight Safety Foundation[^10], a stable approach is one where the
aircraft is on the correct flight path, only small changes in heading
and pitch are required to maintain that path, airspeed is at the correct
approach speed, the aircraft is in the proper landing configuration, and
the descent rate is a maximum of 1,000 feet per minute. In contrast, a
non-precision approach provides the pilot with only horizontal guidance
to the runway. The pilot is responsible for maintaining vertical
separation from terrain using the aircraft's altimeter and other onboard
instruments. It is generally acknowledged that a precision approach is
safer than a non-precision approach. This is supported by research
conducted by the Flight Safety Foundation which indicated that the risk
of an accident among air carrier airplanes is five times greater during
a non-precision approach than a precision approach.[^11]

The GPS-based navigation system used for instrument approaches will
ultimately provide some degree of precision instrument approach
capability at many of the runways at the nation's 4,000 public use
airports. This is expected to have a profound and positive impact on
aviation safety.[^12] The satellite-based navigation system has three
main components: the GPS satellite constellation, and two augmentations
systems, WAAS and LAAS. WAAS currently provides multiple levels of
navigation service across the NAS, including en-route, terminal, and
approach guidance. WAAS is not expected to reach Category I approach
standards (generally 200 feet ceiling and ½ mile visibility) until 2015.
LAAS is expected to provide terminal area and approach guidance,
particularly for the stringent requirements of Cat I, II and III
approaches. This paper addresses the anticipated safety benefits
associated with LAAS.

The underlying hypothesis of this study is that LAAS will provide safety
benefits above and beyond those provided by other systems, including
WAAS, by providing precision approach service. The LAAS capabilities
that are expected to lead to safety benefits include the following:

-   LAAS will provide Category I approach capability at those locations
    where WAAS service is not anticipated or Category I ILS guidance is
    not provided.

-   LAAS will provide Category II and Category III approach capability
    at facilities that do not currently have that capability.

-   LAAS will provide positive surface guidance in reduced visibility,
    and/or in dark conditions, to aircraft equipped with heads-up
    displays (HUD), LAAS, and the appropriate equipment to integrate the
    information.

-   LAAS will provide positive three-dimensional navigational guidance
    in the cockpit that will reduce the risk of controlled flight into
    terrain (CFIT) accidents for approach and departure in the terminal
    area.

-   LAAS will help reduce pilot and controller workload for complex
    approach and departure routings.

-   LAAS will provide positive lead-in guidance to parallel approach
    situations.

To evaluate the safety benefits of LAAS implementation, the study relied
heavily on a retrospective evaluation of past accidents and incidents.
The underlying rates of these accidents were used to project anticipated
losses if LAAS were not implemented. Past studies and related literature
were reviewed to ensure that all relevant references were considered as
the data analysis proceeded. Once the benefits of LAAS implementation
were determined, they were used to develop a cost assessment of the
benefits of reduced crashes.

**Basic Approach**

The basic approach used for the analysis focused on the following steps:

-   First, the actual crash and incident experience for the time period
    of 1993-2002 was reviewed and events selected that might have been
    prevented if LAAS had been operational.

-   Using this information, a baseline incident rate per 1,000,000
    departures based on the 10 year period of 1993-2002 was developed.

-   Next, the anticipated incident risk at airports likely to be
    equipped with LAAS was estimated for the time period of 2009-2028.
    This estimate was adjusted for an anticipated LAAS implementation
    that accounted for a gradual implementation of LAAS in the NAS.

-   In addition, the impact of WAAS on these benefits was estimated,
    assuming a WAAS GLS IOC during 2015.

Using this approach, an estimate of crash risk during the implementation
cycle of LAAS was developed. The anticipated number of lives saved and
crashes prevented due to the future implementation of LAAS was also
estimated. Using the resulting values, the estimated benefit of the
anticipated reduction of losses in future dollars was developed.

**Study Population**

The study focused on two different populations. These were the
operational environment of Alaska and that of the continental United
States, or CONUS. The analysis for each study population was conducted
in the same way although some underlying assumptions were different.

For Alaska, all aircraft types were considered in the analyses. This
included air carrier aircraft, commuter aircraft, and general aviation
aircraft. The evaluation of safety benefits associated with LAAS in the
CONUS was limited to air carrier and "heavy" non-air carrier aircraft
typically operated by business and corporate operators. Examples of
aircraft included in the corporate category were turbine powered
passenger aircraft and heavy piston-powered twins such as Piper PA-31
Navaho or the Cessna 400 series aircraft (Cessna 404, 414, 421). Smaller
general aviation aircraft were not included in the CONUS analysis. The
analyses for all types of aircraft considered the anticipated benefit of
LAAS with and without WAAS equipage on the aircraft.

**Data sources**

A number of data sources were used for this analysis. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident and incident investigation
database was used to identify accidents and serious incidents. The FAA's
National Airspace Incidents Monitoring System (NAIMS)[^13] was used to
identify surface-related incidents that did not result in an accident.
This included events such as runway incursions and surface
near-collisions. Airport activity data, both historical and forecast,
were obtained from the FAA's Office of Aviation Policy and Plans (APO)
Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). On-line databases were queried and
forecast reports were referenced. Information was also obtained from the
National Aeronautical and Space Administration's (NASA) Aviation Safety
Reporting System (ASRS). This data system was queried to learn more
about factors associated with pilot-reported runway incursions and
approach incidents.

**Case Selection**

Past accidents and serious incidents were used to provide insight on the
potential benefits of LAAS. NTSB accident records were reviewed to
determine what accidents, if any, might have been prevented if LAAS had
been present. The methodology followed is described below:

a)  **Initial Record Filter:** All NTSB accident records for the time
    period of 1993-2002 were selected and compiled in a database using
    SPSS software.[^14] Records were then selected for accidents that
    occurred within 10 miles of an airport, while on approach, in IFR
    conditions, or while on the airport surface. This required that
    airport identification be provided.

b)  **Airport Filter:** Once the above filtering was completed, only
    those events that occurred at the study airports were selected.

c)  **Manual Review:** The resulting records were then used to obtain
    NTSB "briefs" which provided summaries of pertinent information
    associated with the accident and the resulting investigation.[^15]
    These briefs were reviewed independently by two different aviation
    subject matter experts to determine each case's suitability for
    inclusion in the study. The manual review focused on determining the
    safety benefits if LAAS had been present. The potential benefits
    that might be attributed to WAAS were not considered during this
    part of the analyses but were accounted for later in the evaluation.
    Additionally, among CONUS events, the brief was reviewed to
    determine whether the accident involved an air carrier or corporate
    type of aircraft using make and model as the initial indicator. This
    was further confirmed by reviewing the narrative associated with the
    accident or incident as well as reviewing the regulation that the
    aircraft was operated under (FAR parts 121, or 135 or 91 for
    example).

**Limitations of Quantitative Analyses**

There are a number of limitations associated with this benefits
evaluation. The applicability of a study such as this is directly
related to the underlying assumptions. The discussion of the following
limitations is designed to make sure that the reader is aware of some of
the more notable limitations that could affect the applicability of the
results.

a)  **Corporate Aircraft Activity Assumptions:** For the analyses in
    this study, estimates for corporate aviation were derived by
    reported and forecast activity statistics, reported by the NBAA in
    hours. These values were reported for the time period of 1997-2004
    and indicated that 16.5% of all general aviation activity is
    conducted by corporate aircraft. The assumption that cannot be
    validated is that the ratio of corporate hours to all GA hours
    (16.5%) is the same for departures. If there is a bias, it will be
    consistent for both the reference period calculations as well as the
    forecast calculations, thereby minimizing the biasing effect of the
    error.

b)  **Activity Forecasts:** There are many factors that cannot be fully
    accounted for in generating long-range activity forecasts. Political
    events, economic dynamics, introduction of new technologies, and
    many other issues may result in actual activity levels that are
    smaller or greater than forecast. Since the activity estimates are
    used to derive event rates that are in turn used to generate
    estimates of actual events in the future, any errors in the activity
    measure may result in significant differences in the actual number
    of events that occur.

c)  **Problem of Small Numbers:** The type of events that were used in
    this analysis are relatively rare events. For example, for the time
    period of 1993-2002 there were an estimated 106.5 million departures
    that involved air carrier and corporate aircraft at the study
    airports in the CONUS. There were only 11 accidents, however, at
    these same airports for the same time period that might have
    benefited from LAAS. Consequently, one additional event in which an
    air carrier crashed and killed all on board (or didn't) could have a
    profound effect on the resulting accident rates and future benefit
    projections. This problem does not invalidate the results, but needs
    to be considered since these events are rare.

d)  **NTSB Screening Methods:** The methods chosen to conduct the
    initial computer screening of the NTSB accident records were
    somewhat conservative and may have missed relevant cases. The
    difficulty with this approach is that some NTSB records that were
    probably suitable for inclusion in the study, may not have been
    selected by the initial computer screening because of missing data
    in one or more relevant computer fields. The effect of potentially
    not including all relevant cases is to make the associated benefit
    assumptions more conservative, understating the potential benefit of
    LAAS.

**Findings**

Table 1 provides the distribution of approach and airport surface
accidents in the CONUS stratified by aircraft category that would have
been unlikely to have occurred if LAAS had been operational between 1993
and 2002 and the accident aircraft had been equipped with appropriate
LAAS receivers.

