![](media/image1.jpeg){width="9.0in" height="1.4958333333333333in"}

![](media/image2.png){width="1.75in" height="0.6458333333333334in"}

**LAAS Benefits Analysis**

**LAAS Efficiency, Safety, and Societal Benefits**

**October 31, 2004**

**Table of Contents**

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

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

[[General Approach]{.smallcaps} 9](#general-approach)

[[Incremental Benefits]{.smallcaps} 9](#incremental-benefits)

[[Scope and Key Assumptions]{.smallcaps} 9](#scope-and-key-assumptions)

[[Validation of Methodology and Data]{.smallcaps}
10](#validation-of-methodology-and-data)

[[Efficiency Benefits]{.smallcaps} 11](#efficiency-benefits-1)

[[Summary of Efficiency Benefits]{.smallcaps}
11](#summary-of-efficiency-benefits)

[[Reduced Disruptions for Straight-in Precision Approaches]{.smallcaps}
24](#reduced-disruptions-for-straight-in-precision-approaches)

[[Reduced Disruptions with LAAS Takeoff Guidance]{.smallcaps}
30](#reduced-disruptions-with-laas-takeoff-guidance)

[[Benefits from LAAS-based Complex Procedures]{.smallcaps}
32](#benefits-from-laas-based-complex-procedures)

[[Benefits Due to Elimination of ILS Critical Areas]{.smallcaps}
36](#benefits-due-to-elimination-of-ils-critical-areas)

[[Benefits for Closely Spaced Parallel Approaches]{.smallcaps}
41](#benefits-for-closely-spaced-parallel-approaches)

[[Qualitative Efficiency Benefits]{.smallcaps}
45](#qualitative-efficiency-benefits)

[[Safety Benefits]{.smallcaps} 49](#safety-benefits-1)

[[Societal Benefits]{.smallcaps} 54](#societal-benefits-1)

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

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

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

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

[[LAAS as a Complement to Homeland Security]{.smallcaps}
61](#laas-as-a-complement-to-homeland-security)

[[LAAS and JPALS Providing Civilian and Military
Compatibility]{.smallcaps}
63](#laas-and-jpals-providing-civilian-and-military-compatibility)

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

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

[[LAAS Signal in the Vicinity of the 121 Studied Airports]{.smallcaps}
66](#laas-signal-in-the-vicinity-of-the-121-studied-airports)

[[Appendices]{.smallcaps} 67](#appendices)

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

[[Appendix B:]{.smallcaps} [Order of Installation of LAAS Ground
Facilities]{.smallcaps}
70](#appendix-b-order-of-installation-of-laas-ground-facilities)

[[Appendix C:]{.smallcaps} [Derivation of Disruption Costs]{.smallcaps}
75](#appendix-c-derivation-of-disruption-costs)

[[Appendix D:]{.smallcaps} [Sensitivity Analyses]{.smallcaps}
78](#appendix-d-sensitivity-analyses)

[[Appendix E:]{.smallcaps} [Derivation of the Single Airport Delay
Model]{.smallcaps}
83](#appendix-e-derivation-of-the-single-airport-delay-model)

[[Appendix F:]{.smallcaps} [Navigation Capabilities
Baseline]{.smallcaps} 88](#appendix-f-navigation-capabilities-baseline)

[[Appendix G:]{.smallcaps} [Potential LAAS Sites Outside of the 121
Airports]{.smallcaps}
102](#appendix-g-potential-laas-sites-outside-of-the-121-airports)

[[Appendix H:]{.smallcaps} [LAAS Signal in the Vicinity of the 121
Studied Airports - Example]{.smallcaps}
103](#appendix-h-laas-signal-in-the-vicinity-of-the-121-studied-airports---example)

[[Appendix I: LAAS Benefits Analysis Assumptions]{.smallcaps}
105](#appendix-i-laas-benefits-analysis-assumptions)

[[Appendix J: LAAS Efficiency Benefits by User Group]{.smallcaps}
107](#appendix-j-laas-efficiency-benefits-by-user-group)

[[Appendix K:]{.smallcaps} [Data Sources]{.smallcaps}
117](#appendix-k-data-sources)

[[Appendix L:]{.smallcaps} [List of Acronyms]{.smallcaps}
118](#appendix-l-list-of-acronyms)

[[Appendix M:]{.smallcaps} [Runway Utilization Analysis]{.smallcaps}
120](#appendix-m-runway-utilization-analysis)

[[Appendix N:]{.smallcaps} [Analysis of the Downstream Effect of
Delays]{.smallcaps} 124](#__RefHeading___Toc86640378)

[[Appendix O:]{.smallcaps} [Severe Weather Categories Eliminated From
This Analsyis]{.smallcaps} 128](#__RefHeading___Toc86640379)

[[Appendix P:]{.smallcaps} [Cargo 'Box Value of Time' by
Airport]{.smallcaps} 129](#__RefHeading___Toc86640380)

[[Appendix Q:]{.smallcaps} [Government and Industry
Contributors]{.smallcaps} 132](#__RefHeading___Toc86640381)

[[Appendix R:]{.smallcaps} [Number of ILSs Required to Achieve
Equivalent LAAS Benefit]{.smallcaps} 136](#__RefHeading___Toc86640382)

[[Notes and References]{.smallcaps} 139](#notes-and-references)

# [Introduction]{.smallcaps}

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA[^1]) 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 121
selected airports[^2], and for five distinct user groups: major
passenger airlines, regional passenger airlines, cargo carriers,
corporate jet operators, and general aviation (GA) operators in Alaska.
This analysis serves as an update of previous studies[^3] [^4] [^5] [^6]
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 representatives, 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.

Benefits reported in the LAAS Benefits Analysis are those estimated to
be achievable by LAAS relative to the established Navigation
Capabilities Baseline[^7], delivered to the FAA in November 2003. Some
of these LAAS benefits may be reduced or eliminated if significant
enhancements of the navigation system infrastructure, beyond those
established in the Baseline, were to be considered. In particular,
approximately 95% of the estimated benefits are associated directly or
indirectly with the ability of LAAS to provide precision guidance
service. Since this type of service can also be achieved with the
instrument landing system (ILS), the installation or upgrade of ILS at
all runways estimated to receive LAAS benefits would substantially
reduce these benefits. The installation of over 100 new ILS systems,
plus the upgrade of over 300 Cat I ILSs to Cat II/III capability, will
be required in order to provide benefits similar to those calculated for
the 121 LAAS installations studied in this report. Decisions made by the
FAA and the users about the preferred navigation alternative will be
largely dependent on the lifecycle cost differential between installing
either a single LAAS or one or more ILSs at each airport to achieve
these benefits.

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[^8]. The second stage,
completed in December 2003, entailed determining the incremental
capabilities provided by LAAS, above and beyond this baseline[^9]. 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. In August 2004,
IBM delivered the LAAS Safety and Societal Benefits report. This final
report includes descriptions of LAAS benefits for three areas;
Efficiency, Safety and Societal.

### [Efficiency Benefits]{.smallcaps}

-   Quantitative

    -   Lower ceiling and visibility minima for straight-in approaches,

    -   Improved takeoff guidance in low visibility conditions,

    -   Improved ceiling and visibility minima for complex approaches,

    -   Elimination of Instrument Landing System (ILS) critical areas,
        and

    -   Increased capacity from closely spaced parallel approaches

-   Qualitative

    -   Increased capacity from variable glideslopes

    -   Increased data capacity and integrity digital data uplinks

    -   Increased capacity from airspace confliction resolution

    -   Increased capacity and reduced minima through guided missed
        approaches

    -   Increased airport situational awareness through precision guided
        surface navigation

### [Safety Benefits]{.smallcaps}

-   Precision approach benefits

-   Airport surface navigation benefits

### [Societal Benefits]{.smallcaps}

-   Quantitative

    -   Estimate of international LAAS Ground Facility (LGF) and LAAS
        avionics sales revenue to U.S. manufacturers

    -   Analysis of increased reliability of air service

> The quantitative societal benefits included in this report are
> speculative, and are included here only to illustrate the importance
> of the economic impact that LAAS may provide. These quantitative
> societal benefit estimates are not incorporated into the total
> benefits derived from the efficiency and safety benefits analysis.

-   Qualitative

    -   Continuation and possible enhancement of U.S. technology
        leadership in air navigation

    -   Noise abatement and mitigation

    -   Reduced impact on environmentally sensitive areas

    -   How LAAS complements Homeland Security

    -   How LAAS and Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS)
        offer civilian and military compatibility

    -   Expansion of air commerce to smaller communities

Table 1 shows the principal results of this analysis -- the total
20-year discounted benefits estimated for all 121 airports. These
benefits, which included improvements in efficiency and safety, were
determined to be \$1.5 billion and \$986 million for the 0% and 100%
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) equipage scenarios (as described in
the General Approach section), respectively.

Table 1: Discounted 20-year LAAS Benefits -- Best Estimate

+--------------------+-------------+-------------+---------+----------+
|                    | **E         |             | **S     | *        |
|                    | fficiency** |             | afety** | *Total** |
+--------------------+-------------+-------------+---------+----------+
|                    | **Direct    | **Passenger |         |          |
|                    | Operating   | Time**      |         |          |
|                    | Cost        |             |         |          |
|                    | Savings**   | **Savings** |         |          |
+--------------------+-------------+-------------+---------+----------+
| **LAAS Benefits**  | **\$63      | **\$79      | **      | **\      |
|                    | 8,900,000** | 5,800,000** | \$58,30 | $1,493,0 |
| **(Assuming 0%     |             |             | 0,000** | 00,000** |
| WAAS equipage)**   |             |             |         |          |
+--------------------+-------------+-------------+---------+----------+
| **LAAS Benefits**  | **\$42      | **\$54      | **      | *        |
|                    | 9,300,000** | 2,100,000** | \$14,90 | *\$986,3 |
| **(Assuming 100%   |             |             | 0,000** | 00,000** |
| WAAS equipage)**   |             |             |         |          |
+--------------------+-------------+-------------+---------+----------+

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

This section describes several important points about the estimates of
LAAS benefits in this study. These points are intended to highlight
their significance to the study and to foster discussion of their
treatment in the analysis.

-   The benefits reported in this document do not include one
    potentially important economic impact of flight disruptions on cargo
    operations. While, benefits studies typically include an estimate of
    the impact of flight disruptions on passengers in the form of
    Passenger Time Savings, the corollary of this in cargo operations,
    sometimes referred to as Box Value of Time, is often overlooked.
    Much of the volume carried by air cargo operators, as well as the
    cargo carried on passenger flights, is highly time-sensitive, and
    thus the value of this cargo is significantly reduced by delays and
    other disruptions. This was noted in a report on The National
    Economic Impact of Civil Aviation[^10]: "The key elements in all
    types of air cargo service are speed and reliability. Without both
    of these characteristics, there is little to separate air
    transportation from service by other modes. Indeed, many industry
    members promote these characteristics by offering money-back
    guarantees if delivery schedules are not met. Therefore, delays and
    cancellations have a significant and direct impact on both the air
    cargo industry and the shipping public that this industry serves."
    After discussions with cargo operators, a rough estimate of the
    value to cargo operators of avoiding weather-related flight
    disruptions was developed[^11]. This benefit can be considered to be
    a lower bound, as it includes cargo-only operators, but leaves out
    the time-sensitive cargo carried on passenger flights. This Box
    Value of Time benefit is estimated to add between \$174M and \$259M
    to the discounted 20-year benefit. The distribution of this
    estimated benefit by airport is shown in Appendix P.

-   The introduction of any new technology such as LAAS into a system as
    complex as the NAS may not yield benefits proportional to either the
    number of ground or avionics systems installed, particularly during
    early stages of implementation. Due to the difficulties of providing
    air traffic control services to aircraft equipped with a mix of
    capabilities, some benefits of LAAS may not be achieved until a
    large proportion of the aircraft serving a particular airport are
    LAAS-equipped. For example, the elimination of ILS critical areas
    may not be possible while a fraction of arriving aircraft still
    require the protection of the ILS signal for precision approach in
    IMC. Other LAAS capabilities, such as support of low Required
    Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures in the terminal area may not
    be as affected by this issue. The minimum level of LAAS equipage for
    benefit accrual is included in the sensitivity analysis. Results in
    this report may be conservative because, while LAAS benefits are
    subject to a minimum avionics equipage requirement, no baseline
    system is subject to this same requirement.

-   As air traffic increases, the fraction of flights disrupted also
    increases. This is particularly true for cancellations and delays,
    and less so for diversions. The results reported in this study are
    conservative because the fraction of flights disrupted is held
    constant for all traffic levels.

-   Given the uncertainty associated with the procedures and additional
    technologies that will be required to support simultaneous
    independent parallel approaches in Cat II/III conditions in
    combination with LAAS, IBM chose not to quantify the potential LAAS
    benefits from such an application. Any benefits that might be
    achievable for simultaneous independent parallel approaches in Cat
    II/III conditions would be in addition to those stated in this
    report.

-   In many cases, the benefits of LAAS reported in this study are
    constrained by the existence of other avionics and space- or
    ground-based systems that may provide similar capability. However,
    this assumed parity does not take into account some advantages of
    LAAS that may prove operationally valuable, such as the ability of
    LAAS to improve the availability of actual navigation performance
    (ANP) in order to meet RNP standards, or the simplicity of using
    LAAS as a single system for terminal area navigation through
    precision approach and landing.

-   Taxiway diagrams used in the ILS Critical Area benefits estimation
    did not explicitly indicate all existing ILS holds. Airport and
    airline representatives supplied further information on critical
    areas at some airports. However, the existence of unmarked critical
    areas at other airports may add to existing LAAS benefits.

-   Current guidance from the FAA suggests that LAAS approaches will use
    the ILS Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) surfaces. While this
    may be necessary for the initial transition from ILS to LAAS-based
    approaches, it may also limit the benefits to be gained. Precision
    approaches using TERPS surfaces designed specifically for LAAS,
    including missed approach procedures, may result in lower approach
    minima than are currently permitted when ILS-based surfaces are
    used.

-   The methods chosen to conduct the initial computer screening of the
    National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident records were
    somewhat conservative and may have missed relevant cases. The effect
    of potentially excluding some relevant cases is to make the
    associated benefit assumptions more conservative, understating the
    potential benefit of LAAS.

-   The methodology employed in this report estimates the number of
    weather-related flight disruptions that would be eliminated if LAAS
    were to be installed at the airports studied. In particular, this
    method addresses flight disruptions due to low ceiling and
    visibility conditions. When compared to recorded operational data
    from 1998--2000 this methodology estimates that LAAS would eliminate
    approximately 39% of the actual disruptions observed during low
    ceiling and visibility conditions.

-   Benefits reported in the LAAS Benefits Analysis are those estimated
    to be possible with LAAS relative to the Navigation Capabilities
    Baseline documented in a November 2003 IBM report. Some of these
    LAAS benefits may be reduced or eliminated if significant
    enhancements of the navigation system infrastructure, beyond those
    established in the Baseline, were to be considered. In particular,
    approximately 95% of the estimated benefits are associated directly
    or indirectly with the ability of LAAS to provide precision guidance
    service. Since this type of service can also be achieved with ILS,
    the installation or upgrade of ILS at all runways estimated to
    receive LAAS benefits would substantially reduce these benefits. An
    estimated 106 to 114 new ILS installations, depending on assumed
    user equipage with WAAS, plus the upgrade of over 300 Cat I ILS to
    Cat II/III capability, will be required in order to provide benefits
    similar to those calculated for the 121 LAAS installations studied
    in this report[^12]. Radio frequency congestion is not expected to
    be an issue for the studied number of LAAS installations[^13], but
    may be one for ILS, particularly in some high density areas, if the
    number of ILS systems needed to attain these benefits are
    installed[^14]. Similarly, installing the number of ILS systems
    required to attain these benefits may lead to an increase in the
    number of ILS critical areas, and an associated increase in related
    approach and taxi delays.

> Decisions made by the FAA and the users about the preferred navigation
> alternative will be largely dependent on the lifecycle cost
> differential between installing either a single LAAS or one or more
> ILSs at each airport to achieve these benefits.

-   Estimates of the cost of flight disruptions are central to this
    study. Changes to these key cost inputs, particularly unforeseen
    systematic changes over time, could significantly alter these LAAS
    benefits estimates. IBM constructed cost estimates through extensive
    research, working with both government and industry sources, and has
    validated these estimates with airline industry representatives.
    However, there is substantial uncertainty inherent in any estimate
    of such complex events. For example, an FAA study shows a large
    range of reported costs for both diversions and cancellations[^15],
    with direct operating costs of a flight diversion for jet aircraft
    ranging from \$900 to \$28,700, and the total cost of a diversion
    exceeding \$100,000 per event. Similarly, this FAA study, and
    others, have shown a large range of direct operating costs for
    cancellations, from \$5,000 to as much as \$40,000 per event. In
    order to reflect this uncertainty, the cost of disruptions is
    included in the sensitivity analysis.

-   Flight disruptions are not isolated events. In general, a single
    flight disruption may have an impact on a number of other flight
    operations. The extent of this impact is dependent on a number of
    factors, including the size, location and timing of the initial
    disruption, and the nature of the airline network in which it
    occurs. This connection between disruptions can be accounted for by
    adding a factor for "downstream" effects. The specific value chosen
    for this factor has a substantial impact on total benefits. The
    estimate used here is based on a survey of published research and
    FAA guidance[^16] on the downstream effects of delays, the single
    most common form of disruption. Due to the relative importance of
    this factor, and the uncertainty surrounding its proper value, this
    report includes downstream effects in the sensitivity analysis.
    Details of the treatment of downstream effects in this work are
    reported in Appendix N.

-   Estimates of traffic increases over the 20 year period are central
    to this study. While IBM has worked to ensure that the most credible
    and applicable estimates are used, there is substantial uncertainty
    in any forecast covering such a long time period. Since the
    forecasts used in this work were directly based on the FAA's 2004
    Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), this study shares the forecast risks
    identified in the TAF documentation[^17]. Changes to the forecasts,
    whether due to unforeseen economic events, world political events,
    or airline industry structural changes, could significantly alter
    the basis upon which these LAAS benefits estimates are founded.

-   The primary source of approach minima (decision height and
    visibility) used in this work was published approaches, which
    supplied 77% of the minima used. Estimates of approach minima
    produced by MITRE/CAASD's GPS Approach Minima Estimator (GAME) model
    were used for the remaining 23% of the cases, where published
    approaches were not available.

-   The pace of development and certification of procedures, both for
    LAAS and for other systems in the Baseline (particularly those with
    few currently existing procedures, like LPV) will be a key driver of
    benefits. At the inception of this analysis, IBM and the FAA agreed
    to the simplifying assumption that procedures would be available
    within four months of each system's IOC, on the assumption that
    procedure development will take place in parallel with LAAS
    development and implementation. This assumption allows benefits to
    be calculated without the added complexity of considering procedure
    development schedules by airport or runway. However, this assumption
    also represents a source of uncertainty in the benefits estimates in
    this study.

-   Delay in the development and fielding of LAAS could cause
    significant changes to the benefit estimates. Any delay to the
    assumed availability of LAAS without an associated extension to the
    end of the benefit study period will have a significant impact on
    LAAS benefit estimates.

-   Changes to the assumed rate of installation of LAAS ground
    facilities will have a substantial impact on estimated LAAS
    benefits. At the assumed rate of 24 installations per year, all 121
    airports in this study can have a LAAS installed within about five
    years of IOC. If the actual rate of installation is reduced, then
    the onset of benefit accumulation will be delayed for many airports,
    with an associated reduction in overall benefits for the 20 year
    period. See Appendix B for the schedule of LAAS installations by
    airport.

-   The pace and extent of LAAS avionics installation among airlines
    will be a key driver for LAAS benefits. In this report, IBM has
    assumed a certain avionics installation rate, based on feedback
    received from airline operations representatives. If the actual rate
    is either faster or slower than assumed, benefits due to LAAS may be
    significantly impacted. Similarly, if the extent of LAAS avionics
    equipage differs substantially from that assumed, benefits due to
    LAAS may be significantly impacted. In order to reflect this
    uncertainty, the rate of LAAS avionics equipage is included in the
    sensitivity analysis.

-   Based on assumptions regarding IOC dates, the ground facility
    installation schedule, avionics equipage rates, and minimum required
    avionics equipage, LAAS benefits accrue at each airport over a
    subset of the full 20 year period. For this reason total numbers in
    this report cannot be divided by 20 to obtain average annual
    benefits per airport.

-   LAAS is assumed to provide no operational improvements in some
    weather conditions. See Appendix O for the list of weather types,
    based on National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) indicators that were
    eliminated from this analysis.

-   Rounding of estimated LAAS benefits leads to some minor
    discrepancies between tabulated values. For example, Table 4A ABQ
    Total Benefit is \$2.375 million versus Table J1 ABQ Total Benefit
    is \$2.374 million.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The types of events that were considered in the Safety analysis are
    relatively rare events. Consequently, even one additional air
    carrier crash event 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.

-   IBM has investigated the potential quantitative LAAS Societal
    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 to demonstrate the impact of a hypothetical 1%
    increased load factor on 1% of operations. These quantitative
    societal benefits are speculative, and are included only to
    illustrate the importance of the economic impact that LAAS may
    provide. These benefits estimates are not incorporated into the
    total benefits derived from either the efficiency or safety benefits
    analyses.

-   It is possible that many of the potential LAAS Societal benefits may
    also be achieved through current or emerging procedures (*e.g.*,
    RNAV/RNP) or technologies (*e.g.*, WAAS).

# [General Approach]{.smallcaps} 

## [Incremental Benefits]{.smallcaps}

The diagram below illustrates the general approach used to estimate the
incremental benefits expected from LAAS. The first step in this process
was to determine the current and planned capabilities of existing and
expected navigation systems (collectively known as the Navigation
Capabilities Baseline) during the 20 year time horizon (from 2009 to
2028). The capabilities were those assumed to be available from the
ground and space-based infrastructure in conjunction with airborne
avionics. The second step was to identify the capabilities provided by
LAAS during the same time frame. The LAAS incremental capabilities
resulted from an analysis of the differences between the capabilities of
systems in the baseline and the capabilities of LAAS. The third and
final step was to quantify (in monetary terms), based on actual and
forecasted operational data[^18], the LAAS incremental benefits derived
from these capability differences.

## 

## [Scope and Key Assumptions]{.smallcaps}

The LAAS benefits analysis focuses on the cost savings that can be
achieved by the likely users of LAAS navigation technology during the 20
year period from 2009 to 2028 at 121 airports. These users are the major
passenger airlines, major cargo airlines, regional airlines,
corporate/business operators, and the operators of small general
aviation aircraft in Alaska who may have special needs for such
equipment because of the unique challenges of flying in Alaska. The 121
airports were selected from the relatively high-volume commercial and
business airports that are currently being utilized by potential LAAS
users, the 6 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) sites, the 35
Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) airports, and the airports that either
currently have or are qualified to receive Cat II/III ILSs (see Appendix
A[^19]).

Based on the latest guidance from the FAA, IBM assumed that the LAAS Cat
I and Cat II/III would have Initial Operational Capability (IOC) dates
of 2009 and 2013, respectively. In addition various assumptions had to
be made about the ground and avionics installation and procedure
availability schedules. A few of the key assumptions included the
following:

-   Ground facilities will be installed in the order of total airport
    benefits

-   The users will take approximately 6 years to equip their fleets with
    LAAS avionics

-   Benefits will not be attained until a required equipage level of 80%
    in avionics equipage is achieved

-   Procedure development will proceed in parallel with LAAS
    installations and procedures will be available 4 months after
    installation at each site to allow for flight checks

Since the avionics equipage schedule and the minimum required equipage
level assumptions are uncertain, IBM conducted sensitivity analyses to
determine the effects on the analysis results of variation in these
values. In addition, IBM considered two scenarios related to users' Wide
Area Augmentation System (WAAS) equipage levels -- 0% and 100% equipage
were evaluated in order to bound the potential effects of WAAS on LAAS
benefits.

In addition, a multiplicative factor was applied to the results to
reflect the downstream effects typically encountered with flight
disruptions. Finally, since the outcome of this analysis is stated in
terms of the dollar savings in direct operating costs and passenger
time, a discount rate was applied to convert future dollar values to
2004 dollars. The rate that was selected by IBM was a 7% real discount
rate, as recommended by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) [^20]
for such analyses.

## [Validation of Methodology and Data]{.smallcaps}

An important activity throughout this study was the validation of both
the methodology and specific key inputs with a wide range of service
provider and airline industry representatives (see Appendix Q). Feedback
was obtained from written comments provided by reviewers, from meetings
with principal airport and airline groups, and from site visits to five
key airports and airlines. The purpose of these meetings and site visits
was to communicate IBM's methodologies and preliminary findings, to gain
a better understanding of current and expected airline and air traffic
operations from a variety of viewpoints, and to explore how LAAS may
provide additional benefit to such operations.

Data gathered during these visits was used to either validate or correct
the methodology, the mathematical formulas, and the specific critical
inputs that IBM used to quantify the incremental benefits of LAAS.

# [Efficiency Benefits]{.smallcaps}

## [Summary of Efficiency Benefits]{.smallcaps} 

Table 2A shows the best estimate for the total 20 year discounted
efficiency benefits estimated for all 121 airports. Tables 2B and 2C
show the 5^th^ and 95^th^ percentiles, respectively. The percentiles are
obtained through the sensitivity analysis which evaluates the impact on
benefits of the variability in several key input parameters, including
the cost of disruptions, the pace of LAAS equipage, the minimum required
equipage for benefit accrual, the average length of a delay, and the
ripple effect of delays. See Appendix D for details of the sensitivity
analysis. Further tables in this paper report best estimate values.

Benefits are shown for both reduced direct operating costs (DOC) and
passenger time savings (PTS). These are reported separately here and in
subsequent tables so that readers can easily distinguish the magnitude
of benefits accruing to these two distinct groups.

User decisions regarding WAAS avionics equipage are a key element in
estimating LAAS benefits. In order to place bounds on this element, IBM
and the FAA agreed that LAAS benefits in this report shall be stated for
two extreme cases: no WAAS equipage by any users, and full WAAS equipage
by all users. While neither of these two cases is likely to be
realistic, together they provide an upper and lower bound for LAAS
benefits relative to WAAS equipage. Thus, in Tables 2A, B, and C and
subsequent tables in this paper, LAAS benefits are shown for the two
alternative cases of user equipage with WAAS: assuming no WAAS equipage
by users ("0% WAAS"), and assuming full WAAS equipage by users ("100%
WAAS").

[Table 2a: Discounted 20 year LAAS Efficiency Benefits -- Best
Estimate]{.smallcaps}

+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|                       | **Direct Operating   | **Passenger Time     |
|                       | Cost**               | Savings**            |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$638,900,000**    | **\$795,80,000**     |
|                       |                      |                      |
| **(Assuming 0% WAAS   |                      |                      |
| equipage)**           |                      |                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$429,300,000**    | **\$542,100,000**    |
|                       |                      |                      |
| **(Assuming 100% WAAS |                      |                      |
| equipage)**           |                      |                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+

[Table 2b: Discounted 20 year LAAS Efficiency Benefits -- 5^th^
Percentile]{.smallcaps}

+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|                       | **Direct Operating   | **Passenger Time     |
|                       | Cost**               | Savings**            |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$623,900,000**    | **\$735,100,000**    |
|                       |                      |                      |
| **(Assuming 0% WAAS   |                      |                      |
| equipage)**           |                      |                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$409,700,000**    | **\$479,800,000**    |
|                       |                      |                      |
| **(Assuming 100% WAAS |                      |                      |
| equipage)**           |                      |                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+

[Table 2c: Discounted 20 year LAAS Efficiency Benefits -- 95^th^
Percentile]{.smallcaps}

+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
|                       | **Direct Operating   | **Passenger Time     |
|                       | Cost**               | Savings**            |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$786,700,000**    | **\$923,200,000**    |
|                       |                      |                      |
| **(Assuming 0% WAAS   |                      |                      |
| equipage)**           |                      |                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$543,300,000**    | **\$620,200,000**    |
|                       |                      |                      |
| **(Assuming 100% WAAS |                      |                      |
| equipage)**           |                      |                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+

Tables 3A and 3B show the total 20 year discounted efficiency benefits
by user group. Table 3A lists direct operating cost benefits, and Table
3B lists passenger time savings. Further details of benefits by user
group, listed by airport, are in Appendix J.