[Table 1: Distribution of Accidents in the CONUS That Would Have
Benefited From LAAS, 1993-2002]{.smallcaps}

  -------------- --------- -------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -----------
  **Category**   **Air     **Air Carrier  **Corporate   **Corporate   **Corporate   **Total**
                 Carrier   Turbo-Prop**   Jet**         Turboprop**   Heavy Piston  
                 Jet**                                                Twin**        

  **Approach**   5         0              0             2             0             7

  **Surface**    0         2              1             1             0             4

  **Total**      5         2              1             3             0             11
  -------------- --------- -------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -----------

While similar evaluation was attempted for the three airports in Alaska
that were included in this analysis, no accidents were found that might
have been prevented by the presence of a precision approach capability
for the time period of 1993-2002. Consequently, the balance of findings
presented in this section is limited to the CONUS.

Table 2 provides estimates of the future number of accidents with and
without the precision approach capability provided by WAAS, or LAAS.

[Table 2: Number of Accidents With and Without LAAS and WAAS,
2009-2028]{.smallcaps}

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Level of LAAS or WAAS Coverage**  **Projected Number of Approach
                                      Accidents 2009-2028**

  With No LAAS or WAAS                34

  With WAAS Only                      [12]{.smallcaps}

  With LAAS Only                      3
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Tables 3 and 4 provide a summary of the 20-year discounted LAAS safety
benefits for precision approach and surface navigation. Both tables show
LAAS safety benefits for two WAAS equipage scenarios; with 100% WAAS
equipage by operators, and with 0% WAAS equipage by operators. The
estimated precision approach benefits of LAAS, for the scenario in which
operators do not equip with WAAS, total \$38.1 million for the time
frame of 2009-2028 at the 117 study airports in the CONUS. For the
scenario in which operators do equip with WAAS, LAAS benefits are
estimated to be \$14.9 million. Surface navigation benefits for LAAS are
most likely shared with some enabling technology, like ADS-B, or moving
map. To reflect this discrepancy, we divide the benefits calculated by
FSF by 2 for this report. The estimated surface guidance benefits of
LAAS with 0% WAAS equipage is \$20.2 Million for the time frame of 2009
to 2028 at the CONUS airports. Additionally, although FSF finds that
LAAS is the most likely system to provide surface navigation positioning
information, we conclude that other systems, like WAAS or
multilateration, may also be able to provide this service. Therefore,
our LAAS surface navigation benefit for the 100% WAAS equipage scenario
is zero.

[Table 3: Discounted 20 Year LAAS Safety Precision Approach
Benefits]{.smallcaps}

+----------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+
|                | **Accidents  | **Fatal   | **Serious   | **Total** |
|                | Prevented    | Injuries  | Injuries    |           |
|                | (Hull loss   | Pr        | Prevented** |           |
|                | and          | evented** |             |           |
|                | damage)**    |           |             |           |
+----------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+
| **LAAS         | \$37,569,000 | \$0       | \$555,000   | \$3       |
| Benefits**     |              |           |             | 8,124,000 |
|                |              |           |             |           |
| **(Assuming 0% |              |           |             |           |
| WAAS           |              |           |             |           |
| equipage)**    |              |           |             |           |
+----------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+
| **LAAS         | \$14,636,000 | \$0       | \$240,000   | \$1       |
| Benefits**     |              |           |             | 4,876,000 |
|                |              |           |             |           |
| **(Assuming    |              |           |             |           |
| 100% WAAS      |              |           |             |           |
| equipage)**    |              |           |             |           |
+----------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+

[Table 4: Discounted 20 Year LAAS Safety Surface Guidance
Benefits]{.smallcaps}

+----------------+-------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                | **Accidents | **Fatal    | **Serious  | **Total** |
|                | Prevented   | Injuries   | Injuries   |           |
|                | (Hull loss  | P          | P          |           |
|                | and         | revented** | revented** |           |
|                | damage)**   |            |            |           |
+----------------+-------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| **LAAS         | \$5,122,000 | \$         | \$419,500  | \$2       |
| Benefits**     |             | 14,634,000 |            | 0,175,500 |
|                |             |            |            |           |
| **(Assuming 0% |             |            |            |           |
| WAAS           |             |            |            |           |
| equipage)**    |             |            |            |           |
+----------------+-------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| **LAAS         | \$0         | \$0        | \$0        | \$0       |
| Benefits**     |             |            |            |           |
|                |             |            |            |           |
| **(Assuming    |             |            |            |           |
| 100% WAAS      |             |            |            |           |
| equipage)**    |             |            |            |           |
+----------------+-------------+------------+------------+-----------+

# 

# [Societal Benefits]{.smallcaps} 

The following societal benefits are discussed further in this document.

-   Continuation of U.S. Technology Leadership in Air Navigation

-   International LGF and LAAS Avionics Sales Revenue to U.S.
    Manufacturers

-   Noise Abatement and Mitigation

-   Reduced Impact on Environmentally Sensitive Areas

-   LAAS Complements Homeland Security

-   LAAS and JPALS Offer Civilian and Military Compatibility

-   Expansion of Air Commerce to Smaller Communities

-   Increased Reliability of Air Service

**Quantitative Analyses**

IBM has investigated the potential quantitative LAAS Benefits that may
be obtained through (1) sales of LGF and LAAS avionics to international
airports and airlines, and (2) increased U.S. Airport Improvement
Program and U.S airline revenue through a 1% increased load factor on 1%
of operations. We recognize that these quantitative societal benefits
are highly speculative, and are included only to illustrate the
importance of economic impact LAAS may provide. These benefits estimates
will not be incorporated in the total benefits derived from the
efficiency benefits analysis.

**Qualitative Descriptions**

Many of these qualitative potential benefits may also be achieved
through current or emerging procedures (*e.g.*, RNAV/RNP) or
technologies (*e.g.*, WAAS). Therefore, further investigation should be
considered to determine if, and by how much, LAAS may uniquely provide
these benefits.

## [Continuation of U.S. technology leadership in air navigation]{.smallcaps}

[]{.mark}

In a recent speech, the Secretary of Transportation said, "Today, new
aviation initiatives are underway in Europe and elsewhere. We are being
challenged in manufacturing and in satellite positioning and navigation
services as Europe develops the Galileo system, an alternative to our
own Global Positioning System. We can work with our international
partners to develop an interoperable aviation system that increases
mobility. Or we can refuse to engage, refuse to lead, and thereby let
others set the rules of the world's skyways. We must not let that
happen. If America wants to retain its global air transportation
leadership, we need to modernize and transform our air transportation
system -- starting right now. With the forthcoming modernization of GPS,
satellite navigation will be far more important to aviation than it is
today[^16]." LAAS could be an integral part of this modernization.

The FAA's Flight Plan 2004-2008[^17] specifically identifies GNSS
augmentation systems as one tool to help reach the goal of "seamless
operations around the globe...", and advocates that the agency promote
the "commercial proliferation, interoperability and use" of these
systems. The U.S. has historically taken a lead role in promoting
satellite navigation around the world as the standard for 21st Century
air navigation. As part of this standardization, the LAAS architecture
was successfully presented and approved by the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)
Panel in February 1997[^18]. LAAS is an element in the full realization
of benefits from investment in satellite navigation programs.

The U.S. has the world's most complex airspace and leads the world in
the development of the new CNS-ATM suite of technologies and operational
concepts. The U.S. was directly involved in the development of ICAO's
Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) for the development of
space-based and ground-based (SBAS/GBAS) augmentation systems and GNSS,
which became effective in November 2001. LAAS implementation will
encourage a single standard for global navigation and help in areas
lacking CNS-ATM coverage. International implementation of LAAS could
bring high-precision navigation service to areas now served by minimal
or outdated equipment, allowing expansion of air service by both U.S.
and foreign carriers.

## [International LGF and LAAS Avionics Sales Revenue]{.smallcaps} 

**Overview**

Our discussions with U.S. carriers revealed two important goals; 1) to
simplify the number and variety of landing systems and procedures
currently in use, and 2) to operate globally with the same set of
simplified systems and procedures. A single navigation and landing
system, capable of global implementation, can contribute to achieving
these goals. If domestic carriers equip with LAAS, they will want to use
this capability throughout their networks, including at overseas
airports. Therefore, IBM explored the potential market for international
LGF sales.

Similarly, if domestic carriers equip with LAAS, foreign carriers
operating to the U.S. will have an incentive to also equip with LAAS.
Therefore, IBM explored the potential market for international (Part
129) avionics sales. Retrofit sales revenue was not included.

A detailed analysis of the most likely extent of international sales
would be a significant undertaking, and is out of the scope of this
project. Instead, we estimated the market size and potential benefit of
international sales of both LGFs and LAAS avionics, consistent with the
assumptions above.

**Methodology**

A.  Revenue from LGF Purchase and Install

    1.  Estimate LGF purchase sales price: \$600K purchase.

> Note: LGF installation cost is not included.

2.  Estimate the number of international airports served by U.S.
    carriers: 182[^19].

3.  Estimate the number of current and planned international MLS
    installations: 12 (plus 13 potential close orders)[^20].

4.  The potential international LGF market is (2) minus (3).

5.  The maximum potential LGF benefit is (4) times \$600K.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  Revenue from LAAS Avionics

    1.  Estimate LAAS avionics sales price; \$10K.

> Note: Any potential LAAS retrofit sales are not included.

2.  Estimate the number of international carriers' aircraft serving the
    120 studied airports: 846[^21].

> Note: Assume international carriers will equip all aircraft that serve
> the U.S.

3.  The potential international LAAS avionics market is (2).

4.  The maximum potential LAAS avionics benefit is (3) times \$10K.

**Results: Market Estimate and Maximum Potential Benefit**

A.  International LGF

    a.  Market Estimate is 157 airports.

    b.  Maximum Potential Benefit is \$94,200,000.

B.  International (Part 129) Avionics

    a.  Market Estimate is 846.

    b.  Maximum Potential Benefit is \$8,460,000.

## [Noise Abatement and Mitigation]{.smallcaps}

While many airports seek to expand their facilities and operations to
serve current and expected future demand for air travel, the communities
surrounding airports also continue to expand, filling previously unused
land in the vicinity of the airports. One result is a growing concern
about aviation related noise and its impact on these communities.
Airlines and airframe manufacturers have worked together to
significantly reduce the noise produced by modern aircraft, but noise
generation remains a problem for many airports. More precise navigation
in the terminal area may offer an opportunity to greatly reduce the
impact of aviation related noise by restricting aircraft to defined
three dimensional routes designed to reduce the noise effects.

Through the flexibility offered by LAAS to construct complex, defined,
highly repeatable flight paths that can be used during all weather
conditions, the current costs associated with noise mitigation and noise
abatement may be reduced. This section identifies the LAAS capabilities
that can support noise reduction efforts, and summarizes some of the
current costs associated with noise reduction programs.

Noise abatement and mitigation may be possible with RNAV capabilities
through the use of GPS and/or WAAS. In these cases, LAAS may show little
to no benefit to enabling noise abatement and mitigation.

The FAA describes how aviation-related noise is measured as part of its
Airport Noise Compatibility Program, found in Part 150 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations[^22]. These guidelines describe the noise levels
that are considered acceptable and the impact that noise has on
individuals and communities.

### Methodology

1.  Identify LAAS capabilities that may offer control over the
    generation and distribution of noise

2.  Review historical costs associated with airport noise.

3.  Identify and group costs in one of the following areas where LAAS
    may provide potential reduction in:

    -   Noise Program Costs

    -   Noise Violations Cost

    -   Land Acquisition for Noise Compatibility

    -   Residential Home Soundproofing

    -   School Soundproofing

    -   Litigation

    -   Airport Curfews

### Relevant LAAS Capabilities

The LAAS capabilities that may have a direct impact on noise issues are
those that offer increased control over the flight path taken. The
ability to consistently provide defined, repeatable (laterally and
vertically contained) flight tracks during all weather conditions allows
for greater control over noise distribution and can offer potential cost
savings for noise related programs and issues.

1.  **Defined, repeatable flight paths:** By defining a specific flight
    path that can realistically be expected to be repeatable, even in
    the busiest, most complex airspaces, LAAS-based procedures provide a
    way for airports and communities to achieve a balance that optimizes
    terminal area efficiency and reduced noise impact. Demonstration to
    community members of the high degree of three-dimensional
    repeatability of these paths, particularly compared to today's wide
    range of flight paths taken could greatly reduce the time and costs
    typically associated with litigation over airport changes, such as
    runway expansions or additions. Further, the reduction in flight
    path variability due to LAAS-based procedures may result in fewer
    homes and schools needing soundproofing, as well as reducing airport
    land acquisition costs.

2.  **All-weather complex approach and departure procedures:** Use of
    LAAS may allow aircraft to follow complex, noise mitigating,
    approach and departure routes during all weather conditions,
    including conditions of low weather minima. Other systems in the
    baseline that also support complex routes do not support operations
    to Cat II or III conditions. Use of LAAS-based procedures assures
    that the same flight path is taken during all weather conditions,
    further reducing flight path variability as a function of weather.

[Figure 1: Defined, repeatable flight paths through lateral and vertical
containment]{.smallcaps}

![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.25in" height="0.34375in"}

![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.25in" height="0.34375in"}

### ![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.25in" height="0.34375in"}

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### Costs of Noise Abatement and Mitigation

The following summary provides examples of aviation noise related costs
that LAAS capabilities may be able to reduce. Costs incurred by airports
are currently funded primarily through the Airport Improvement Program
(AIP), the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC), as well as other Federal,
state, and local funds.

1.  Noise Programs Costs

-   U.S. DOT Commemorates Earth Day with Announcement of \$307 Million
    Effort to Combat Noise Pollution Near Airports[^23]

-   MSP - \$120M-\$150M Noise Abatement[^24]

    a.  MAC's commitment over the years brought the first federally
        commissioned SCAT 1 LAAS ground station to MSP and resulted in
        the present Beta LAAS station that is here and operational today

    b.  At MSP we have considered and, in some ways, incorporated the
        anticipated capabilities GPS/LAAS will offer in the future as
        part of our long-term noise compatibility planning and in
        efforts to reduce noise associated with a new runway

    c.  The Part 150 Update effort at MSP includes provision in the
        draft Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) for the future use of
        GPS/LAAS Technology

    d.  The new departure procedure can be flown with today's
        technology, although it was developed such that GPS/LAAS could
        enhance the procedure

    e.  In addition to the establishment of a departure procedure for
        the new runway, the Part 150 NCP work at MSP includes other
        noise abetment measures that are directly related to the future
        use of GPS/LAAS and associated noise reducing capabilities

        i.  Low-Demand Flight Tracks -- designates certain flight
            tracks, by runway end, for preferred use during low-demand
            time periods to reduce noise impacts

        ii. Runway 35 River Visual Approach Procedure -- recommends that
            MAC and FAA investigate a visual arrival procedure to Runway
            35 that routes arriving aircraft over the Minnesota River
            Valley to reduce noise and overflights of populated areas

        iii. Future Technology and Global Positioning System (GPS)
             Initiatives -- recommends that the MAC and the FAA
             investigate the potential use of emerging GPS technologies
             for noise mitigation purposes, and implement beneficial
             procedures as necessary

-   ORD - \$300M has been provided to assist in reducing the impacts of
    aircraft noise on communities near O\'Hare and Midway Airports[^25].

2.  Noise Rule Violations Costs

-   DEN[^26]: Violations of noise levels at DEN are subject to \$500,000
    per violation.

-   BOS[^27]: Penalties for violation of takeoffs on 4L above 73dBA and
    landings on 22R above 78dBA are fines ranging between \$50 and \$500
    per offense.

3.  Land Acquisition for Noise Compatibility

> According to the U.S. GAO, Aviation and the Environment, FAA's Role in
> Major Noise Programs[^28], more than 75 percent of all AIP funds and
> over 50 percent of all PFC funds spent on noise reduction or
> mitigation have been used to acquire land and to soundproof buildings
> (See also, Residential Home Soundproofing section)

-   LAX[^29]: \$4 million, from AIP, to acquire land for noise
    compatibility

-   ONT[^30]: \$2.5 million, from AIP, to acquire land for noise
    compatibility and relocation assistance

4.  Residential Home Soundproofing[^31]

-   SNA: \$2.3 million, from AIP, to soundproof residences

-   BUR: \$1 million, from AIP, to soundproof 30 residences

-   SFO^:^ \$1 million, from AIP, to soundproof 100 residences

-   FAT: \$1 million, from AIP, to soundproof 100 residences

5.  School Soundproofing

-   JFK[^32]: \$12.2 million, from Federal/local, to soundproof four
    schools

-   LGA[^33]: \$24.4 million, from Federal/local, to soundproof nine
    schools

-   SYR[^34]: \$3.38 million, from Federal/local, to soundproof a school

-   ORD[^35]: \$3 million to soundproof a school

-   MDW[^36]: \$3 million to soundproof a school

-   SAN[^37]: \$1.5 million, from AIP, to soundproof a school

6.  Litigation

-   DEN[^38]: Denver Must Pay County Four Million for Airport Noise

-   PBI[^39]: Florida Landowners Must Prove Decreased Property Value in
    Airport Noise Suit

-   EWR[^40]: Lawyers Hired to Fight Noise at Newark International
    Airport

-   BUR[^41]: Court Lets City Go to Trial on Noise Impact Issue

-   MEM[^42]: Memphis Airport Authority Votes to Settle Class-Action
    Noise Lawsuit

-   MSP[^43]: Minnesota City Sues Airport Commission Over Shifting Jet
    Noise to Their Community

-   ORD[^44],[^45]: \$7.6 Million School to Sue for Soundproofing from
    Airport Noise

-   BDL[^46]: Connecticut Residents Threaten to Sue State If Airport
    Noise Isn\'t Reduced

### Reduction or Lifting of Airport Curfews 

According to Boeing commercial noise data[^47], 36 of the 120 studied
airports (30%), listed in Table 5, have noise-related curfews. By
limiting the impact of noise on surrounding communities, LAAS-based
procedures may permit airports to operate at times currently under
curfew. Also, expansion of airport operating times by limiting or
lifting of curfews can increase total daily capacity.

> [Table 5]{.smallcaps}: Airports with Curfews within the 120 Studied
> Airports

  ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------
  **Airports with                               
  Noise-related Curfews                         
  (**Curfew times in                            
  parentheses)                                  

  AUS (00:00 to 06:00)   HNL                    PVD (0:00 to 07:00)

  BFI (22:00 to 07:00)   HPN (00:00 to 06:30)   RIC (03:00 to 12:00)

  BOS (23:00 to 07:00)   ILN                    SAN (22:30 to 06:30)

  BUR                    JFK (00:00 to 06:00)   SEA

  CMH                    LAS (20:00 to 08:00)   SFO

  DAL                    LAX                    SJC (23:30 to 06:30)

  DCA(22:00 to 07:00)    LGB                    SNA

  DEN                    MDW (22:00 to 06:00)   STL (23:00 to 06:00)

  DVT (21:30 to 06:00)   MSP                    SYR (02:00 to 07:00)

  EWR                    ONT                    TEB

  FAI (3:00 to 06:00)    PBI (22:00 to 07:00)   VNY
  ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

##  [Reduced Impact on Environmentally Sensitive Areas]{.smallcaps}

While many airports seek to expand their facilities and operations to
serve current and expected future demand for air travel, the communities
surrounding airports also continue to expand, filling previously unused
land in the vicinity of the airports. One result is a growing concern
about the impact of aviation-related activities on environmentally
sensitive areas. Airlines and airframe manufacturers have worked
together to significantly reduce the environmental impact produced by
modern aircraft, but this remains a problem for some airports. More
precise navigation in the terminal area may offer an opportunity to
greatly reduce the environmental impact of flights by restricting
aircraft to defined three dimensional routes designed with
environmentally sensitive areas in mind.