### Benefits by User Group

[Table 3a: Discounted 20 year LAAS Operating Cost Efficiency Benefits --
by User Group]{.smallcaps}

+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|              | Major    | Regional | Cargo    | C        | Other GA |
|              | P        | P        | Carriers | orporate | O        |
|              | assenger | assenger |          | Jet GA   | perators |
|              | Airlines | Airlines |          | O        |          |
|              |          |          |          | perators |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| **LAAS       | *        | *        | **\$39,8 | **\$26,7 | **\$9,5  |
| Benefits**   | *\$434,9 | *\$128,0 | 00,000** | 00,000** | 00,000** |
|              | 00,000** | 00,000** |          |          |          |
| (Assuming 0% |          |          |          |          |          |
| WAAS         |          |          |          |          |          |
| equipage)    |          |          |          |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| **LAAS       | *        | **\$86,6 | **\$26,5 | **\$19,5 | **\$7    |
| Benefits**   | *\$296,0 | 00,000** | 00,000** | 00,000** | 00,000** |
|              | 00,000** |          |          |          |          |
| (Assuming    |          |          |          |          |          |
| 100% WAAS    |          |          |          |          |          |
| equipage)    |          |          |          |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

[Table 3b: Discounted 20 year LAAS Passenger Time Savings]{.smallcaps}
Efficiency Benefits -- by User Group

+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|              | Major    | Regional | Cargo    | C        | Other GA |
|              | P        | P        | Carriers | orporate | O        |
|              | assenger | assenger |          | Jet GA   | perators |
|              | Airlines | Airlines |          | O        |          |
|              |          |          |          | perators |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| **LAAS       | *        | *        | **\$0**  | **\$5,4  | **\$2,8  |
| Benefits**   | *\$578,6 | *\$209,0 |          | 00,000** | 00,000** |
|              | 00,000** | 00,000** |          |          |          |
| (Assuming 0% |          |          |          |          |          |
| WAAS         |          |          |          |          |          |
| equipage)    |          |          |          |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| **LAAS       | *        | *        | **\$0**  | **\$4,1  | **\$2    |
| Benefits**   | *\$396,0 | *\$141,8 |          | 00,000** | 00,000** |
|              | 00,000** | 00,000** |          |          |          |
| (Assuming    |          |          |          |          |          |
| 100% WAAS    |          |          |          |          |          |
| equipage)    |          |          |          |          |          |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

### Benefits by Efficiency Benefit Categories and by Airport

The LAAS efficiency benefits estimated in this report are attributable
to each of the five quantified efficiency benefit categories:

1.  Straight-in Approaches

2.  Takeoff Guidance

3.  Complex Procedures

4.  ILS Critical Area Elimination

5.  Closely Spaced Simultaneous Independent Parallel Approaches

The pie charts in Figure 1 show the portion of the benefits attributable
to each of the five quantified efficiency benefit categories, as
summarized in Table 2A. Tables 4A and B and 5A and B list these benefits
for each of the121 airports.

### ![](media/image3.wmf){width="3.598031496062992in" height="1.5547244094488188in"}![](media/image4.wmf){width="3.2291338582677165in" height="1.5547244094488188in"}![](media/image5.wmf){width="3.598031496062992in" height="1.5543307086614173in"}![](media/image6.wmf){width="3.2291338582677165in" height="1.5547244094488188in"}

### [Figure 1. proportion of the Discounted 20 year LAAS Estimated Benefits Attributable to each of the Five Quantified Efficiency Benefit Categories]{.smallcaps} 

### Estimated LAAS Benefits Assuming No User Equipage with WAAS

Tables 4A and 4B show the 20 year discounted efficiency benefits, by
airport, for the scenario in which users do not equip with WAAS. These
values provide the upper bound of estimated LAAS benefits relative to
WAAS equipage by users. User operating cost benefits are shown in Table
4A, and passenger time cost savings are shown in Table 4B. Each
airport's rank in terms of total benefit is shown in the third column.
In addition to total benefit at each airport, the contribution to the
total from each separate efficiency benefit category is shown.

[Table 4a: Discounted 20 Year LAAS Operating Cost Benefits -- 0% WAAS
Equipage Scenario, by Airport]{.smallcaps}

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Airport**   **Total Benefit**   **Rank by   **Straight-In       **Takeoff          **Complex           **ILS Critical     **Parallel
                                    Total       Approach**          Guidance**         Approach**          Area**             Approach**
                                    Benefit**                                                                                 
  ------------- ------------------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------ ------------------- ------------------ -----------------
  ABQ           \$2,375,000         73          \$2,136,000         \$239,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ACK           \$7,638,000         28          \$7,638,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  AFW           \$149,000           116         \$148,000           \$1,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ALB           \$8,501,000         24          \$3,298,000         \$1,088,000        \$4,115,000         \$0                \$0

  ANC           \$8,320,000         25          \$8,298,000         \$22,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ATL           \$13,199,000        11          \$9,826,000         \$0                \$0                 \$3,373,000        \$0

  AUS           \$3,149,000         59          \$2,957,000         \$192,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  AVL           \$738,000           95          \$363,000           \$375,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  BDL           \$10,190,000        18          \$2,270,000         \$90,000           \$7,830,000         \$0                \$0

  BFI           \$540,000           101         \$225,000           \$315,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  BGR           \$344,000           109         \$330,000           \$14,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  BHM           \$6,020,000         34          \$873,000           \$0                \$5,147,000         \$0                \$0

  BNA           \$2,194,000         76          \$2,194,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  BOI           \$2,521,000         70          \$2,521,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  BOS           \$10,484,000        17          \$10,484,000        \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  BUF           \$4,828,000         45          \$4,805,000         \$23,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  BUR           \$20,775,000        7           \$4,963,000         \$272,000          \$15,540,000        \$0                \$0

  BWI           \$5,106,000         42          \$5,106,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  CAE           \$1,645,000         80          \$1,643,000         \$2,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  CHA           \$309,000           111         \$309,000           \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  CHS           \$2,243,000         75          \$2,243,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  CLE           \$21,215,000        5           \$21,215,000        \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  CLT           \$11,320,000        15          \$11,320,000        \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  CMH           \$3,292,000         58          \$2,697,000         \$595,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  COS           \$6,250,000         32          \$4,600,000         \$1,650,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  CVG           \$13,033,000        12          \$7,417,000         \$0                \$0                 \$5,616,000        \$0

  DAB           \$462,000           104         \$222,000           \$240,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  DAL           \$2,960,000         63          \$1,496,000         \$1,464,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  DAY           \$2,436,000         71          \$2,360,000         \$1,000            \$0                 \$75,000           \$0

  DCA           \$27,535,000        3           \$1,927,000         \$0                \$25,608,000        \$0                \$0

  DEN           \$14,829,000        10          \$14,829,000        \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  DFW           \$34,071,000        1           \$16,127,000        \$0                \$0                 \$17,944,000       \$0

  DLH           \$532,000           102         \$284,000           \$248,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  DSM           \$1,227,000         86          \$1,227,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  DTW           \$29,189,000        2           \$23,309,000        \$0                \$0                 \$2,461,000        \$3,419,000

  DVT           \$4,000             121         \$4,000             \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ELP           \$84,000            118         \$57,000            \$27,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  EUG           \$2,595,000         67          \$1,532,000         \$1,063,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  EWR           \$9,749,000         20          \$9,749,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  EYW           \$280,000           113         \$279,000           \$1,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  FAI           \$715,000           96          \$715,000           \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  FAT           \$301,000           112         \$269,000           \$32,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  FLL           \$2,680,000         65          \$2,196,000         \$289,000          \$0                 \$0                \$195,000

  FWA           \$2,545,000         69          \$2,507,000         \$38,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  FXE           \$45,000            120         \$34,000            \$11,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  GEG           \$5,372,000         39          \$5,298,000         \$74,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  GRR           \$3,870,000         53          \$2,928,000         \$942,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  GSO           \$4,796,000         46          \$4,796,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  GSP           \$850,000           94          \$850,000           \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  HNL           \$2,667,000         66          \$86,000            \$0                \$2,581,000         \$0                \$0

  HOU           \$9,799,000         19          \$4,992,000         \$4,807,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  HPN           \$6,460,000         31          \$2,328,000         \$3,947,000        \$0                 \$185,000          \$0

  HSV           \$551,000           100         \$255,000           \$296,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  IAD           \$7,093,000         29          \$7,093,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  IAH           \$10,988,000        16          \$9,879,000         \$0                \$0                 \$1,109,000        \$0

  ICT           \$1,874,000         78          \$1,874,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ILN           \$1,046,000         90          \$1,045,000         \$1,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  IND           \$2,834,000         64          \$2,834,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ISP           \$4,097,000         50          \$3,226,000         \$871,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  JAN           \$336,000           110         \$333,000           \$3,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  JAX           \$1,778,000         79          \$1,773,000         \$5,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  JFK           \$4,527,000         49          \$4,268,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$259,000

  JNU           \$13,022,000        13          \$0                 \$103,000          \$12,919,000        \$0                \$0

  LAS           \$406,000           106         \$402,000           \$4,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  LAX           \$6,752,000         30          \$6,752,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  LCK           \$137,000           117         \$79,000            \$58,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  LGA           \$20,987,000        6           \$12,296,000        \$0                \$8,691,000         \$0                \$0

  LGB           \$5,320,000         41          \$1,787,000         \$1,589,000        \$0                 \$0                \$1,944,000

  LIT           \$691,000           97          \$594,000           \$97,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MCI           \$4,000,000         51          \$4,000,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MCO           \$4,723,000         48          \$3,975,000         \$0                \$0                 \$748,000          \$0

  MDT           \$1,464,000         85          \$1,063,000         \$401,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MDW           \$16,085,000        9           \$13,766,000        \$2,319,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MEM           \$8,906,000         23          \$6,331,000         \$0                \$0                 \$313,000          \$2,262,000

  MHT           \$7,929,000         27          \$7,202,000         \$727,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MIA           \$4,985,000         44          \$4,985,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MKE           \$12,903,000        14          \$12,549,000        \$6,000            \$0                 \$204,000          \$144,000

  MMU           \$406,000           107         \$237,000           \$169,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MSP           \$6,041,000         33          \$6,041,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MSY           \$5,091,000         43          \$4,921,000         \$170,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  OAK           \$1,188,000         88          \$899,000           \$289,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  OKC           \$3,859,000         54          \$3,751,000         \$108,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  OMA           \$1,115,000         89          \$1,115,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ONT           \$364,000           108         \$364,000           \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ORD           \$23,601,000        4           \$23,039,000        \$0                \$0                 \$562,000          \$0

  ORF           \$4,754,000         47          \$3,614,000         \$1,064,000        \$0                 \$76,000           \$0

  PBI           \$1,547,000         84          \$1,402,000         \$145,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  PDX           \$3,080,000         61          \$2,735,000         \$294,000          \$0                 \$0                \$51,000

  PHL           \$5,772,000         35          \$5,145,000         \$0                \$0                 \$627,000          \$0

  PHX           \$3,082,000         60          \$1,375,000         \$1,707,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  PIE           \$501,000           103         \$314,000           \$187,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  PIT           \$8,132,000         26          \$8,132,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  PVD           \$5,379,000         38          \$3,444,000         \$1,935,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  RDU           \$3,931,000         52          \$3,868,000         \$2,000            \$0                 \$0                \$61,000

  RFD           \$1,560,000         83          \$966,000           \$594,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  RIC           \$5,526,000         37          \$5,394,000         \$91,000           \$0                 \$41,000           \$0

  RNO           \$2,421,000         72          \$2,347,000         \$74,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ROC           \$1,633,000         81          \$791,000           \$9,000            \$0                 \$833,000          \$0

  RSW           \$5,610,000         36          \$2,915,000         \$2,695,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SAN           \$16,784,000        8           \$0                 \$0                \$16,784,000        \$0                \$0

  SAT           \$2,074,000         77          \$1,895,000         \$179,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SDF           \$560,000           99          \$560,000           \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SEA           \$9,276,000         21          \$7,304,000         \$0                \$0                 \$1,972,000        \$0

  SFB           \$179,000           115         \$106,000           \$73,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SFO           \$2,253,000         74          \$2,225,000         \$28,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SHV           \$890,000           93          \$890,000           \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SJC           \$9,198,000         22          \$7,039,000         \$2,159,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SLC           \$5,345,000         40          \$3,783,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$1,562,000

  SMF           \$2,974,000         62          \$2,674,000         \$300,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SNA           \$3,459,000         56          \$209,000           \$3,250,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  STL           \$2,580,000         68          \$2,576,000         \$4,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SWF           \$460,000           105         \$443,000           \$17,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SYR           \$1,195,000         87          \$1,193,000         \$2,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  TEB           \$3,464,000         55          \$420,000           \$803,000          \$2,241,000         \$0                \$0

  TLH           \$1,622,000         82          \$902,000           \$720,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  TPA           \$3,339,000         57          \$1,973,000         \$1,366,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  TRI           \$272,000           114         \$272,000           \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  TUL           \$984,000           91          \$984,000           \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  TUS           \$63,000            119         \$55,000            \$8,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  TYS           \$902,000           92          \$901,000           \$1,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  VNY           \$568,000           98          \$390,000           \$178,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  **Total**     **\$638,899,000**               **\$448,244,000**   **\$43,163,000**   **\$101,456,000**   **\$36,139,000**   **\$9,897,000**
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Table 4b: Discounted 20 Year LAAS Passenger Time Savings -- 0% WAAS
Equipage Scenario, by Airport]{.smallcaps}

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Airport**   **Total Benefit**   **Rank by   **Straight-In       **Takeoff          **Complex           **ILS Critical     **Parallel
                                    Total       Approach**          Guidance**         Approach**          Area**             Approach**
                                    Benefit**                                                                                 
  ------------- ------------------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------ ------------------- ------------------ ------------------
  ABQ           \$2,946,000         69          \$2,625,000         \$321,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ACK           \$11,478,000        22          \$11,478,000        \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  AFW           \$2,000             118         \$2,000             \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ALB           \$11,300,000        23          \$4,407,000         \$1,418,000        \$5,475,000         \$0                \$0

  ANC           \$5,384,000         49          \$5,372,000         \$12,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ATL           \$18,415,000        11          \$12,793,000        \$0                \$0                 \$5,622,000        \$0

  AUS           \$3,959,000         59          \$3,682,000         \$277,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  AVL           \$886,000           92          \$510,000           \$376,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  BDL           \$12,215,000        19          \$2,716,000         \$106,000          \$9,393,000         \$0                \$0