Through the flexibility offered by LAAS to construct complex, defined,
highly repeatable flight paths that can be used during all weather
conditions, environmentally sensitive areas may be protected during all
weather conditions. This section identifies the LAAS capabilities that
can support environmental sensitive area efforts, and summarizes some of
the current areas with that may be potential beneficiaries.

Reduced impact on environmentally sensitive areas may be possible with
RNAV capabilities through the use of GPS and/or WAAS. In these cases,
LAAS may show little to no benefit.

The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration
has a long tradition of designating wildlife and conservation areas as
advisory noise-sensitive areas on navigational charts and other
published materials. This practice, as articulated in Advisory Circular
91-36C (\"Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise-Sensitive
Areas[^48]\"), seeks to achieve a non-regulatory, cooperative approach
to eliminating low overflights which would be harmful to wildlife in
refuges and other environmentally-sensitive areas, including National
Parks, Wilderness Areas, and their individual State Park or Conservation
Area/Wildlife Refuge counterparts. It reflects the FAA's announced
policy of managing the airspace to protect environmental values on the
surface[^49].

### Methodology

1.  Identify LAAS capabilities that may offer control over the impact of
    aircraft operations on environmentally sensitive areas.

### Relevant LAAS Capabilities

The LAAS capabilities that may have a direct impact on environmentally
sensitive areas are those that offer increased control over the flight
path taken. The ability to consistently provide defined, repeatable
(laterally and vertically contained) flight tracks during all weather
conditions allows for reduced impact on environmentally sensitive areas.

1.  **Defined, Repeatable flight paths:** By defining a specific flight
    path that can realistically be expected to be repeatable, even in
    the busiest, most complex airspaces, LAAS-based procedures provide a
    way for airports and communities to achieve a balance that optimizes
    terminal area efficiency and reduced environmental impact.
    Demonstration to communities and airport authorities of the high
    degree of three-dimensional repeatability of these paths,
    particularly compared to today's wide range of flight paths (due to
    vectoring in the terminal area) could greatly reduce the time and
    costs typically associated with litigation over airport changes,
    such as runway expansions or additions.

2.  **All-weather complex approach and departure procedures:** Use of
    LAAS may allow aircraft to follow complex approach and departure
    routes that avoid environmentally sensitive areas during all weather
    conditions, including low ceiling and visibility. Other systems in
    the baseline that also support complex routes do not support
    operations to Cat II or III conditions. Use of LAAS-based procedures
    assures that the same flight path is taken during all weather
    conditions, further reducing flight path variability as a function
    of weather.

### Example Airports with Environmental Sensitive Areas

The following examples provide a list of airports with environmentally
sensitive areas. These areas may be protected now, and into the future
with airport expansion, through the use of defined, repeatable flight
paths using all weather complex approach and departure procedures.

Example airports with environmentally sensitive areas

-   BOS[^50]

-   CVG[^51]

-   DCA[^52]

-   SEA[^53]

## [LAAS Complements Homeland Security]{.smallcaps}

Increased emphasis on aviation security requires precise navigation and
surveillance capabilities. The ability of LAAS to provide increased
control over flight paths may be crucial to Homeland Security. For
example, in areas of heightened security, such as DCA in our nation's
capitol, LAAS coupled with other technologies, such as ADS-B, may enable
Air Traffic to precisely anticipate an aircraft's the expected terminal
area flight path, and more readily detect and react to any deviation
from that flight path.

RNAV capabilities achieved through the use of GPS and/or WAAS, and other
technologies, such as ADS-B, may also enable Air Traffic to precisely
anticipate the expected terminal area flight path, and to more readily
detect and react to any deviation from that flight path. In these cases,
LAAS may show little to no benefit.

### Methodology

1.  Identify airports within the 120 airports studied that have Aviation
    Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ) or temporary flight
    restrictions, as examples of airport and airspace locations at which
    an improved ability to identify and detect deviations from expected
    flight paths may be beneficial.

### Relevant LAAS Capabilities

The LAAS capabilities that may have a direct impact on Homeland Security
are those that offer increased control over the flight path taken. LAAS
may be coupled with an enabled technology that provides aircraft
position information to Air Traffic (*e.g.*, ADS-B), for surveillance
purposes.

### Example Airports with Aviation Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ) or Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR)

Table 6 lists examples of airports in the IBM 120 subject to an ADIZ or
TFR.

Table 6: Airports with ASIZ or TFR

+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Air  | **Comments**                                                |
| port** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| N      | Flight Restrictions for 2004 Republican National Convention |
| Y[^54] | in New York City.                                           |
|        |                                                             |
|        | Increased security measures are expected and the FAA has    |
|        | distributed a preliminary Flight Advisory that outlines the |
|        | three temporary flight restriction (TFR) areas that are     |
|        | anticipated for the event.                                  |
|        |                                                             |
|        | The following aircraft operations will be authorized for    |
|        | general aviation operations:                                |
|        |                                                             |
|        | -   Only VFR/IFR arrivals or departures at Teterboro        |
|        |     Airport (TEB) will be permitted. No touch and go or     |
|        |     close in pattern work will be permitted.                |
|        |                                                             |
|        | -   All aircraft must squawk a discrete transponder code    |
|        |     assigned by ATC, and remain in two-way radio            |
|        |     communications with ATC while in the TFR. ATC shall     |
|        |     immediately be notified of any transponder failure and  |
|        |     ATC will provide the most direct course to exit the     |
|        |     TFR.                                                    |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Air  | **Comments**                                                |
| port** |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| MIA,   | **Presidential movement TFRs**                              |
| EWR,   |                                                             |
| JFK,   | Presidential movement TFRs can be issued with little        |
| LGA,   | advance notice. This list is not necessarily complete.      |
| DAY,   |                                                             |
|        | -   August 27: Miami, Florida                               |
| DTW,   |                                                             |
|        | -   August 29-30: Newark, New Jersey, and New York, New     |
| MHT,   |     York                                                    |
| BNA,   |                                                             |
| CM     | -   August 30-September 1: New York, New York               |
| H[^55] |                                                             |
|        | -   September 1-3: New York, New York                       |
|        |                                                             |
|        | -   Anticipated - August 28: Dayton, Ohio                   |
|        |                                                             |
|        | -   Anticipated - August 28: Lima, Ohio                     |
|        |                                                             |
|        | -   Anticipated - August 28: Toledo, Ohio                   |
|        |                                                             |
|        | -   Anticipated - August 28: Troy, Ohio                     |
|        |                                                             |
|        | -   Anticipated - August 29: Wheeling, West Virginia        |
|        |                                                             |
|        | -   Anticipated - August 30: Detroit, Michigan              |
|        |                                                             |
|        | -   Anticipated - August 30: Manchester, New Hampshire      |
|        |                                                             |
|        | -   Anticipated - August 31: Alleman, Iowa                  |
|        |                                                             |
|        | -   Anticipated - August 31: Gettysburg, Pennsylvania       |
|        |                                                             |
|        | -   Anticipated - August 31: Nashville, Tennessee           |
|        |                                                             |
|        | -   Anticipated - September 1: Columbus, Ohio               |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| DC     | **National Capital Region (NCR) Aviation Defense            |
| A[^56] | Identification Zone (ADIZ)** remains active with the added  |
|        | requirement that all VFR and IFR flights within the ADIZ    |
|        | file flight plans before takeoff and close flight plans     |
|        | upon landing or exiting the ADIZ.                           |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| JFK,   | **An ADIZ for New York City** has also been added           |
| LGA,   | restricting flight operations from the surface to flight    |
| EW     | level 180 in the area within the mode C veil (approximately |
| R[^57] | 30 nm) surrounding JFK International (JFK), LaGuardia       |
|        | International (LGA), and Newark, New Jersey (EWR)           |
|        | International airports.                                     |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| OR     | **Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR) -** March 22, 2003    |
| D[^58] |                                                             |
|        | The FAA and TSA created a temporary flight restriction for  |
|        | the city of Chicago, focusing on the downtown skyline area. |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| SL     | **Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR) --** Winter Olympics  |
| C[^59] |                                                             |
|        | The FAA implemented a security plan that restricted general |
|        | aviation operations within a 45-nm radius of Salt Lake City |
|        | International Airport. The temporary flight restrictions    |
|        | area (TFR) extended from surface to 18,000 feet msl for 19  |
|        | days, beginning on February 6, 2001.                        |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| AT     | **Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs)** Summer Olympics    |
| L[^60] |                                                             |
|        | -   a radius of three nm around the Georgia Dome (below     |
|        |     3500 MSL)                                               |
|        |                                                             |
|        | -   one nm around the Olympic Village (below 3500 MSL)      |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+

## [LAAS and JPALS Offer Civilian and Military Compatibility]{.smallcaps}

The Department of Defense (DoD) currently operates a variety of
precision approach systems, including ILS, MLS, and Precision Approach
Radar (PAR). No single system currently available meets all of the DoD's
precision approach needs. In order to standardize on a single-system
solution, the DoD is developing a Joint Precision Approach and Landing
System (JPALS), a military-use differential GPS system designed to be
interoperable with the civilian-use LAAS. Interoperability of civil and
military landing systems is the primarily benefit. A JPALS transmitter
is designed to broadcast a signal meeting the requirements of civil LAAS
avionics, and a JPALS receiver is designed to use the LAAS broadcast
signal.