  BFI           \$107,000           113         \$49,000            \$58,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  BGR           \$445,000           101         \$436,000           \$9,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  BHM           \$7,220,000         34          \$1,082,000         \$0                \$6,138,000         \$0                \$0

  BNA           \$2,777,000         72          \$2,777,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  BOI           \$3,194,000         65          \$3,194,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  BOS           \$14,053,000        16          \$14,053,000        \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  BUF           \$6,196,000         40          \$6,164,000         \$32,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  BUR           \$26,027,000        7           \$6,213,000         \$392,000          \$19,422,000        \$0                \$0

  BWI           \$6,470,000         36          \$6,470,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  CAE           \$1,806,000         81          \$1,805,000         \$1,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  CHA           \$348,000           107         \$348,000           \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  CHS           \$3,023,000         67          \$3,023,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  CLE           \$28,585,000        5           \$28,585,000        \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  CLT           \$14,739,000        14          \$14,739,000        \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  CMH           \$4,309,000         57          \$3,564,000         \$745,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  COS           \$8,037,000         29          \$5,810,000         \$2,227,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  CVG           \$15,890,000        13          \$9,997,000         \$0                \$0                 \$5,893,000        \$0

  DAB           \$450,000           100         \$254,000           \$196,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  DAL           \$3,124,000         66          \$1,697,000         \$1,427,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  DAY           \$2,605,000         74          \$2,525,000         \$1,000            \$0                 \$79,000           \$0

  DCA           \$36,752,000        3           \$2,615,000         \$0                \$34,137,000        \$0                \$0

  DEN           \$19,332,000        10          \$19,332,000        \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  DFW           \$49,928,000        1           \$21,097,000        \$0                \$0                 \$28,831,000       \$0

  DLH           \$513,000           99          \$323,000           \$190,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  DSM           \$1,392,000         85          \$1,392,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  DTW           \$39,393,000        2           \$31,175,000        \$0                \$0                 \$4,091,000        \$4,127,000

  DVT           \$1,000             119         \$1,000             \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ELP           \$101,000           114         \$71,000            \$30,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  EUG           \$2,968,000         68          \$2,044,000         \$924,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  EWR           \$12,052,000        20          \$12,052,000        \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  EYW           \$436,000           102         \$435,000           \$1,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  FAI           \$535,000           97          \$535,000           \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  FAT           \$429,000           103         \$399,000           \$30,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  FLL           \$3,477,000         63          \$2,854,000         \$408,000          \$0                 \$0                \$215,000

  FWA           \$2,715,000         73          \$2,702,000         \$13,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  FXE           \$9,000             117         \$6,000             \$3,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  GEG           \$6,044,000         42          \$5,972,000         \$72,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  GRR           \$4,044,000         58          \$3,268,000         \$776,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  GSO           \$5,751,000         45          \$5,751,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  GSP           \$1,162,000         90          \$1,162,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  HNL           \$3,834,000         61          \$135,000           \$0                \$3,699,000         \$0                \$0

  HOU           \$12,575,000        17          \$6,166,000         \$6,409,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  HPN           \$5,460,000         48          \$2,734,000         \$2,511,000        \$0                 \$215,000          \$0

  HSV           \$563,000           96          \$306,000           \$257,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  IAD           \$9,718,000         25          \$9,718,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  IAH           \$14,353,000        15          \$13,006,000        \$0                \$0                 \$1,347,000        \$0

  ICT           \$1,899,000         79          \$1,899,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ILN           \$0                 120         \$0                 \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  IND           \$2,393,000         75          \$2,393,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ISP           \$5,973,000         43          \$4,603,000         \$1,370,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  JAN           \$395,000           105         \$392,000           \$3,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  JAX           \$2,160,000         77          \$2,154,000         \$6,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  JFK           \$5,556,000         47          \$5,250,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$306,000

  JNU           \$5,670,000         46          \$0                 \$101,000          \$5,569,000         \$0                \$0

  LAS           \$515,000           98          \$509,000           \$6,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  LAX           \$8,693,000         27          \$8,693,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  LCK           \$0                 121         \$0                 \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  LGA           \$28,334,000        6           \$16,601,000        \$0                \$11,733,000        \$0                \$0

  LGB           \$4,578,000         55          \$1,722,000         \$1,320,000        \$0                 \$0                \$1,536,000

  LIT           \$740,000           93          \$648,000           \$92,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MCI           \$5,096,000         51          \$5,096,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MCO           \$6,415,000         38          \$5,265,000         \$0                \$0                 \$1,150,000        \$0

  MDT           \$1,665,000         83          \$1,284,000         \$381,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MDW           \$22,048,000        8           \$18,093,000        \$3,955,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MEM           \$8,144,000         28          \$5,445,000         \$0                \$0                 \$250,000          \$2,449,000

  MHT           \$9,579,000         26          \$8,671,000         \$908,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MIA           \$5,920,000         44          \$5,920,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MKE           \$17,123,000        12          \$16,716,000        \$6,000            \$0                 \$274,000          \$127,000

  MMU           \$83,000            115         \$42,000            \$41,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MSP           \$7,927,000         30          \$7,927,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  MSY           \$6,352,000         39          \$6,101,000         \$251,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  OAK           \$1,194,000         89          \$859,000           \$335,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  OKC           \$4,660,000         54          \$4,537,000         \$123,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  OMA           \$1,222,000         86          \$1,222,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ONT           \$399,000           104         \$399,000           \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ORD           \$30,997,000        4           \$30,070,000        \$0                \$0                 \$927,000          \$0

  ORF           \$6,173,000         41          \$4,708,000         \$1,388,000        \$0                 \$77,000           \$0

  PBI           \$1,879,000         80          \$1,742,000         \$137,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  PDX           \$3,911,000         60          \$3,469,000         \$386,000          \$0                 \$0                \$56,000

  PHL           \$7,398,000         33          \$6,452,000         \$0                \$0                 \$946,000          \$0

  PHX           \$4,441,000         56          \$1,787,000         \$2,654,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  PIE           \$264,000           109         \$189,000           \$75,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  PIT           \$10,901,000        24          \$10,901,000        \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  PVD           \$7,614,000         32          \$4,777,000         \$2,837,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  RDU           \$5,302,000         50          \$5,243,000         \$3,000            \$0                 \$0                \$56,000

  RFD           \$163,000           110         \$122,000           \$41,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  RIC           \$6,786,000         35          \$6,646,000         \$102,000          \$0                 \$38,000           \$0

  RNO           \$2,911,000         70          \$2,816,000         \$95,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  ROC           \$2,026,000         78          \$922,000           \$10,000           \$0                 \$1,094,000        \$0

  RSW           \$7,757,000         31          \$3,781,000         \$3,976,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SAN           \$21,360,000        9           \$0                 \$0                \$21,360,000        \$0                \$0

  SAT           \$2,331,000         76          \$2,133,000         \$198,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SDF           \$387,000           106         \$387,000           \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SEA           \$12,268,000        18          \$9,536,000         \$0                \$0                 \$2,732,000        \$0

  SFB           \$154,000           111         \$121,000           \$33,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SFO           \$2,908,000         71          \$2,863,000         \$45,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SHV           \$1,213,000         88          \$1,213,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SJC           \$11,881,000        21          \$8,654,000         \$3,227,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SLC           \$6,426,000         37          \$4,693,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$1,733,000

  SMF           \$3,651,000         62          \$3,238,000         \$413,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SNA           \$4,759,000         52          \$115,000           \$4,644,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  STL           \$3,407,000         64          \$3,400,000         \$7,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SWF           \$670,000           94          \$659,000           \$11,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  SYR           \$1,571,000         84          \$1,569,000         \$2,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  TEB           \$652,000           95          \$72,000            \$192,000          \$388,000           \$0                \$0

  TLH           \$1,799,000         82          \$1,225,000         \$574,000          \$0                 \$0                \$0

  TPA           \$4,707,000         53          \$2,611,000         \$2,096,000        \$0                 \$0                \$0

  TRI           \$347,000           108         \$347,000           \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  TUL           \$1,222,000         87          \$1,222,000         \$0                \$0                 \$0                \$0

  TUS           \$77,000            116         \$68,000            \$9,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  TYS           \$1,097,000         91          \$1,096,000         \$1,000            \$0                 \$0                \$0

  VNY           \$113,000           112         \$70,000            \$43,000           \$0                 \$0                \$0

  **Total**     **\$795,783,000**               **\$562,979,000**   **\$51,319,000**   **\$117,314,000**   **\$53,566,000**   **\$10,605,000**
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

###  Estimated LAAS Benefits Assuming Full User Equipage with WAAS

Tables 5A and 5B show the 20 year discounted efficiency benefits, by
airport, for the scenario in which users equip with WAAS. These values
provide the lower bound of estimated LAAS benefits relative to WAAS
equipage by users. User operating cost benefits are shown in Table 5A,
and passenger time cost savings are shown in Table 5B. Each airport's
rank in terms of total benefit is shown in the third column. In addition
to total benefit at each airport, the contribution to the total from
each separate efficiency benefit category is shown.

[Table 5a: Discounted 20 Year LAAS Operating Cost Benefits -- 0% WAAS
Equipage Scenario, by Airport]{.smallcaps}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Airport**   **Total Benefit**   **Rank by   **Straight-In       **Takeoff          **Complex         **ILS Critical     **Parallel
                                    Total       Approach**          Guidance**         Approach**        Area**             Approach**
                                    Benefit**                                                                               
  ------------- ------------------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------ ----------------- ------------------ ---------------
  ABQ           \$1,132,000         74          \$893,000           \$239,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  ACK           \$7,638,000         16          \$7,638,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  AFW           \$149,000           112         \$148,000           \$1,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  ALB           \$5,381,000         25          \$3,298,000         \$1,088,000        \$995,000         \$0                \$0

  ANC           \$4,619,000         33          \$4,597,000         \$22,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  ATL           \$11,923,000        7           \$9,826,000         \$0                \$0               \$2,097,000        \$0

  AUS           \$3,149,000         46          \$2,957,000         \$192,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  AVL           \$738,000           86          \$363,000           \$375,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  BDL           \$3,509,000         42          \$2,270,000         \$90,000           \$1,149,000       \$0                \$0

  BFI           \$540,000           94          \$225,000           \$315,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  BGR           \$344,000           103         \$330,000           \$14,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  BHM           \$386,000           100         \$196,000           \$0                \$190,000         \$0                \$0

  BNA           \$1,142,000         73          \$1,142,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  BOI           \$2,521,000         59          \$2,521,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  BOS           \$10,484,000        10          \$10,484,000        \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  BUF           \$4,517,000         34          \$4,494,000         \$23,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  BUR           \$585,000           90          \$56,000            \$272,000          \$257,000         \$0                \$0

  BWI           \$5,106,000         26          \$5,106,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  CAE           \$1,021,000         79          \$1,019,000         \$2,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  CHA           \$290,000           108         \$290,000           \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  CHS           \$1,274,000         70          \$1,274,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  CLE           \$4,949,000         29          \$4,949,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  CLT           \$11,320,000        8           \$11,320,000        \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  CMH           \$3,292,000         45          \$2,697,000         \$595,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  COS           \$4,999,000         28          \$3,349,000         \$1,650,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  CVG           \$9,628,000         12          \$7,417,000         \$0                \$0               \$2,211,000        \$0

  DAB           \$462,000           98          \$222,000           \$240,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  DAL           \$2,960,000         53          \$1,496,000         \$1,464,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  DAY           \$1,307,000         69          \$1,231,000         \$1,000            \$0               \$75,000           \$0

  DCA           \$2,763,000         56          \$1,749,000         \$0                \$1,014,000       \$0                \$0

  DEN           \$14,829,000        4           \$14,829,000        \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  DFW           \$21,032,000        2           \$16,127,000        \$0                \$0               \$4,905,000        \$0

  DLH           \$510,000           96          \$262,000           \$248,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  DSM           \$1,227,000         72          \$1,227,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  DTW           \$13,288,000        6           \$10,815,000        \$0                \$0               \$2,461,000        \$12,000

  DVT           \$0                 121         \$0                 \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  ELP           \$84,000            116         \$57,000            \$27,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  EUG           \$2,020,000         64          \$957,000           \$1,063,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  EWR           \$9,749,000         11          \$9,749,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  EYW           \$71,000            117         \$70,000            \$1,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  FAI           \$474,000           97          \$474,000           \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  FAT           \$301,000           107         \$269,000           \$32,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  FLL           \$2,306,000         60          \$2,013,000         \$289,000          \$0               \$0                \$4,000

  FWA           \$518,000           95          \$480,000           \$38,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  FXE           \$24,000            120         \$13,000            \$11,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  GEG           \$3,405,000         43          \$3,331,000         \$74,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  GRR           \$3,516,000         41          \$2,574,000         \$942,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  GSO           \$4,796,000         30          \$4,796,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  GSP           \$850,000           83          \$850,000           \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  HNL           \$105,000           115         \$86,000            \$0                \$19,000          \$0                \$0

  HOU           \$9,495,000         13          \$4,688,000         \$4,807,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  HPN           \$6,308,000         20          \$2,328,000         \$3,947,000        \$0               \$33,000           \$0

  HSV           \$551,000           93          \$255,000           \$296,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  IAD           \$7,093,000         17          \$7,093,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  IAH           \$10,988,000        9           \$9,879,000         \$0                \$0               \$1,109,000        \$0

  ICT           \$1,092,000         76          \$1,092,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  ILN           \$1,046,000         78          \$1,045,000         \$1,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  IND           \$2,834,000         55          \$2,834,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  ISP           \$3,726,000         40          \$2,855,000         \$871,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  JAN           \$336,000           105         \$333,000           \$3,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  JAX           \$1,778,000         66          \$1,773,000         \$5,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  JFK           \$4,270,000         36          \$4,268,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$2,000

  JNU           \$411,000           99          \$0                 \$103,000          \$308,000         \$0                \$0

  LAS           \$31,000            118         \$27,000            \$4,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  LAX           \$6,752,000         18          \$6,752,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  LCK           \$137,000           113         \$79,000            \$58,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  LGA           \$13,568,000        5           \$12,296,000        \$0                \$1,272,000       \$0                \$0

  LGB           \$2,647,000         57          \$926,000           \$1,589,000        \$0               \$0                \$132,000

  LIT           \$554,000           92          \$457,000           \$97,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  MCI           \$4,000,000         37          \$4,000,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  MCO           \$3,066,000         50          \$2,318,000         \$0                \$0               \$748,000          \$0

  MDT           \$1,464,000         68          \$1,063,000         \$401,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  MDW           \$16,033,000        3           \$13,714,000        \$2,319,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  MEM           \$6,431,000         19          \$6,331,000         \$0                \$0               \$49,000           \$51,000

  MHT           \$6,212,000         21          \$5,485,000         \$727,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  MIA           \$3,082,000         48          \$3,082,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  MKE           \$5,061,000         27          \$4,843,000         \$6,000            \$0               \$204,000          \$8,000

  MMU           \$264,000           109         \$95,000            \$169,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  MSP           \$6,041,000         22          \$6,041,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  MSY           \$2,895,000         54          \$2,725,000         \$170,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  OAK           \$1,080,000         77          \$791,000           \$289,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  OKC           \$2,222,000         62          \$2,114,000         \$108,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  OMA           \$1,115,000         75          \$1,115,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  ONT           \$364,000           101         \$364,000           \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  ORD           \$23,601,000        1           \$23,039,000        \$0                \$0               \$562,000          \$0

  ORF           \$4,702,000         32          \$3,614,000         \$1,064,000        \$0               \$24,000           \$0

  PBI           \$780,000           85          \$635,000           \$145,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  PDX           \$3,030,000         51          \$2,735,000         \$294,000          \$0               \$0                \$1,000

  PHL           \$5,772,000         23          \$5,145,000         \$0                \$0               \$627,000          \$0

  PHX           \$3,082,000         49          \$1,375,000         \$1,707,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  PIE           \$352,000           102         \$165,000           \$187,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  PIT           \$8,132,000         15          \$8,132,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  PVD           \$4,348,000         35          \$2,413,000         \$1,935,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  RDU           \$3,873,000         38          \$3,868,000         \$2,000            \$0               \$0                \$3,000

  RFD           \$851,000           82          \$257,000           \$594,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  RIC           \$3,133,000         47          \$3,022,000         \$91,000           \$0               \$20,000           \$0

  RNO           \$597,000           89          \$523,000           \$74,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  ROC           \$993,000           80          \$687,000           \$9,000            \$0               \$297,000          \$0

  RSW           \$5,610,000         24          \$2,915,000         \$2,695,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  SAN           \$671,000           88          \$0                 \$0                \$671,000         \$0                \$0

  SAT           \$2,074,000         63          \$1,895,000         \$179,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  SDF           \$560,000           91          \$560,000           \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  SEA           \$8,761,000         14          \$7,304,000         \$0                \$0               \$1,457,000        \$0

  SFB           \$171,000           111         \$98,000            \$73,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  SFO           \$2,253,000         61          \$2,225,000         \$28,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  SHV           \$342,000           104         \$342,000           \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  SJC           \$4,718,000         31          \$2,559,000         \$2,159,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  SLC           \$3,812,000         39          \$3,783,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$29,000

  SMF           \$2,974,000         52          \$2,674,000         \$300,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  SNA           \$3,353,000         44          \$103,000           \$3,250,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  STL           \$2,580,000         58          \$2,576,000         \$4,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  SWF           \$129,000           114         \$112,000           \$17,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  SYR           \$784,000           84          \$782,000           \$2,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  TEB           \$1,264,000         71          \$376,000           \$803,000          \$85,000          \$0                \$0

  TLH           \$1,622,000         67          \$902,000           \$720,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  TPA           \$2,002,000         65          \$636,000           \$1,366,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  TRI           \$220,000           110         \$220,000           \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  TUL           \$711,000           87          \$711,000           \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  TUS           \$29,000            119         \$21,000            \$8,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  TYS           \$902,000           81          \$901,000           \$1,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  VNY           \$334,000           106         \$156,000           \$178,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  **Total**     **\$429,302,000**               **\$363,058,000**   **\$43,163,000**   **\$5,960,000**   **\$16,879,000**   **\$242,000**
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Table 5b: Discounted 20 Year LAAS Passenger Time Savings -- 100% WAAS
Equipage Scenario, by Airport]{.smallcaps}

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Airport**   **Total Benefit**   **Rank by   **Straight-In       **Takeoff          **Complex         **ILS Critical     **Parallel
                                    Total       Approach**          Guidance**         Approach**        Area**             Approach**
                                    Benefit**                                                                               
  ------------- ------------------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------ ----------------- ------------------ --------------
  ABQ           \$1,417,000         71          \$1,096,000         \$321,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  ACK           \$11,478,000        15          \$11,478,000        \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  AFW           \$2,000             118         \$2,000             \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  ALB           \$7,147,000         23          \$4,407,000         \$1,418,000        \$1,322,000       \$0                \$0

  ANC           \$3,061,000         57          \$3,049,000         \$12,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  ATL           \$16,288,000        7           \$12,793,000        \$0                \$0               \$3,495,000        \$0

  AUS           \$3,959,000         45          \$3,682,000         \$277,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  AVL           \$886,000           83          \$510,000           \$376,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  BDL           \$4,201,000         43          \$2,716,000         \$106,000          \$1,379,000       \$0                \$0

  BFI           \$107,000           109         \$49,000            \$58,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  BGR           \$445,000           95          \$436,000           \$9,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  BHM           \$481,000           91          \$243,000           \$0                \$238,000         \$0                \$0

  BNA           \$1,442,000         70          \$1,442,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  BOI           \$3,194,000         55          \$3,194,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  BOS           \$14,053,000        10          \$14,053,000        \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  BUF           \$5,878,000         31          \$5,846,000         \$32,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  BUR           \$731,000           87          \$21,000            \$392,000          \$318,000         \$0                \$0

  BWI           \$6,470,000         26          \$6,470,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  CAE           \$1,121,000         78          \$1,120,000         \$1,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  CHA           \$344,000           102         \$344,000           \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  CHS           \$1,721,000         68          \$1,721,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  CLE           \$6,731,000         25          \$6,731,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  CLT           \$14,739,000        8           \$14,739,000        \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  CMH           \$4,309,000         42          \$3,564,000         \$745,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  COS           \$6,456,000         27          \$4,229,000         \$2,227,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  CVG           \$12,295,000        11          \$9,997,000         \$0                \$0               \$2,298,000        \$0

  DAB           \$450,000           94          \$254,000           \$196,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  DAL           \$3,124,000         56          \$1,697,000         \$1,427,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  DAY           \$1,397,000         72          \$1,317,000         \$1,000            \$0               \$79,000           \$0

  DCA           \$3,691,000         50          \$2,340,000         \$0                \$1,351,000       \$0                \$0

  DEN           \$19,332,000        4           \$19,332,000        \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  DFW           \$28,953,000        2           \$21,097,000        \$0                \$0               \$7,856,000        \$0

  DLH           \$509,000           90          \$319,000           \$190,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  DSM           \$1,392,000         73          \$1,392,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  DTW           \$18,350,000        5           \$14,258,000        \$0                \$0               \$4,091,000        \$1,000

  DVT           \$0                 119         \$0                 \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  ELP           \$101,000           111         \$71,000            \$30,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  EUG           \$2,146,000         66          \$1,222,000         \$924,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  EWR           \$12,052,000        13          \$12,052,000        \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  EYW           \$104,000           110         \$103,000           \$1,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  FAI           \$465,000           93          \$465,000           \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  FAT           \$429,000           97          \$399,000           \$30,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  FLL           \$3,019,000         58          \$2,610,000         \$408,000          \$0               \$0                \$1,000

  FWA           \$471,000           92          \$458,000           \$13,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  FXE           \$5,000             117         \$2,000             \$3,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  GEG           \$3,814,000         49          \$3,742,000         \$72,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  GRR           \$3,833,000         48          \$3,057,000         \$776,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  GSO           \$5,751,000         32          \$5,751,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  GSP           \$1,162,000         77          \$1,162,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  HNL           \$167,000           106         \$135,000           \$0                \$32,000          \$0                \$0

  HOU           \$12,178,000        12          \$5,769,000         \$6,409,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  HPN           \$5,283,000         35          \$2,734,000         \$2,511,000        \$0               \$38,000           \$0

  HSV           \$563,000           89          \$306,000           \$257,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  IAD           \$9,718,000         17          \$9,718,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  IAH           \$14,353,000        9           \$13,006,000        \$0                \$0               \$1,347,000        \$0

  ICT           \$1,102,000         79          \$1,102,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  ILN           \$0                 120         \$0                 \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  IND           \$2,393,000         62          \$2,393,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  ISP           \$5,416,000         34          \$4,046,000         \$1,370,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  JAN           \$395,000           99          \$392,000           \$3,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  JAX           \$2,160,000         65          \$2,154,000         \$6,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  JFK           \$5,250,000         36          \$5,250,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  JNU           \$357,000           101         \$0                 \$101,000          \$256,000         \$0                \$0

  LAS           \$42,000            115         \$36,000            \$6,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  LAX           \$8,693,000         18          \$8,693,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  LCK           \$0                 121         \$0                 \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  LGA           \$18,318,000        6           \$16,601,000        \$0                \$1,717,000       \$0                \$0

  LGB           \$2,230,000         64          \$894,000           \$1,320,000        \$0               \$0                \$16,000

  LIT           \$643,000           88          \$551,000           \$92,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  MCI           \$5,096,000         38          \$5,096,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  MCO           \$4,147,000         44          \$2,997,000         \$0                \$0               \$1,150,000        \$0

  MDT           \$1,665,000         69          \$1,284,000         \$381,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  MDW           \$22,039,000        3           \$18,084,000        \$3,955,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  MEM           \$5,490,000         33          \$5,445,000         \$0                \$0               \$39,000           \$6,000

  MHT           \$7,506,000         21          \$6,598,000         \$908,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  MIA           \$3,678,000         51          \$3,678,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  MKE           \$6,732,000         24          \$6,451,000         \$6,000            \$0               \$274,000          \$1,000

  MMU           \$57,000            114         \$16,000            \$41,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  MSP           \$7,927,000         19          \$7,927,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  MSY           \$3,652,000         52          \$3,401,000         \$251,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  OAK           \$1,165,000         76          \$830,000           \$335,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  OKC           \$2,662,000         61          \$2,539,000         \$123,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  OMA           \$1,222,000         75          \$1,222,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  ONT           \$399,000           98          \$399,000           \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  ORD           \$30,997,000        1           \$30,070,000        \$0                \$0               \$927,000          \$0

  ORF           \$6,120,000         29          \$4,708,000         \$1,388,000        \$0               \$24,000           \$0

  PBI           \$899,000           82          \$762,000           \$137,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  PDX           \$3,855,000         46          \$3,469,000         \$386,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  PHL           \$7,398,000         22          \$6,452,000         \$0                \$0               \$946,000          \$0

  PHX           \$4,441,000         41          \$1,787,000         \$2,654,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  PIE           \$182,000           105         \$107,000           \$75,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  PIT           \$10,901,000        16          \$10,901,000        \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  PVD           \$6,083,000         30          \$3,246,000         \$2,837,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  RDU           \$5,246,000         37          \$5,243,000         \$3,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  RFD           \$70,000            113         \$29,000            \$41,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  RIC           \$3,840,000         47          \$3,719,000         \$102,000          \$0               \$19,000           \$0

  RNO           \$734,000           86          \$639,000           \$95,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  ROC           \$1,235,000         74          \$837,000           \$10,000           \$0               \$388,000          \$0

  RSW           \$7,757,000         20          \$3,781,000         \$3,976,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  SAN           \$851,000           85          \$0                 \$0                \$851,000         \$0                \$0

  SAT           \$2,331,000         63          \$2,133,000         \$198,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  SDF           \$387,000           100         \$387,000           \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  SEA           \$11,704,000        14          \$9,536,000         \$0                \$0               \$2,168,000        \$0

  SFB           \$152,000           108         \$119,000           \$33,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  SFO           \$2,908,000         60          \$2,863,000         \$45,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  SHV           \$437,000           96          \$437,000           \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  SJC           \$6,390,000         28          \$3,163,000         \$3,227,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  SLC           \$4,696,000         40          \$4,693,000         \$0                \$0               \$0                \$3,000

  SMF           \$3,651,000         53          \$3,238,000         \$413,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  SNA           \$4,700,000         39          \$56,000            \$4,644,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  STL           \$3,407,000         54          \$3,400,000         \$7,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  SWF           \$163,000           107         \$152,000           \$11,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  SYR           \$1,030,000         81          \$1,028,000         \$2,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  TEB           \$272,000           104         \$65,000            \$192,000          \$15,000          \$0                \$0

  TLH           \$1,799,000         67          \$1,225,000         \$574,000          \$0               \$0                \$0

  TPA           \$2,934,000         59          \$838,000           \$2,096,000        \$0               \$0                \$0

  TRI           \$296,000           103         \$296,000           \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  TUL           \$874,000           84          \$874,000           \$0                \$0               \$0                \$0

  TUS           \$34,000            116         \$25,000            \$9,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  TYS           \$1,097,000         80          \$1,096,000         \$1,000            \$0               \$0                \$0

  VNY           \$71,000            112         \$28,000            \$43,000           \$0               \$0                \$0

  **Total**     **\$542,146,000**               **\$458,181,000**   **\$51,319,000**   **\$7,479,000**   **\$25,139,000**   **\$28,000**
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

##  [Reduced Disruptions for Straight-in Precision Approaches]{.smallcaps}

In the LAAS Navigation Capabilities Baseline[^21], IBM identified a set
of operational capabilities for which LAAS is expected to provide a
benefit. Two of these operational capabilities are precision approaches
down to Cat I minima and Cat II/III minima, respectively. The
operational justification for the benefits arises from the expectation
that 1) LAAS Cat I will reduce the landing minima at runways without Cat
I service and 2) LAAS Cat II/III will reduce minima at runways without a
corresponding ILS Cat II or III capability.

In instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), if a runway has no
precision approach, instrument approaches must be conducted using
non-precision approach (NPA) procedures. The minima for such procedures
are typically a ceiling of 400 to 500 feet and 1 mile visibility
(without approach lights). LAAS Cat I is expected to be able to support
precision approaches down to a 200 foot Decision Height (DH) and 1/2
mile visibility (with approach lights). This lowering of minima can
result in fewer 1) flight cancellations, 2) diversions to alternate
airports, and 3) delays, all of which can occur when a pilot cannot see
the runway at the decision height or the airport shuts down the runway
due to visibility below minima for the available approaches. These types
of disruptions can be very costly to the users, particularly the
scheduled airlines, and can lead to major problems at the local airport
as well as regionally or even nationally. Further, assuming that a LAAS
Cat II capability is developed that meets the more stringent performance
requirements for Cat II operations, it will be possible to achieve a
ceiling/visibility reduction down to a 100 foot DH and 1200 foot runway
visual range (RVR) (with lights and other supporting infrastructure).
Similarly, further development is expected to result in LAAS achieving
Cat III minima.