### Methodology

1.  Identify airports within the 120 studied airports that have a
    military presence that comprises greater than ten percent of total
    airport operations.

2.  Calculate the taxpayer dollars saved through avoiding redundant
    civilian and military systems.

    a.  Note: Pending better information, it is assumed that a JPALS
        installation costs at least as much as a civil LGF, or \$1.2M.

    b.  Tax Payer Savings equals (\$1.2M/site) x (Number of studied
        airports that have a military presence that comprises greater
        than ten percent of total airport operations).

The twenty (20) airports shown in Table 7 are those within the 120
studied airports that have a military presence that comprises greater
than ten percent of total airport operations. In addition, the DoD has
operations at many NAS airports, including over 95% of the 120 airports
in this study.

[Table 7: Studied Airports with Considerable (\>10% of Total Operations)
Military Operations]{.smallcaps} [^61]

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **Airport**       **% of Airport's  **Airport**       **% of Airport's
                    Traffic that are                    Traffic that are
                    Military                            Military
                    Operations**                        Operations**

  ABQ               15%               LIT               19%

  AFW               18%               MDT               13%

  BGR               34%               OKC               37%

  CHA               14%               PIE               12%

  CHS               38%               SHV               13%

  COS               24%               SYR               11%

  DLH               18%               TLH               19%

  HSV               32%               TUL               29%

  JAX               11%               TUS               12%

  LCK               41%               TYS               11%
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

Note: Traffic estimates above may or may not be due to aircraft
stationed at that airfield.

### Tax Payer Dollars Saved

Because of the interoperability of LAAS and JPALS, taxpayers may be able
to forgo installing two interoperable and compatible systems at one
location. At the 20 sites list above, this could potentially save
taxpayers at least **\$24M.**

## [Expansion of Air Commerce to Smaller Communities]{.smallcaps} 

The expansion of air service to smaller communities can be important for
economic development. Allowing reliable, precision approach to all
runways may increase economic development through increased air service
and passenger utilization at smaller community airports.

The expansion of air commerce into smaller communities may have multiple
beneficiaries. The FAA may benefit from lower LAAS purchase and
operations and maintenance costs, when compared to multiple ILS required
to serve multiple runway. Air Traffic and airlines may benefit from
having increased alternative airports, and reduced congestion to major
and larger community airports. Airlines may benefit from expansion of
their networks to new markets, potentially resulting in increased
revenue passenger miles. Residents of small communities may benefit from
having access to increased air service, and small communities may
benefit from the economic development that passengers and airlines
bring.

Many of the benefits of expansion of air service may be achievable with
RNAV capabilities through the use of GPS and/or WAAS, or achieved
through ILS Category I/II/III precision approach. In these cases, LAAS
may provide little or no benefit. However, in some terrain challenged
areas that may either have ILS siting issues or inadequate WAAS coverage
(accuracy, availability, integrity, and continuity), LAAS may be the
best precision approach option.

Table 8 lists several example airports in small communities that may not
be able to site an ILS due to terrain constraints, and/or may not be
able to utilize the WAAS signal due to terrain obstacles and/or current
lack of Geosatellite coverage. This list is not meant to be exhaustive,
but to illustrate the types of airports in this category.

[Table 8: Small Community Airports With ILS Siting Issues Or Inadequate
WAAS Coverage]{.smallcaps}

+-----+----------+------------+---------------------------------------+
| **A | *        | **2003     | **Comments**                          |
| irp | *Airport | Scheduled  |                                       |
| ort | Name**   | Arrivals** |                                       |
| Cod |          |            |                                       |
| e** |          |            |                                       |
+-----+----------+------------+---------------------------------------+
| [A  | Aspen,   | 4,162      | -   No ILS due to terrain constraints |
| SE] | CO       |            |                                       |
| {.s |          |            | -   Terrain obstacles may limit       |
| mal |          |            |     adequate WAAS coverage            |
| lca |          |            |                                       |
| ps} |          |            |                                       |
+-----+----------+------------+---------------------------------------+
| [E  | Eagle    | 2,257      | -   No ILS due to terrain constraints |
| GE] | County,  |            |                                       |
| {.s | CO       |            | -   Terrain obstacles may limit       |
| mal |          |            |     adequate WAAS coverage            |
| lca |          |            |                                       |
| ps} |          |            |                                       |
+-----+----------+------------+---------------------------------------+
| [J  | Jackson  | 4,979      | -   No ILS due to terrain constraints |
| AC] | Hole, WY |            |                                       |
| {.s |          |            | -   Terrain obstacles may limit       |
| mal |          |            |     adequate WAAS coverage            |
| lca |          |            |                                       |
| ps} |          |            |                                       |
+-----+----------+------------+---------------------------------------+
| [S  | Sitka,   | 1,647      | -   No current ILS due to siting      |
| IT] | AK       |            |     constraints                       |
| {.s |          |            |                                       |
| mal |          |            | -   Plans for additional WAAS         |
| lca |          |            |     Geosatellites and reference       |
| ps} |          |            |     stations may offer improved       |
|     |          |            |     Alaska coverage                   |
+-----+----------+------------+---------------------------------------+
| [J  | Juneau,  | 19,806     | -   No current ILS due to siting      |
| NU] | AK       |            |     constraints                       |
| {.s |          |            |                                       |
| mal |          |            | -   Plans for additional WAAS         |
| lca |          |            |     Geosatellites and reference       |
| ps} |          |            |     stations may offer improved       |
|     |          |            |     Alaska coverage                   |
+-----+----------+------------+---------------------------------------+
| [S  | Sun      | 4,333      | -   No current ILS                    |
| UN] | Valley,  |            |                                       |
| {.s | ID       |            |                                       |
| mal |          |            |                                       |
| lca |          |            |                                       |
| ps} |          |            |                                       |
+-----+----------+------------+---------------------------------------+

## [Increased Reliability of Air Service []{.mark}]{.smallcaps}

**Overview**

Studies have suggested that infrastructure changes that lead to
increased quality of air service (*e.g.*, reduced flight times,
increased reliability) may lead to increased passenger load factor[^62].
By reducing delay and increasing all-weather reliability of air service,
LAAS may offer this benefit. Increased load factor will increase revenue
in the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) through the Domestic Passenger
Ticket Tax aviation component, and will also result in increased revenue
to the airlines. This analysis shows the 20 year benefits for a one
percent (1%) increase in load factor on one percent (1%) of domestic and
regional airline flights.

This quantification is for illustrative purposes only, and no claim is
made that LAAS, or any other precision approach system will lead to
these specific benefits. Rather, this shows the benefits that may be
obtained for every 1% increase in load factor, for every 1% domestic
major and regional operations, by improving the reliability of
all-weather flight operations.

The Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which was established by the Airport
and Airway Revenue Act of 1970, provides the revenues used to fund AIP
projects.  The Trust Fund concept guarantees a stable funding source
whereby users pay for the services they receive.  In 1997, Congress
enacted new taxes to fund the Trust Fund as shown in Table 9.

[Table 9: AIP Domestic Passenger Ticket Tax]{.smallcaps} [^63]

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **Aviation Component**       **Computation Formulae**

  ***Domestic Passenger Ticket 9% from Oct. 1, 1997 through Sept. 30,
  Tax***                       1998

                               8% from Oct. 1, 1998 through Sept. 30,
                               1999

                               7.5% from Oct. 1, 1999
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

**Methodology**

1.  Estimate average ticket price per flight segment; \$100.

2.  Estimate the average number of passengers per flight; 91 (average of
    B737)

3.  Assume 1% increase in load factor for 1% of airline operations due
    to improved reliability of air service.

4.  AIP Revenue is (avg. ticket price)x(domestic ticket tax)x(average
    number of passengers)x(% increase in load factor)x(% of airline
    operations increase load factor by 1%)x(total U.S. airline
    operations at the 120 studied airports).

5.  Airline Revenue is (avg. ticket price)x (average number of
    passengers)x(% increase in load factor)x(% of airline operations
    increase load factor by 1%)x(total U.S. airline operations at the
    120 studied airports).

6.  Calculate the 20 year benefit using 2004 TAF projections.

7.  Calculate the 2004 present value using a 7% discount rate.

**Results**

> As shown in Table 10, the estimated LAAS benefit assuming zero percent
> (0%) WAAS equipage is \$96M for each one percent (1%) increase in load
> factor on one percent (1%) of domestic major and regional carrier
> operations.

[Table 10: Discounted 20 year LAAS Benefits for Each 1% Increase in Load
Factor on Each 1% of Domestic Major]{.smallcaps} and Regional Airline
Operations

+----------------------+----------------+------------------+----------+
|                      | **Increased    | **Increased      | *        |
|                      | AIP Revenue**  | Airline          | *Total** |
|                      |                | Revenue**        |          |
+----------------------+----------------+------------------+----------+
| **LAAS Benefits**    | \$6,701,079    | \$89,347,725     | \$96     |
|                      |                |                  | ,048,805 |
| **(Assuming 0% WAAS  |                |                  |          |
| equipage)**          |                |                  |          |
+----------------------+----------------+------------------+----------+
| **LAAS Benefits**    | \$1,652,875    | \$20,478,277     | \$22     |
|                      |                |                  | ,131,151 |
| **(Assuming 100%     |                |                  |          |
| WAAS equipage)**     |                |                  |          |
+----------------------+----------------+------------------+----------+

# [Appendices]{.smallcaps}

## [Appendix A: Airports Included in this Study]{.smallcaps} 

Airports were selected for this study through a process that included
the following selection criteria:

-   High traffic airports associated with likely LAAS users:

    -   Major passenger airlines (More than 20,000 operations over a
        three year period)

    -   Regional passenger airlines (Regional Airline Association -- Top
        50 airports)

    -   Cargo carriers

    -   Corporate operators (National Business Aviation Association --
        Top 10 airports)

-   LAAS Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) sites

-   FAA Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) airports

-   Current Cat II/III ILS airports

-   Qualifier Cat II/III ILS airports

Based on these criteria 120 airports throughout the NAS were selected
for this study, as shown in the following table and map.

  ----- ---------------------------- ----- ------------------------- ----- -----------------------
  ABQ   ALBUQUERQUE INTL SUNPORT,    FAI   FAIRBANKS INTL, ALASKA    OKC   WILL ROGERS WORLD,
        NEW MEXICO                                                         OKLAHOMA

  ACK   NANTUCKET MEMORIAL,          FAT   FRESNO YOSEMITE           OMA   EPPLEY AIRFIELD,
        MASSACHUSETTS                      INTERNATIONAL, CALIFORNIA       NEBRASKA

  AFW   FORT WORTH ALLIANCE, TEXAS   FLL   FORT LAUDERDALE/HOLLYWOOD ONT   ONTARIO INTL,
                                           INTL, FLORIDA                   CALIFORNIA

  ALB   ALBANY INTL, NEW YORK        FWA   FORT WAYNE INTERNATIONAL, ORD   CHICAGO O\'HARE INTL,
                                           INDIANA                         ILLINOIS

  ANC   TED STEVENS ANCHORAGE INTL,  FXE   FORT LAUDERDALE           ORF   NORFOLK INTL, VIRGINIA
        ALASKA                             EXECUTIVE, FLORIDA              

  ATL   THE WILLIAM B HARTSFIELD     GEG   SPOKANE INTL, WASHINGTON  PBI   PALM BEACH INTL,
        ATLANTA INTL, GEORGIA                                              FLORIDA

  AUS   AUSTIN-BERGSTROM INTL, TEXAS GRR   GERALD R. FORD            PDX   PORTLAND INTL, OREGON
                                           INTERNATIONAL, MICHIGAN         

  AVL   ASHEVILLE REGIONAL, NORTH    GSO   PIEDMONT TRIAD            PHL   PHILADELPHIA INTL,
        CAROLINA                           INTERNATIONAL, NORTH            PENNSYLVANIA
                                           CAROLINA                        

  BDL   BRADLEY INTL, CONNECTICUT    GSP   GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG    PHX   PHOENIX SKY HARBOR
                                           INTL, SOUTH CAROLINA            INTL, ARIZONA

  BFI   BOEING FIELD/KING COUNTY     HNL   HONOLULU INTL, HAWAII     PIE   ST
        INTL, WASHINGTON                                                   PETERSBURG-CLEARWATER
                                                                           INTL, FLORIDA

  BGR   BANGOR INTL, MAINE           HOU   WILLIAM P HOBBY, TEXAS    PIT   PITTSBURGH
                                                                           INTERNATIONAL,
                                                                           PENNSYLVANIA

  BHM   BIRMINGHAM INTL, ALABAMA     HPN   WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW   PVD   THEODORE FRANCIS GREEN
                                           YORK                            STATE, RHODE ISLAND

  BNA   NASHVILLE INTL, TENNESSEE    HSV   HUNTSVILLE INTL-CARL T    RDU   RALEIGH-DURHAM INTL,
                                           JONES FIELD, ALABAMA            NORTH CAROLINA

  BOI   BOISE AIR TERMINAL/GOWEN     IAD   WASHINGTON DULLES         RFD   GREATER ROCKFORD,
        FLD, IDAHO                         INTERNATIONAL, DIST. OF         ILLINOIS
                                           COLUMBIA                        

  BOS   GENERAL EDWARD LAWRENCE      IAH   GEORGE BUSH               RIC   RICHMOND INTERNATIONAL,
        LOGAN INTL, MASSACHUSETTS          INTERCONTINENTAL                VIRGINIA
                                           ARPT/HOUSTON, TEXAS             

  BUF   BUFFALO NIAGARA INTL, NEW    ICT   WICHITA MID-CONTINENT,    RNO   RENO/TAHOE
        YORK                               KANSAS                          INTERNATIONAL, NEVADA

  BUR   BURBANK-GLENDALE-PASADENA,   ILN   AIRBORNE AIRPARK, OHIO    ROC   GREATER ROCHESTER
        CALIFORNIA                                                         INTERNATIONAL, NEW YORK

  BWI   BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INTL,   IND   INDIANAPOLIS INTL,        RSW   SOUTHWEST FLORIDA INTL,
        MARYLAND                           INDIANA                         FLORIDA

  CAE   COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN, SOUTH JAN   JACKSON INTERNATIONAL,    SAN   SAN DIEGO
        CAROLINA                           MISSISSIPPI                     INTL-LINDBERGH FLD,
                                                                           CALIFORNIA

  CHA   LOVELL FIELD, TENNESSEE      JAX   JACKSONVILLE INTL,        SAT   SAN ANTONIO INTL, TEXAS
                                           FLORIDA                         

  CHS   CHARLESTON AFB/INTL, SOUTH   JFK   JOHN F KENNEDY INTL, NEW  SDF   LOUISVILLE
        CAROLINA                           YORK                            INTL-STANDIFORD FIELD,
                                                                           KENTUCKY

  CLE   CLEVELAND-HOPKINS INTL, OHIO JNU   JUNEAU INTL, ALASKA       SEA   SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL,
                                                                           WASHINGTON

  CLT   CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INTL,      LAS   MC CARRAN INTL, NEVADA    SFB   ORLANDO SANFORD,
        NORTH CAROLINA                                                     FLORIDA

  CMH   PORT COLUMBUS INTL, OHIO     LAX   LOS ANGELES INTL,         SFO   SAN FRANCISCO
                                           CALIFORNIA                      INTERNATIONAL,
                                                                           CALIFORNIA

  COS   CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS     LCK   RICKENBACKER              SHV   SHREVEPORT REGIONAL,
        MUNI, COLORADO                     INTERNATIONAL, OHIO             LOUISIANA

  CVG   CINCINNATI/NORTHERN KENTUCKY LGA   LA GUARDIA, NEW YORK      SJC   NORMAN Y. MINETA SAN
        INTERNATIONAL, KENTUCKY                                            JOSE INTERNATIONAL,
                                                                           CALIFORNIA

  DAB   DAYTONA BEACH INTL, FLORIDA  LGB   LONG BEACH /DAUGHERTY     SLC   SALT LAKE CITY INTL,
                                           FIELD/, CALIFORNIA              UTAH

  DAL   DALLAS LOVE FIELD, TEXAS     LIT   ADAMS FIELD, ARKANSAS     SMF   SACRAMENTO
                                                                           INTERNATIONAL,
                                                                           CALIFORNIA

  DAY   JAMES M COX DAYTON INTL,     MCI   KANSAS CITY INTL,         SNA   JOHN WAYNE
        OHIO                               MISSOURI                        AIRPORT-ORANGE COUNTY,
                                                                           CALIFORNIA

  DCA   RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON     MCO   ORLANDO INTL, FLORIDA     STL   LAMBERT-ST LOUIS INTL,
        NATIONAL, DIST. OF COLUMBIA                                        MISSOURI

  DEN   DENVER INTL, COLORADO        MDT   HARRISBURG INTERNATIONAL, SWF   STEWART INT\'L, NEW
                                           PENNSYLVANIA                    YORK

  DFW   DALLAS/FORT WORTH            MDW   CHICAGO MIDWAY, ILLINOIS  SYR   SYRACUSE HANCOCK INTL,
        INTERNATIONAL, TEXAS                                               NEW YORK

  DLH   DULUTH INTL, MINNESOTA       MEM   MEMPHIS INTL, TENNESSEE   TEB   TETERBORO, NEW JERSEY

  DSM   DES MOINES INTL, IOWA        MHT   MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE TLH   TALLAHASSEE REGIONAL,
                                                                           FLORIDA

  DTW   DETROIT METROPOLITAN WAYNE   MIA   MIAMI INTL, FLORIDA       TPA   TAMPA INTL, FLORIDA
        COUNTY, MICHIGAN                                                   

  DVT   PHOENIX DEER VALLEY, ARIZONA MKE   GENERAL MITCHELL          TRI   TRI-CITIES RGNL TN/VA,
                                           INTERNATIONAL, WISCONSIN        TENNESSEE

  ELP   EL PASO INTL, TEXAS          MMU   MORRISTOWN MUNI, NEW      TUL   TULSA INTL, OKLAHOMA
                                           JERSEY                          

  EUG   MAHLON SWEET FIELD, OREGON   MSP   MINNEAPOLIS-ST PAUL       TUS   TUCSON INTL, ARIZONA
                                           INTL/WOLD-CHAMBERLAIN/,         
                                           MINNESOTA                       