In this section, the methodology that IBM used to calculate the monetary
value of the benefit achieved for straight-in approaches from a
reduction in disrupted flights is described. The methodology is based on
analytical approaches used to derive similar benefits for the Microwave
Landing System[^22] and for the European Geostationary Navigation
Overlay Service (EGNOS)[^23]. Note that although the methodology is
being described for straight-in approaches, it was also used to
calculate the benefits from complex approaches, assuming that these
approaches result in further reductions in approach minima (*e.g.,* by
achieving separation from obstacles which currently limit straight-in
approach minima) and they are approved for LAAS by the FAA.

Although the horizontal and vertical navigational accuracy achieved with
LAAS is expected to be greater than that obtained with ILS[^24], the FAA
has decided to use the ILS TERPS criteria for initial LAAS approach
implementations. This will result in the approach minima being the same
for both ILS and LAAS. If the TERPS surfaces are later adjusted to take
advantage of the improved accuracy of LAAS, either for the approach or
the missed approach segments, the associated minima may be reduced below
the minima for ILS. Consequently, for this analysis of straight-in
approach benefits, LAAS was assumed to offer no improvement over
existing ILS minima.

### Derivation of the Mathematical Formula for Calculating Straight-in Approach Benefits

### Preprocessing Step 

The derivation of the mathematical formula begins with a preprocessing
step to tailor the list of runways considered in the analysis to include
only those that are appropriate candidates for LAAS benefits. There are
a total of 716 runways at the 121 airports selected for this study.
Runways that are not eligible candidates for possible improvement from
LAAS Cat I or Cat II/III are discarded from consideration. These
eliminated runways include the following:

-   Runways not currently used or planned to be used for arrivals

-   Runways that are less than 4200 feet in length, the shortest
    acceptable runway length for a precision approach

-   For LAAS Cat I, all runways equipped, or planned to be equipped
    prior to 2009, with an ILS, since LAAS is not expected to offer any
    improvement in these circumstances

-   For LAAS Cat II/III, all runways equipped with a Cat II or Cat III
    ILS

-   One runway from set of parallel runways if the centerline spacing is
    less than 4300 feet

### In addition to the elimination of these runways, an airport (along with its associated runways) was removed if the projected demand for airport resources is sufficiently less than the IMC capacity of the airport. 

There are several possible methods for calculating the demand/capacity
ratio of any airport. IBM has selected the following approach for its
simplicity and availability of relevant data:

-   For each airport, determine the maximum sustainable arrival
    throughput during different weather conditions using Enhanced
    Traffic Management System (ETMS) traffic data and National Climatic
    Data Center (NCDC) weather data for CY2000. Since VFR flights are
    not captured in ETMS data, this method is not applicable to a few
    airports that have significant VFR traffic (*e.g.*, ACK).

-   Calculate the percent drop in observed throughput from VMC to IMC
    for each airport. A previous IBM analysis that calculated
    theoretical throughput change from VMC to IMC found that up to a 9%
    drop is expected based solely on required changes in longitudinal
    separations between arrivals. Thus, an observed drop of 10% or
    greater is likely to be associated with operational issues that LAAS
    may be able to address.

-   If the airport's throughput drops by less than 10% from VMC to IMC,
    then there is considered to be little that LAAS can provide as an
    incremental benefit from reduced straight-in disruptions. This
    airport and its associated runways are removed from consideration.

### Mathematical Formulation of the Straight-in Approach Benefits 

To quantify the benefits that may be achieved by LAAS from the reduction
in arrival disruptions due to lower approach minima, two values must be
derived:

1.  the number of disruptions avoidable with LAAS

2.  the monetary savings obtained from each avoided disruption

The product of these two values yields the benefit that can be expected
from the lower minima achievable with LAAS over what is possible with
the baseline systems (see Appendix F for a listing of baseline systems).
In this report, it is assumed that the baseline consists of existing and
planned technologies, and does not include those that might be
justified, but are not currently included in the FAA's plans. The total
benefit is obtained by summing this product over three dimensions:

1.  each year in the 20-year time horizon of this study

2.  each runway that passed successfully through the preprocessing
    filter described above

3.  all user groups (*i.e.*, major passenger airlines, major cargo
    airlines, regional airlines, corporate jet aircraft, and small GA
    aircraft in Alaska)

Expressed mathematically, this product and sum appear as follows:

$$B = \sum_{\text{ijk}}^{}T_{\text{ijk}}S_{\text{ik}}$$

where *B* is the LAAS benefit for straight-in approaches, *i* is the
year, *j* is the runway, *k* is the user group, $T_{\text{ijk}}$is the
total number of avoidable disruptions in year *i* at runway *j* by user
group *k*, and $S_{\text{ik}}$is the monetary operational savings
obtained from each avoided disruption in year *i* by user group *k.*

It should be noted that this formula gives the total operational benefit
for the various user groups, but does not include the benefit to the
passengers. That benefit, based on the PTS is calculated similarly
except that $S_{\text{ik}}$is replaced with$P_{\text{ik}}$, the PTS from
each avoided disruption in year *i* by user group *k.* PTS benefits are
calculated for all user groups except cargo airlines.

### Derivation of the Number of Disruptions Avoidable with LAAS

To derive the number of disruptions that can be avoided with LAAS, the
number can be broken down into its various components. This number can
be expressed as follows:

$$T_{\text{ijk}} = (N_{\text{ik}}U_{\text{jk}}(W^{B_{j}}A^{B}E_{\text{ik}^{B}} + W_{j^{\text{NB}}}(1 - A^{B}E_{\text{ik}^{B}}))A^{L}E^{L_{\text{ik}}})R$$

where;

$T_{\text{ijk}}$ is the total number of avoidable disruptions in year
*i*, on runway *j*, by user group *k,*

$N_{\text{ik}}$is the number of arrivals at this airport in year *i* by
user group *k,*

$U_{\text{jk}}$is the probability that runway *j* will be used for
arrivals of user group *k,*

$W^{B_{j}}$is the probability that the weather at this airport is
between the minima in ceiling and visibility for LAAS Cat X (where X is
either I, II/III) and the [B]{.underline}aseline navigation system on
runway *j,*

$W^{\text{NB}_{j}}$is the probability that the weather at this airport
is between the minima in ceiling and visibility for LAAS Cat X and the
[N]{.underline}ext [B]{.underline}est baseline navigation system on
runway *j,*

$A^{L}$ is the probability that [L]{.underline}AAS Cat X is available,

$A^{B}$ is the probability that the [B]{.underline}aseline system is
available ([N]{.underline}ext [B]{.underline}est baseline system is
assumed to be 100% available),

$E^{L_{\text{ik}}}$is the probability that an aircraft in group *k* will
be equipped and its pilots trained and certified on [L]{.underline}AAS
Cat X in year *i,*

$E^{B_{\text{ik}}}$is the probability that an aircraft in group *k* will
be equipped and its pilots trained and certified on the
[B]{.underline}aseline system in year *i* ([N]{.underline}ext
[B]{.underline}est baseline system is assumed to be 100% equipped), and

$R$ is a factor to account for the ripple, or downstream effects of each
disruption.

As can be seen from this equation, the focus of the calculation is on
individual runways rather than the entire airport. This is due to the
runway-specific nature of some of the baseline technologies, and the
fact that approach minima are runway-specific. Therefore, the benefits
must be calculated at this level of detail and then aggregated to the
airport level.

The annual number of arrivals ($N_{\text{ik}}$) can be obtained in
various ways. In this study the Official Airline Guide (OAG) was used to
obtain the current demand for major passenger airlines and regional
airlines and growth factors from the FAA's Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF)
were applied to derive the demand in future years. A similar method can
be used to extrapolate from current to future years for major cargo
airlines, corporate aircraft, and low-end general aviation aircraft in
Alaska. Since cargo carriers, air taxi operators, and GA operators do
not publish schedules in the OAG, the baseline year was obtained from
other sources (*e.g.*, from cargo airlines themselves, ETMS data, DOT
Transtat website[^25]).

Since the approach and landing capabilities are focused on individual
runways, it is necessary to determine the number of these avoided
disruptions that should be allocated to runway *j*. A logical way to
approach this problem is to determine the probability that each runway
is or will be used in IMC conditions ($U_{\text{jk}}$) and to multiply
this factor by the number of avoided disruptions for the entire airport.
Although the Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) database
contains information on runway configuration use under various weather
conditions, it is available for only 46 airports and, moreover, the
frequency of use of the individual runways within each configuration is
unknown. Therefore, runway usage for all 121 airports must be derived
based on available data, including wind direction, runway length, and
ILS placement. When possible, these derived runway usage estimates were
validated against runway usage observations, (*e.g.*, some individual
Airport Capacity Enhancement Plans[^26]) and with airport operations
representatives. Full details of the method used to derive runway
utilization estimates are reported in Appendix M.

Recognizing that in most situations, airports favor one or two runways
in IMC and therefore these runways account for a disproportional number
of approaches, $U_{\text{jk}}$ also takes into account the likelihood
that an approaching aircraft will be routed to runway *j* as opposed to
another alternative. When the wind is less than 10 knots making it
possible for multiple runways to be used for approaches despite the wind
direction, the principal runway(s) are assigned 70% of the traffic and
the secondary runway(s) get 30%. These percentages are based on actual
observations of runway use and were documented in previous FAA benefits
studies[^27] [^28] and FAA guidance[^29]. $U_{\text{jk}}$ is modified to
take account of the fact that not all aircraft for user group *k* may be
capable of landing on runway *j* since the runway may not be long enough
to accommodate a certain aircraft type.

To obtain the value for the probability of the weather being between two
minima ($W^{B_{j}}$ or $W^{\text{NB}_{j}}$), IBM accessed the observed
ceiling and visibility information for the 121 airports from the NCDC
database for the years 1998 to 2001[^30]. Instead of including weather
for a 24-hour time period, only weather during the typical traffic day,
7AM to 10 PM, was used.[^31] Since the ceiling data was only available
in 100 foot increments, it was necessary to use an interpolation to
derive the probability of weather for finer levels of gradation (*e.g.*,
50 foot increments). The ceiling and visibility minima associated with
the baseline systems and LAAS were obtained from two sources: published
instrument approaches whenever available and alternatively, the output
from model runs conducted by the MITRE/CAASD with its GAME model. It
should be mentioned here that the possibility exists that users may not
be 100% equipped with the best baseline alternative system at each
airport, and so the derivation of $W_{j}$ must take this possibility
into account by also considering the next best alternative.

Since the benefit of avoided disruptions from lower minima can be
achieved only when LAAS is available and aircraft are equipped, it is
necessary to include factors for the availability ($A^{L}$) and
probability of being equipped ($E^{L_{\text{ik}}}$) in the equation. The
availability $A^{B}$and equipage $E^{B_{\text{ik}}}$of the best baseline
system are also taken into consideration. The pace of expected avionics
equipage was estimated through surveys and interviews conducted with
representatives from the user communities, and resulted in a range of
values used in the sensitivity analysis (see Appendix D for details on
how the pace of equipage was incorporated into the sensitivity analysis,
see Appendix F for the expected avionics equipage values used).

Finally, a factor to account for the downstream effects of disruptions
is applied to obtain the total number of avoided disruptions. See
Appendix D for a description of how the downstream effect of delays
factor was incorporated into the sensitivity analysis.

### Derivation of Savings Obtained from Avoided Disruptions

To derive the savings that can be obtained from avoided disruptions in
year *i* by user group *k*, the number can be broken down into its
components. This number can be expressed as follows:

$$S_{\text{ik}} = C_{k}D_{i}$$

where;

$C_{k}$ is the average cost of a disruption in the year 2004 to user
group *k* and

$D_{i}$ is the discount factor in year *i* relative to the year 2004,

$$D_{i} = \left( \frac{1}{1 + r} \right)^{\left( i - \text{2004} \right)}$$

and *r* is the appropriate discount rate.

The average cost of a disruption to user group *k* ($C_{k}$) is
calculated by taking the sum of the costs of a delay, cancellation, and
diversion weighed by the frequency of their occurrence over a specified
past period. The derivation of these disruption costs is detailed in
Appendix C. For major and regional passenger airlines, disruption
information was obtained from the Airline Service Quality Program (ASQP)
database for the years 1998 through 2003[^32]. For cargo carriers,
cancellations were set to zero based on airline representative input and
the ASQP disruption rates for major passenger airlines were applied for
diversions and delays. For GA operators, cancellations were set to zero,
and ASQP disruption rates for regional passenger airlines were applied
for diversions and delays. An inflation factor, based on OMB guidance,
was applied to derive the costs for 2004, the baseline year for this
analysis.

The factor$D_{i}$is multiplied by $C_{k}$to ensure that the future saved
cost of an avoided disruption is appropriately discounted, reflecting
the reduction in present value the longer the benefit is deferred. A
real discount rate of 7% was used, based on guidance from the OMB.

### Example

Washington's Reagan National airport (DCA) is used to illustrate how the
mathematical formula is applied to obtain the LAAS benefit. DCA has 6
runways (01/19, 15/33, 04/22). All 6 runways are used for approaches and
only 01 is equipped with an ILS (Cat II). DCA runways 19, 04, 22, 15,
and 33 have a variety of non-precision (*e.g.*, VOR/DME and GPS)
approaches with minimum decision heights ranging from 587 to 904 feet.
An opportunity exists to reduce the ceiling and visibility minima on
these runways with LAAS Cat I, if the users do not equip with WAAS.

To simplify this example, it will focus on a single year (*i* = 2020),
single runway (*j* = DCA 15), and single user group (*k* = corporate jet
operators). Although GA volume has been restricted at DCA since 9/11/01,
the FAA's 2004 TAF shows a small amount of future GA volume at DCA which
was considered in this example. Note that since DCA 15 is only 5204 feet
long, it is not appropriate for all users, such as major passenger
airlines and others who operate aircraft too large to land on this
runway. Based on the methodology described above, the parameters in
Table 6 were obtained. Note that the benefit for this year, runway, and
user group is obtained by simply multiplying the first 8 parameters. To
obtain the Cat I benefit for the entire airport, the discounted benefits
for the 20 year period is summed over all runways and all user groups.