  EWR   NEWARK INTL, NEW JERSEY      MSY   LOUIS ARMSTRONG NEW       TYS   MC GHEE TYSON,
                                           ORLEANS INTL, LOUISIANA         TENNESSEE

  EYW   KEY WEST INTL, FLORIDA       OAK   METROPOLITAN OAKLAND      VNY   VAN NUYS, CALIFORNIA
                                           INTL, CALIFORNIA                
  ----- ---------------------------- ----- ------------------------- ----- -----------------------

###  Map of Airports Included in this Study

# ![](media/image4.png){width="1.8958333333333333in" height="1.44375in"}

# 

# 

# 

# ![](media/image5.png){width="6.045138888888889in" height="4.411111111111111in"}

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

![](media/image6.png){width="1.8847222222222222in" height="1.41875in"}

##  [Appendix B: List of Acronyms]{.smallcaps}

ACE Aviation Capacity Enhancement

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance -- Broadcast

AILS Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing

AIP Airport Improvement Program

ANP Actual Navigation Performance

APO Office of Aviation Policy and Plans

ASDE-X Airport Surface Detection Equipment -- neXt generation

ASPM Aviation System Performance Metrics

ASQP Airline Service Quality Program

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATM Air Traffic Management

CAASD Center for Advanced Aviation System Development

CDTI Cockpit Display of Traffic Information

CFIT Controlled Flight Into Terrain

CNS Communication Navigation Surveillance

CONOPS Concept of Operations

CONUS Continental United States

DH Decision Height

DME Distance Measuring Equipment

DOC Direct Operating Cost

EGNOS European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service

ETMS Enhanced Traffic Management System

EVS Enhanced Vision System

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FMS Flight Management System

FSDS Flight Schedule Data System

GA General Aviation

GAME GPS Approach Model Estimator

GAO General Accounting Office

GBAS Ground Based Augmentation System

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GLS GNSS Landing System

GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System

GPS Global Positioning System

GPS-III Next-generation GPS

GS Glide Slope

HUD Head-Up Display

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

IFR Instrument Flight Rules

ILS Instrument Landing System

IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions

IRU Inertial Reference Unit\
JPALS Joint Precision Approach Landing Systems

LAAS Local Area Augmentation System

LGF LAAS Ground Facility

LNAV Lateral Navigation

LOC Localizer

LPV Lateral Precision with Vertical Guidance

MMR Multi-Mode Receiver

MSAS MTSAT Space Augmentation System

MTSAT Multi-functional Transport Satellite

MVMC Marginal VMC

NAS National Airspace System

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCDC National Climatic Data Center

NDB Non-Directional Beacon

NFDC National Flight Data Center

NPA Non-Precision Approach

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

OAG Official Airline Guide

OMB Office of Management and Budget

O&M Operations and Maintenance

PAR Precision Approach Radar

PFC Passenger Facility Charge

PRM Precision Runway Monitor

PTS Passenger Time Savings

PVT Position, Velocity, Time

RNAV Area Navigation

RNP Required Navigation Performance

RPM Revenue Passenger Mile

RTM Revenue Ton Mile

RVR Runway Visual Range

SARPS Standards and Recommended Practices

SBAS Space Based Augmentation System

SOIT Satellite Operational Integration Team

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

TAWS Terrain Awareness and Warning System

TERPS Terminal Instrument Procedures

VDB VHF Data Broadcast

VFR Visual Flight Rules

VHF Very High Frequency

VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions

VOR VHF Omni-directional Range

WAAS Wide Area Augmentation System

WAAS-GLS WAAS GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) Landing System

WAAS-LPV WAAS procedures with vertical guidance

# [Notes and References]{.smallcaps}

[^1]: ^See\ Appendix\ A\ for\ the\ selection\ criteria,\ as\ well\ as\ a\ listing\ and\ map\ of\ these\ 120\ airports.^

[^2]: ^Rovinsky,\ Dr.\ Robert.\ (1999,\ September\ 25).\ Satellite\ Navigation\ Investment\ Analysis\ Report.\ Federal\ Aviation\ Administration,\ 1-129.\ Retrieved\ May\ 18,\ 2004\ from\ World\ Wide\ Web:\ (http://www.faa.gov/asd/satnav/fullyrelease.pdf).^

[^3]: ^Gustafson,\ David\ M.,\ Smith,\ Alexander\ E.,\ Cassell,\ Rick.\ (October\ 1998).\ Cost\ Benefit\ Analysis\ of\ the\ Combined\ WAAS/LAAS\ System.\ AIAA\ Digital\ Avionics\ Systems\ Conference,\ 1-8.\ Retrieved\ May\ 18,\ 2004\ from\ World\ Wide\ Web:\ (http://www.aviationtoday.com/reports/costbenefit.pdf)^

[^4]: ^Prabhakar,\ Anand\ S.\ (1996).\ Economic\ Analysis\ of\ Local\ Area\ Augmentation\ System\ and\ Alternative\ Architectures\ (Rep.\ No.\ A560803).\ Massachusetts:\ Transportation\ Systems\ Center.^

[^5]: ^No\ Author.\ (1997).\ Local\ Area\ Augmentation\ System\ Cost\ Savings\ Potential.\ Washington,\ DC:\ Air\ Transport\ Association.^

[^6]: ^LAAS\ Benefits\ Analysis\ -\ Executive\ Summary\ of\ the\ Navigation\ Capabilities\ Baseline,\ IBM\ Corporation,\ November\ 2003.^

[^7]: ^LAAS\ Benefits\ Analysis\ -\ Executive\ Summary\ of\ the\ LAAS\ Incremental\ Capabilities,\ IBM\ Corporation,\ December\ 15,\ 2003.^

[^8]: ^Number\ derived\ from\ the\ following\ FAA\ website\ (<http://www.api.faa.gov/strategic/docs/sup-sys-40-arpaccessgoal.html>).^

[^9]: ^[FAA\ Navigation\ &\ Landing\ Transition\ Strategy\ Report](http://www1.faa.gov/asd/briefings/NavReport8-02.pdf)\ (http://www1.faa.gov/asd/briefings/NavReport8-02.pdf).^

[^10]: ^Khatwa\ R,\ Helmreich\ R,\ Analysis\ of\ Critical\ Factors\ During\ Approach\ and\ Landing\ in\ Accidents\ and\ Normal\ Flight,\ Flight\ Safety\ Digest,\ Volume\ 17,\ No\ 11-12,\ Flight\ Safety\ Foundation,\ Alexandria,\ VA,\ pg\ 80.^

[^11]: ^Enders\ et\ al,\ Airport\ Safety:\ A\ Study\ of\ Accidents\ and\ Available\ Approach-and-landing\ Aids,\ Flight\ Safety\ Digest,\ Flight\ Safety\ Foundation,\ Alexandria,\ VA.,\ March\ 1996.^

[^12]: ^Nordwall\ B\ D,\ U.S.\ Changing\ to\ One\ Type\ of\ Instrument\ Approach,\ Aviation\ Week\ and\ Space\ Technology,\ July\ 8th,\ 2002\ pg\ 45-46.^

[^13]: ^FAA.\ (2002).\ The\ National\ Aviation\ Safety\ Data\ Analysis\ Center.\ (https://extranet.nasdac.faa.gov)^

[^14]: ^Statistical\ Package\ for\ the\ Social\ Sciences.^

[^15]: ^NTSB\ accident\ briefs\ can\ be\ obtained\ at\ the\ NTSB's\ web\ site\ (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp).^

[^16]: ^Remarks\ for\ the\ Honorable\ Norman\ Y.\ Mineta\ Secretary\ of\ Transportation.\ (January\ 27,\ 2004).\ Securing\ America's\ Place\ as\ Global\ Leader\ in\ Aviation's\ Second\ Century\ ).http://www.jpo.aero/mineta%20speech%20012704.pdf).^

[^17]: ^FAA\ Flight\ Plan\ 2004-2008,\ p34;\ ).http://www2.faa.gov/apo/strategicplan/FAA_Flight_Plan.pdf).^

[^18]: ^ICASC\ --\ Local\ Area\ Augmentation\ System,\ (http://avnwww.jccbi.gov/icasc/gnss_laas.html).^

[^19]: ^FAA.\ (June\ 2003).\ Flight\ Schedule\ Data\ Systems\ (FSDS),\ In\ June\ 2003\ there\ were\ 182\ foreign\ airports\ with\ scheduled\ arrivals\ from\ a\ domestic\ carrier,\ (http://www.apo.data.faa.gov/).^

[^20]: ^AIN\ Online.\ (2002).\ Europeans\ Embrace\ MLS\ with\ a\ vengeance.\ (http://www.ainonline.com/issues/04_01/Apr_2001_europeanmlspg75.html).^

[^21]: ^Estimated\ using\ FAA./APO.\ FSDS.\ (http://www.apo.data.faa.gov).^

[^22]: ^FAA's\ Office\ of\ Environment\ and\ Energy\ Noise\ Division;\ (http://www.aee.faa.gov/noise/Aircraft_Noise.htm).^

[^23]: ^US\ DoT.\ (Thursday,\ April\ 22,\ 2004).\ U.S.\ DOT\ Commemorates\ Earth\ Day\ with\ Announcement\ of\ \$307\ Million\ Effort\ to\ Combat\ Noise\ Pollution\ Near\ Airports.\ (<http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot5404.htm>).^

[^24]: ^Leqve,\ Chad\ E.,\ Manager,\ MSP\ Aviation\ Noise\ &\ Satellite\ Programs\ (Oct\ 1,\ 2003).\ Minneapolis/St.\ Paul\ International\ Airport\ GPS/LAAS\ Initiatives.\ GBAS/LAAS\ User\ Group\ Meeting.^

[^25]: ^Chicago\ Department\ of\ Aviation.\ (1996).\ ORD\ Noise\ Mitigation\ Program.\ (http://www.flychicago.com/cnrc/cnrc.shtm).^

[^26]: ^Boeing\ Airport\ Noise\ Regulations;\ DEN;\ (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/denver.html).^

[^27]: ^Boeing\ Airport\ Noise\ Regulations;\ BOS;\ (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/logan.html).^

[^28]: ^U.S.\ GAO,\ Aviation\ and\ the\ Environment,\ FAA's\ Role\ in\ Major\ Noise\ Programs\ (http://www.transource.org/Shared_files/gaonoise.pdf)^

[^29]: ^Airport\ Report\ Express,\ Vol\ 6,\ No.\ 77,\ Sept\ 23,\ 1996:\ California\ Airports\ Gain\ \$84\ Million\ (http://www.airportnet.org/depts/publications/express/1996HTM/9-23-96.htm)^

[^30]: ^Airport\ Report\ Express,\ Vol\ 6,\ No.\ 77,\ Sept\ 23,\ 1996:\ California\ Airports\ Gain\ \$84\ Million.\ (http://www.airportnet.org/depts/publications/express/1996HTM/9-23-96.htm)^

[^31]: ^Airport\ Report\ Express,\ Vol\ 6,\ No.\ 77,\ Sept\ 23,\ 1996:\ California\ Airports\ Gain\ \$84\ Million.\ (http://www.airportnet.org/depts/publications/express/1996HTM/9-23-96.htm)^

[^32]: ^NY\ State\ 2003\ Annual\ Report\ Aviation\ Section\ 5:\ Airport\ Funding:\ Table\ I\ --\ AIR\ '99\ Aviation\ Grant\ Status\ Report\ (http://www.dot.state.ny.us/pubtrans/files/2003_annual_report_aviation_sect5.pdf)^

[^33]: ^NY\ State\ 2003\ Annual\ Report\ Aviation\ Section\ 5:\ Airport\ Funding:\ Table\ I\ --\ AIR\ '99\ Aviation\ Grant\ Status\ Report\ (http://www.dot.state.ny.us/pubtrans/files/2003_annual_report_aviation_sect5.pdf)^

[^34]: ^NY\ State\ 2003\ Annual\ Report\ Aviation\ Section\ 5:\ Airport\ Funding:\ Table\ I\ --\ AIR\ '99\ Aviation\ Grant\ Status\ Report\ (http://www.dot.state.ny.us/pubtrans/files/2003_annual_report_aviation_sect5.pdf)^

[^35]: ^Airport\ Report\ Express,\ Apr\ 29,\ 1998:\ Illinois\ Airports\ Receive\ AIP\ Grants\ (http://www.airportnet.org/depts/publications/express/1998HTM/4-29-98.htm)^

[^36]: ^Airport\ Report\ Express,\ Apr\ 29,\ 1998:\ Illinois\ Airports\ Receive\ AIP\ Grants\ (http://www.airportnet.org/depts/publications/express/1998HTM/4-29-98.htm)^

[^37]: ^Airport\ Report\ Express,\ Vol\ 6,\ No.\ 77,\ Sept\ 23,\ 1996:\ California\ Airports\ Gain\ \$84\ Million\ (http://www.airportnet.org/depts/publications/express/1996HTM/9-23-96.htm)^

[^38]: ^Denver\ Must\ Pay\ County\ Four\ Million\ for\ Airport\ Noise\ (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/oct-30.html)^

[^39]: ^Florida\ Landowners\ Must\ Prove\ Decreased\ Property\ Value\ in\ Airport\ Noise\ Suit\ (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/apr-3.html)^

[^40]: ^Lawyers\ Hired\ to\ Fight\ Noise\ at\ Newark\ International\ Airport\ (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/mar-20a.html)^

[^41]: ^Court\ Lets\ City\ Go\ to\ Trial\ on\ Noise\ Impact\ Issue\ (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/feb-24.html)^

[^42]: ^Memphis\ Airport\ Authority\ Votes\ to\ Settle\ Class-Action\ Noise\ Lawsuit\ (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/june27.html)^

[^43]: ^Minnesota\ City\ Sues\ Airport\ Commission\ Over\ Shifting\ Jet\ Noise\ to\ Their\ Community^

    ^(http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/june-11.html)^

[^44]: ^More\ Schools\ to\ Be\ Insulated\ As\ a\ Result\ of\ Lawsuit\ over\ Aircraft\ Noise\ in\ Chicago\ (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/nov-6.html)^

[^45]: ^School\ to\ Sue\ for\ Soundproofing\ from\ Airport\ Noise\ (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/dec-10.html)^

[^46]: ^Connecticut\ Residents\ Threaten\ to\ Sue\ State\ If\ Airport\ Noise\ Isn\'t\ Reduced\ (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/oct-2.html)^

[^47]: ^Boeing\ Airport\ Noise\ Regulations;\ (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/usa_list.html)^

[^48]: ^FAA,\ Advisory\ Circular\ 91-36C\ (Oct\ 19,\ 1984).\ Visual\ Flight\ Rules\ (VFR)\ Flight\ Near\ Noise\ Sensitive\ Areas.\ (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/ac-91-36.html).^

[^49]: ^WRF.\ (February,\ 1999).\ Recipients\ Of\ Federal\ Airport\ Improvement\ Grants\ May\ Not\ Impose\ Discriminatory\ Conditions\ On\ Corporate\ Aircraft\ Operators\ Or\ Similar\ Airport\ Users.\ (http://www.wrf.com/publications/publication.asp?id=1252309172000).^

[^50]: ^MassPort,\ Logan\ Airport.\ (2004.)\ Airport\ Programs,\ Environmental.\ (http://www.massport.com/logan/airpo_noise_gloss.html).^

[^51]: ^Cincinnati/Northern\ Kentucky\ International\ Airport.\ Community\ and\ Environment.\ (http://www.cvgairport.com/airport/enviro/noise.shtml).^

[^52]: ^Satellite\ Navigation\ Product\ Teams.\ Airport\ Benefit:\ Noise\ Abatement\ Areas/Environmentally-Sensitive\ Areas.\ (http://gps.faa.gov/Programs/waas/airports-text.htm).^

[^53]: ^Seattle\ Tacoma\ International\ Airport,\ Washington,\ (Approved\ on\ 6/3/02).\ The\ Noise\ Compatibility\ Plan\ (NCP).\ (http://www.faa.gov/arp/app600/14cfr150/roas/ROAsea02.htm).^

[^54]: ^NBAA.\ (August\ 27,\ 2004).\ Flight\ Restrictions\ for\ 2004\ Republican\ National\ Convention\ in\ New\ York\ City.\ (http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airspace/restrictions/2004/rnc/).^

[^55]: ^AOPA.\ (2004).\ Presidential\ movement\ TFRs.\ (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html#4/7295).^

[^56]: ^EAA\ News.\ (2004).\ ADIZ\ ADDED\ FOR\ NEW\ YORK\ CITY\ AREA;\ OTHER\ AIRSPACE\ RESTRICTIONS\ ANNOUNCED\ INCLUDE\ DISNEY\ THEME\ PARKS.\ (http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/030318_adiz.html).^

[^57]: ^EAA\ News.\ (2004).\ ADIZ\ ADDED\ FOR\ NEW\ YORK\ CITY\ AREA;\ OTHER\ AIRSPACE\ RESTRICTIONS\ ANNOUNCED\ INCLUDE\ DISNEY\ THEME\ PARKS.\ (http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/030318_adiz.html).^

[^58]: ^EAA\ News.\ (March\ 22,\ 2003).\ CHICAGO\ MAYOR\ GETS\ HIS\ WAY;\ EAA\ DECRIES\ TFR\ IN\ CHICAGO.\ (http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/030322_tfr_Chicago.html).^

[^59]: ^AOPA.\ (Dec\ 7,\ 2001).\ FAA\ unveils\ major\ airspace\ restrictions\ for\ SLC\ Winter\ Olympics,\ Salt\ Lake\ City-area\ GA\ pilots\ will\ be\ grounded\ for\ 19\ days.\ (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2001/01-4-199x.html).^

[^60]: ^Aviation\ During\ the\ Olympics.\ (Update\ 7/18/96).\ Temporary\ Flight\ Restrictions\ (TFRs)\ include\ two\ in\ Downtown\ Atlanta.\ (http://www.mindspring.com/\~cavu/olympics.html#TFRs).^

[^61]: ^AivNav.\ (http://www.airnav.com)^

[^62]: ^Homan,\ Ph.D,\ Anthony\ C.\ (January\ 200).\ Improved\ Methods\ for\ Measuring\ the\ Benefits\ of\ Air\ Traffic\ Control\ Improvements\ (Paper\ No.\ 00-0573).\ Center\ for\ Advanced\ Aviation\ System\ Development.^

[^63]: ^FAA^
    ^(May\ 31,\ 2002).\ FAA\ Order\ 5100.38B,\ Airport\ Improvement\ Program\ Handbook,\ Chapter\ 1.\ Introduction,\ Section\ 1.\ General.\ 21.\ Revenue\ Sources.\ (http://www.faa.gov/arp/aip/order/5100-38B1.htm#c1p21).^