Table 6: key parameter values for DCA 15 example

+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| $N_{\ | $W$   | $$    | $A    | $E^{  | $$C_  | $D    | $R$   |       |
| text{ |       | U_{\t | ^{L}$ | L_{\t | {k}$$ | _{i}$ |       |       |
| ik}}$ |       | ext{j |       | ext{i |       |       |       |       |
|       |       | k}}$$ |       | k}}}$ |       |       |       |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \# of | \% of | U     | Av    | LAAS  | Cost  | Dis   | R     | D     |
| DCA   | time  | tiliz | ailab | equ   | of    | count | ipple | irect |
| arr   | be    | ation | ility | ipage | disru | f     | E     | Oper  |
| ivals | tween | of    | of    |       | ption | actor | ffect | ating |
| (Corp | LAAS  | DCA   | LAAS  |       | (Corp | for   | F     | Cost  |
| orate | and   | r     |       |       | orate | 2020  | actor | Be    |
| jet   | Bas   | unway |       |       | jet   |       |       | nefit |
| Opera | eline | 15    |       |       | Opera |       |       |       |
| tors) | m     |       |       |       | tors) |       |       | (Corp |
|       | inima | (Corp |       |       |       |       |       | orate |
|       |       | orate |       |       |       |       |       | jet   |
|       |       | jet   |       |       |       |       |       | Opera |
|       |       | Opera |       |       |       |       |       | tors) |
|       |       | tors) |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **    | **    | **    | **.   | **    | **\$  | **    | **    | **\$  |
| 710** | .05** | .07** | 999** | 1.0** | 502** | .34** | 1.8** | 760** |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

### Results

Tables 7A and 7B show the total straight-in LAAS approach benefit
estimated for the 121 airports studied. Table 7A shows these benefits
for Cat I LAAS implementation, in terms of both reduced direct operating
costs and passenger time savings, as well as for the two scenarios of
user WAAS equipage. Table 7B shows these benefits for Cat II/III LAAS
implementation, above and beyond those for Cat I. Total straight-in
benefits are obtained by adding corresponding cells from Tables 7A and
7B (*e.g.*, total DOC benefit for 0% WAAS is \$ 448.2M = \$87.7M +
\$360.5M)

[Table 7a: Discounted 20 year LAAS Straight-in Benefits for Cat
I]{.smallcaps}

+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
|                       | **Direct Operating  | **Passenger Time      |
|                       | Cost**              | Savings**             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$87,700,000**    | **\$107,700,000**     |
|                       |                     |                       |
| **(Assuming 0% WAAS   |                     |                       |
| equipage)**           |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$2,500,000**     | **\$2,900,000**       |
|                       |                     |                       |
| **(Assuming 100% WAAS |                     |                       |
| equipage)**           |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+

[Table 7b: Discounted 20 year LAAS Straight-in Benefits for Cat
II/III]{.smallcaps}

+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
|                       | **Direct Operating  | **Passenger Time      |
|                       | Cost**              | Savings**             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$360,500,000**   | **\$455,200,000**     |
|                       |                     |                       |
| **(Assuming 0% WAAS   |                     |                       |
| equipage)**           |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$360,500,000**   | **\$455,200,000**     |
|                       |                     |                       |
| **(Assuming 100% WAAS |                     |                       |
| equipage)**           |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+

##  [Reduced Disruptions with LAAS Takeoff Guidance]{.smallcaps}

A restricted ability to perform departure operations during low
visibility conditions, although rare, can be highly disruptive to
airport and airline operations. When low visibility conditions coincide
with an airport's departure bank, particularly early in the day, the
impact can be significant. In some cases it can take more than a full
day for an airline's operations to recover from the disruption to their
system resulting from such an event[^33].

Current rules governing takeoff under low visibility conditions permit
operations in various Runway Visual Range (RVR) conditions depending on
several factors, including runway markings, lighting, RVR measurement
equipment, surface movement guidance and control plans, and aircrew
training.[^34] Takeoff operations in very low visibility conditions may
be conducted with the use of a takeoff guidance system, (*e.g.*, Cat III
ILS localizer for front-course guidance and a head up display (HUD)). It
is expected that LAAS Cat II/III, as part of a takeoff guidance system,
will also provide this level of guidance, potentially at far more
runways than are currently served by Cat III localizers. LAAS and HUD
equipped users benefit directly by continuing takeoff operations during
these conditions, and all airport users benefit indirectly from the
reduced time required for the airport to restore normal operations once
low visibility conditions end (due to a smaller backlog of aircraft
waiting to depart).

Airports with multiple Cat III localizers will accrue benefit from this
LAAS capability only if demand is sufficiently high to warrant the use
of multiple departure runways under these conditions and if operational
and safety considerations permit departures from multiple runways under
these conditions. Airports with only a single Cat III localizer will
benefit from this capability by continuing to perform simultaneous
arrivals and departures by using the Cat III ILS runway for arrivals and
using LAAS on one of the other runways for departures. Airports
currently lacking Cat III localizers and airports with a single Cat III
localizer may benefit significantly from this LAAS capability, and this
analysis is limited to such airports.

Within the 121 airports studied, 22 airports have more than one Cat III
localizer. Of the remaining 99 airports, existing infrastructure
supports takeoff operations at 300, 500, 1000, and 1600 RVR at 1, 49, 3,
and 46 airports respectively. Users equipped with a LAAS-based takeoff
guidance system may be able to benefit at these 99 airports.

Figure 2 shows the distribution of low visibility conditions during the
day for the airports with no Cat III ILSs. Although these conditions are
observed at all times of day, the majority occur during the early
morning, when the impact on an airline's operation is greatest.

> ![](media/image7.wmf){width="5.395833333333333in" height="2.36875in"}

[Figure 2. Time Distribution of Low Visibility Conditions among Airports
with no Cat III ILS.]{.smallcaps}

### Methodology

In order to investigate the delay savings that may be achieved by using
LAAS for takeoff guidance, the lowest takeoff minima supported by each
airport had to be determined, including the timing and duration of low
visibility conditions. That information was then combined with departure
demand[^35]. Following that, an airport delay model was employed to
estimate the expected delays both with and without LAAS-guided takeoffs.
In this analysis, the impact of LAAS was modeled as the ability of the
airport to maintain IMC departure rates, for aircraft equipped with both
Cat III LAAS and HUD, in the presence of very low visibility conditions.
The methodology consisted of the following steps:

1)  Obtain the required data:

    a.  Airports with one or no Cat III localizer

    b.  The lowest takeoff minima supported by each non-Cat III
        localizer runway at an airport

    c.  The number of hours per year that each airport experiences
        visibility conditions below these minima

    d.  The IMC and VMC departure capacity of each airport[^36]

    e.  The total departure traffic at each airport for a typical
        day[^37]

2)  Run IBM's Single Airport Delay Model[^38] to calculate departure
    delay for two scenarios, with and without LAAS, accounting for the
    timing and duration of low visibility conditions:

3)  Calculate the average annual change in delay:

    a.  Take the difference between delays per flight in the two
        scenarios

    b.  Multiply this difference in delay per flight by the average
        daily traffic volume

    c.  Multiply this daily change in delay by the number of days with
        low visibility conditions

4)  Multiply by the percentages of LAAS and HUD avionics equipage levels
    and divide by 2 to get the portion attributable to LAAS

5)  Multiply by the downstream effect factor for takeoff delays (see
    Appendix N)

6)  Multiply by .999, the assumed availability of LAAS

7)  Multiply the minutes of delay by the cost[^39] of ground delay per
    minute for each user type

### Limitations

Following takeoff, LAAS may be able to provide precision departure
guidance, including procedural separation, on straight or curved
departure paths, potentially allowing for a higher rate of departure
operations under low visibility conditions than is possible with
localizer guidance and radar vectoring area navigation (RNAV) departure
procedures, using existing avionics and ground systems, may also provide
much of this benefit. Thus, the impact of this LAAS capability is
difficult to evaluate.

Installation of Cat III ILS at runways receiving this LAAS benefit would
eliminate this benefit.

### Results

Table 8 shows the total LAAS takeoff guidance benefit estimated for the
121 airports studied. The table shows these benefits for Cat II/III LAAS
implementation, in terms of both reduced direct operating costs and
passenger time savings, as well as for the two scenarios of user WAAS
equipage.

[Table 8: Discounted 20 year LAAS Takeoff Guidance Benefits for Cat
II/III]{.smallcaps}

+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                     | **Direct Operating    | **Passenger Time      |
|                     | Cost**                | Savings**             |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**   | **\$43,200,000**      | **\$51,300,000**      |
|                     |                       |                       |
| **(Assuming 0% WAAS |                       |                       |
| equipage)**         |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**   | **\$43,200,000**      | **\$51,300,000**      |
|                     |                       |                       |
| **(Assuming 100%    |                       |                       |
| WAAS equipage)**    |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

## [Benefits from LAAS-based Complex Procedures]{.smallcaps}

In addition to providing final approach guidance for straight-in
approaches, LAAS is also capable of supporting complex RNAV procedures.
However, a variety of other existing and planned avionics and ground
systems may also support such procedures. RNAV procedures conducted
without LAAS are reportedly capable of supporting complex operations
down to near-Cat I approach minima, and if linked to an ILS final
approach, down to the minima supported by the ILS. LAAS offers the
possibility of conducting complex procedures down to Cat I or Cat II/III
minima where no ILS is available, as well as the simplicity of using a
single system for terminal area navigation through final approach and
landing, potentially down to Cat III minima. Discussions with major
airline representatives have shown that simplification of terminal area
and landing procedures is a primary goal. Further, these airlines view
GPS-based RNAV/RNP as the navigation solution down to near-Cat-I
operations and LAAS-based RNAV/RNP as the desired transition from GPS to
(Global Navigation Satellite System \[GNSS\] Landing System) GLS down to
Cat-III operations. Based on this input, LAAS-based complex approach
benefits were evaluated only in those cases where no ILS is present and
only for weather conditions worse than those supported by baseline
system approach minima.

LAAS may support complex operations either through use of the LAAS
position-velocity-time signal (PVT) as an input to an on-board
navigator, or through the direct broadcast of waypoints from the LAAS
Ground Facility (LGF). In the former, LAAS may provide improved ANP in
the terminal area, and thus may support more stringent required RNP
procedures than other systems (*e.g.*, un-augmented GPS). This benefit
may not be limited to improved approach procedures, but may apply more
generally to airspace management, with very low RNP routes supported by
LAAS, including highly precise vertical restrictions. Such routes have
the potential to resolve existing airspace conflicts, both within a
single airports operations (*e.g.*, more precise separation of arrival
and departure streams at SEA), and among closely situated airports
(*e.g.*, runway use conflicts between ORD and MDW, SEA and BFI, or JFK,
LGA, EWR, and TEB). However, at this time RNP levels have not been
established for these procedures, and thus it is not possible to discern
which requirements are beyond the capabilities of existing systems and
which will require LAAS. Further, it is anticipated that the RNP will
vary within the approach (and departure) environment, and thus the
transition point in the procedures from a GPS-based RNAV/RNP to a
LAAS-based RNAV/RNP is not clear. Until these RNP levels are
established, the extent of LAAS-enabled RNAV benefits will remain
unclear.

Additionally, LAAS is expected to provide increased availability of
small RNP values. Low RNP values are currently limited by the flight
technical error, rather than the navigation system, which makes it
difficult to assign any benefit for reducing the RNP values to LAAS.
However, the limiting factor on the availability of low RNP values is
the navigation system and the equivalent-Receiver Autonomous Integrity
Monitoring (RAIM) performance, which LAAS is expected to improve. The
availability of RNP-0.15 ranges from 98% to 80% depending on the number
of GPS satellites that are operational[^40]. LAAS is expected to
increase that availability to 99.9% or better, except in the 100% WAAS
equipage scenario, in which case this benefit may be provided by WAAS.
This benefit is not quantified in this analysis.

The appeal of direct broadcast of waypoints, or data uplink, for complex
procedures is twofold. First, since the source of the procedure is local
to the airport, uplink eliminates concerns about version control of
procedures among different aircraft (that is, with an onboard database
of procedures, and each operator potentially updating procedures at a
different pace, there is a concern that two or more versions of a single
procedure can be in use simultaneously). Second, uplink of procedures
may reduce the burden placed on the onboard database for some aircraft.
The costs of adding and certifying increased storage capacity can be
significant. Further, as the number of procedures, including terminal
area, en-route and high-altitude routes, continues to increase,
operators may be forced to choose between the expense of database
upgrades and the operational complexity of isolating certain aircraft to
particular regions. Since the specific storage requirements for onboard
versus uplinked procedures are not yet defined (*i.e.*, even with uplink
available, procedures may need to be stored in an onboard database for
other purposes), this benefit of uplink is not clear, and therefore is
not quantified in this analysis.

In the absence of RNAV procedures, flight paths within the terminal area
during IMC are controlled by vectoring, a process that involves a high
level of air-to-ground communication and that can result in a broad
range of paths flown by individual aircraft. Reducing both the
communications workload and the variability in the time and distance
flown in the terminal area are of great interest to controllers, pilots
and airlines. RNAV/RNP procedures have the potential to significantly
reduce the communications component of this overall workload. Since
these procedures follow pre-set routes, the pilots can focus on flight
operations to follow the routes and the controller can focus on
surveillance. Further communications should only be necessary in the
event that the aircraft diverges from the assigned route, or the
controller determines that a deviation is necessary. One study of RNAV
terminal procedure development[^41] at Philadelphia found that
pilot-controller communications fell by over 60%, from 16 separate
communications required for vectoring to just 6 with RNAV routes. The
time and attention saved by eliminating these 10 communications can now
be focused on flying, and monitoring, the RNAV route. While LAAS may
contribute to the conduct of RNAV and RNP procedures, the ability of
other systems in the baseline to provide similar services eliminates
this as an incremental LAAS benefit.

Reductions in flight time variability could yield significant
benefits[^42] in terms of direct operating cost saved, improved customer
service and on-time performance, and improved predictability of arrival
times for the airlines' gate operations. The value of predictability was
described well by David Knorr *et al*[^43]: "Predictability measures the
variation in the \[Air Traffic Management\] ATM system as experienced by
the user. Commercial airlines may benefit as much from a reduction in
the variance (or an improvement in the consistency) of flight/taxi times
as they would from a reduction in average flight times. System
predictability allows for improved scheduling and more efficient bank
operations." Other aviation industry representatives and researchers
have also pointed out the high value of predictability to commercial
airlines.[^44] Additionally, it is one of the goals in the FAA's Flight
Plan 2004-2008 to "achieve greater conformity between expected and
actual flight times."[^45] Potential benefits from reduced flight time
variability are of particular importance at the nation's busiest
airports, due to the high volume of traffic handled, and to the related
importance for airlines to carefully time their operations. Earlier work
by IBM[^46] showed that flight time variability in the terminal area for
arrivals to ORD 9L is as much as 13 minutes, depending on what vectoring
path is assigned, and that a proposed RNP procedure for this runway
could reduce this variability nearly to zero. However, as was the case
for the benefits associated with communication workload, while LAAS may
contribute to the conduct of such RNP procedures, the ability of other
systems in the baseline to provide similar service eliminates this as an
incremental LAAS benefit.

### Estimated Complex Approach Benefit

As stated above, most terminal area complex operations can be
accomplished with existing or planned avionics and ground systems,
without the need for LAAS. Even complex procedures ending with a
precision approach may be performed by transitioning to an existing ILS
for the final approach and landing. This section explores the benefits
available to LAAS at those runways that do not have an ILS and that did
not receive any Cat II/III benefit in the Straight-In Approach section
of this work, and had no, or limited, Cat I benefit due to relatively
high estimated decision heights associated with LAAS. These runways
include candidates such as JNU 8 and 26, as well as DCA 19, which for
reasons of terrain or airspace restrictions cannot have an ILS
installation. The following shows a list of all runways in this analysis
that would benefit from LAAS complex approaches: ALB 28, BDL 15, BHM 18,
BHM 36, BUR 15, DCA 19, HNL 22L, HNL 26L, HNL 26R, JNU 8, JNU 26, LGA
31, SAN 27, and TEB 01.

### Methodology

A key assumption in this methodology is the decision height achievable
by LAAS complex approaches at these runways. Since MITRE's GAME model
provides estimates of decision heights for straight-in approaches, its
output can be used to inform us that these runways are obstacle
constrained to relatively high decision heights. In this analysis it was
assumed that there will be a learning curve (or period of becoming
comfortable with) for advanced capabilities such as these complex
procedures. Most newly introduced technologies do not achieve the full
potential of their capabilities until users become familiar with, and
comfortable with, those capabilities. Thus, it is assumed that during
the early years that a LAAS is used at each airport, the decision height
for a complex approach is no better than that associated with
straight-in approaches. Then, beginning in 2018, it is simply assumed
that a complex terminal area path can be designed to support the full
Cat I decision height (200 feet), and that Cat II/III minima are also
achievable. Since it is not known whether a complex path can be
constructed at each of these runways to achieve these minima, it is
recognized that this may be an aggressive assumption.

These assumed decision heights are then used as inputs to the method
described in the section titled "Reduced Disruptions for Straight-in
Precision Approaches". As in that section, the numbers of reduced
disruptions due to the improvement in approach minima are estimated.
Other benefits often associated with complex procedures, such as reduced
time or distance through the terminal airspace, appear to be
attributable to RNAV or RNP procedures, and the role of LAAS in
achieving these benefits is unclear.

### Limitations

For some runways included in this complex benefit estimate, it may be
possible to install an ILS. Installation of an ILS would change the
baseline against which LAAS is evaluated, and that runway's incremental
LAAS-based complex approach benefit would be eliminated. Efforts to
obtain data on ILS siting potential at NAS runways have not yet been
fruitful.

The complete solution to the question of LAAS complex approaches
involves significant complex technical issues beyond the scope of this
study. This method assumes that the complex approach segment has allowed
the aircraft to avoid controlling obstacles and intercept the final
approach path at a point closer to the runway than current procedures. A
preliminary evaluation of decision height improvements due to short
finals, conducted by CAASD using the GAME tool, and based on GLS TERPS,
indicated that few, if any, of the 121 airports would achieve any
decision height benefit from such short finals. The impact of possible
future changes in TERPS for LAAS approaches on achievable decision
height for short final is unknown.

### Results

Tables 9A and 9B show the total LAAS complex approach benefit estimated
for the 121 airports studied. Table 9A shows these benefits for Cat I
LAAS implementation, in terms of both reduced direct operating costs and
passenger time savings, as well as for the two scenarios of user WAAS
equipage. Table 9B shows these benefits for Cat II/III LAAS
implementation. Total complex approach benefits are obtained by adding
corresponding cells from Tables 9A and 9B (*e.g.*, total DOC benefit for
0% WAAS is \$ 101.5M = \$95.5M + \$6.0M)

[Table 9a: Discounted 20 year LAAS Complex Approach Benefits for Cat
I]{.smallcaps}

+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                     | **Direct Operating    | **Passenger Time      |
|                     | Cost**                | Savings**             |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**   | **\$95,500,000**      | **\$109,800,000**     |
|                     |                       |                       |
| **(Assuming 0% WAAS |                       |                       |
| equipage)**         |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**   | **\$0**               | **\$0**               |
|                     |                       |                       |
| **(Assuming 100%    |                       |                       |
| WAAS equipage)**    |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

[Table 9b: Discounted 20 year LAAS Complex Approach Benefits for Cat
II/III]{.smallcaps}

+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                     | **Direct Operating    | **Passenger Time      |
|                     | Cost**                | Savings**             |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**   | **\$6,000,000**       | **\$7,500,000**       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| **(Assuming 0% WAAS |                       |                       |
| equipage)**         |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**   | **\$6,000,000**       | **\$7,500,000**       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| **(Assuming 100%    |                       |                       |
| WAAS equipage)**    |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

## [Benefits Due to Elimination of ILS Critical Areas]{.smallcaps}

Under certain weather conditions, the ILS signal must be protected by
ensuring that aircraft or other vehicles do not enter areas on the
airport surface where they may interfere with the ILS signal quality.
These areas are called ILS critical areas, and are shown on taxiway
diagrams, and are marked with appropriate signage on the airport
surface. These critical areas require that aircraft taxiing into
position for takeoff, or to cross the runway, must hold short at some
distance from the runway. The critical area is protected when instrument
approaches are being conducted with visibility less than or equal to 2
miles or ceilings less than or equal to 800 feet.[^47] Figure 3
illustrates an ILS critical area on Cincinnati's runway 18L.

![](media/image8.png){width="1.71875in" height="2.9791666666666665in"}

[Figure 3. Example of an ILS Critical Area hold.]{.smallcaps}

Protection of ILS critical areas may cause delays to both the arriving
aircraft, and to aircraft taxiing on the airport surface. The impact
that LAAS may have on each of these delays is explored in the following
sections.

### Arrival Delay due to Protection of ILS Critical Areas

When arrival and departure operations are being conducted during the
same period on a single runway with an ILS critical area, the arriving
aircraft must be spaced further apart longitudinally in order to allow
for the time required for the departing aircraft to taxi through the
critical area and onto the active runway. This results in a reduced rate
of operations on that runway.

LAAS, when used for precision landing guidance in IMC, is expected to
eliminate the need for ILS critical areas on the airport surface. With
departing aircraft able to taxi closer to the runway, less time is
required for their final taxi into position for takeoff, with a
resulting reduction in required longitudinal spacing between sequential
arrivals as well as between arrivals and departures. Thus, the
elimination of ILS critical areas should allow a higher pace of
operations on these runways where both arrival and departure operations
are being conducted during reduced weather minimums. Based on input from
airline representatives, actual GPS approach minima were used as a
baseline. In the absence of actual GPS approach minima, RNP-0.3 minima
from the GAME model were used. The purpose of this section is to
estimate the impact that ILS critical areas have on airport capacity and
average arrival delays.

The following is the methodology that was used in this analysis.

### Methodology

1.  Identify ILS critical areas within the 121 studied airports

2.  Identify which of the runways associated with these critical areas
    are used for both arrivals and departures during IMC

3.  Calculate the estimated time in seconds to taxi through each
    critical area[^48]

4.  Determine the minimum required aircraft time separation at the
    runway threshold, for two cases:

    a.  No critical area: Separation is dictated by wake vortex
        separation standards[^49]

    b.  ILS critical area: Separation between affected arriving aircraft
        is increased by the time needed for the departing aircraft to
        taxi through the critical area

5.  Convert the minimum aircraft time separation into a runway capacity
    per hour for each case[^50]

6.  Calculate the percentage of time that weather is between LAAS minima
    and baseline minima

    a.  Use published minima associated with GPS procedures whenever
        available

    b.  In the absence of actual GPS minima, use GAME RNP-0.3 minima

7.  Use IBM's Single Airport Delay Model to estimate the flight delays
    associated with each of these cases for a typical[^51] traffic
    volume day

8.  Take the difference in delays between these two cases to get the
    one-day delay savings for ILS critical area elimination

9.  Multiply by the percent of LAAS avionics equipage

10. Multiply by the downstream effect factor (see Appendix N)

11. Multiple by .999, the assumed availability of LAAS

12. Annualize the one-day delay savings and multiply by the cost[^52] of
    airborne delay for each user group in \$/min

### Limitations

ILS Critical Areas were identified from airport taxiway diagrams. ILS
Critical Areas that are not identified on the taxiway diagrams (*e.g.*,
ILS critical area between SEA 16R and 16L, identified by SEA airport and
airline representatives), and where runway operations include IMC
arrivals and departures, are not included and may provide additional
potential benefits.

### Example: Cincinnati Airport (CVG)

Typical runway configurations at CVG include departures on runway 27,
and both departures and arrivals on either 18L/R or 36L/R, depending on
wind conditions. CVG has an ILS critical area hold on every runway.
Since runway 27 is dedicated to departures, it was assumed that most
departures will be sent to this runway, with only those departures above
and beyond the capacity of runway 27 being sent to the other runways.
The OAG schedule data show that the IMC departure capacity[^53] of
runway 27 is exceeded 11 of the 16 hours between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. Thus,
in IMC the demand that exceeds runway 27's capacity (approximately 160
departures per day) must use either 18L/R or 36L/R, depending on wind
direction. It is these aircraft that are subject to hold at the ILS
critical areas, and which will thus require greater spacing between
arrivals in order to execute their departure.

Applying the steps of the methodology outlined above, it was found that
CVG's ILS critical areas require aircraft to taxi an additional 15
seconds when departing on runways 18R and 36L and 25 seconds when
departing on runways 18L and 36R. This additional taxi time results in a
¾ mile increased separation between arrivals on runway 18R/36L, and 1¼
mile additional separation for 18L/36R. Next, the change in arrival
capacity represented by these increased arrival separations was
calculated, and used to estimate changes in airport delays. Finally, a
total annual direct operating cost savings and passenger time savings
due to reduced delays from ILS critical area elimination at CVG was
calculated. For CVG, discounted 20 year Cat I and Cat II/III benefits
for the scenario in which no users equip with WAAS is \$5.6M for DOC and
\$5.9M for PTS. Discounted 20 year Cat I and Cat II/III benefit for the
scenario in which all users equip with WAAS is \$2.2M for DOC and \$2.3M
for PTS.

### Results

Tables 10A and 10B show the total LAAS ILS critical area arrival delay
benefit estimated for the 121 airports studied. Table 10A shows these
benefits for Cat I LAAS implementation, in terms of both reduced direct
operating costs and passenger time savings, as well as for the two
scenarios of user WAAS equipage. Table 10B shows these benefits for Cat
II/III LAAS implementation. Total benefits are obtained by adding
corresponding cells from Tables 10A and 10B (*e.g.*, total DOC benefit
for 0% WAAS is \$ 8.2M = \$5.3M + \$2.9M).

[Table 10a: Discounted 20 year LAAS ILS Critical Area Arrival Delay
Benefits for Cat I]{.smallcaps}

+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
|                       | **Direct Operating  | **Passenger Time      |
|                       | Cost**              | Savings**             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$5,300,000**     | **\$5,600,000**       |
|                       |                     |                       |
| **(Assuming 0% WAAS   |                     |                       |
| equipage)**           |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$900,000**       | **\$900,000**         |
|                       |                     |                       |
| **(Assuming 100% WAAS |                     |                       |
| equipage)**           |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+

[Table 10b: Discounted 20 year LAAS ILS Critical Area Arrival Delay
Benefits for Cat II/III]{.smallcaps}

+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
|                       | **Direct Operating  | **Passenger Time      |
|                       | Cost**              | Savings**             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$2,900,000**     | **\$3,100,000**       |
|                       |                     |                       |
| **(Assuming 0% WAAS   |                     |                       |
| equipage)**           |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$2,900,000**     | **\$3,100,000**       |
|                       |                     |                       |
| **(Assuming 100% WAAS |                     |                       |
| equipage)**           |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+

### Taxi Time Delay due to Protection of ILS Critical Areas

The elimination of an ILS critical area may allow for a less impeded
flow of arrival and departure ground operations across runways that
currently have critical areas requiring a hold. The purpose of this
section is to estimate the impact that ILS critical areas have on
aircraft taxi operations.

Since multiple factors affect the pace of ground operations, it is
necessary to attempt to isolate the contribution to taxi time delay that
comes from protection of the ILS critical areas. Although the
requirement to protect the critical area is limited to ceiling and
visibility conditions below 800 feet or 2 miles, anecdotal evidence and
interviews with industry representatives suggests that critical areas
are sometimes protected even in conditions outside of these limits. This
practice complicates the process of isolating the operational impact of
ILS critical area protection.

Observed taxi times were collected for each airport for weather
conditions above and below the GPS minima (in absence of actual GPS
minima, use GAME RNP .3 minima). These actual taxi times were then
compared to the unimpeded, or expected, taxi times. For conditions at or
below the GPS minima limits, the difference between these is simply the
IMC taxi delay (observed time -- expected time). However, there are taxi
delays even in VMC, so the calculated IMC taxi delay was normalized by
removing this VMC delay. The remaining IMC taxi delay should reflect
conditions that are unique to the airport's IMC operational conditions.
Subtracting all of the VMC taxi delay in the normalization step may be
excessive, as there may be more volume related taxi delays in VMC than
IMC. However, taking this step suggests that the resulting estimate is
conservative. One final step, the subtraction of the normalized IMC
delay averaged over all airports without an ILS critical area (34 of 121
airports studied have a critical area hold[^54], consisting of 91 total
runways), should help to eliminate those delays attributable to weather
and congestion, leaving delays due primarily to protection of ILS
critical areas.

The following is the methodology that was employed in this analysis:

### Methodology

1.  Identify ILS critical areas within the 121 studied airports

2.  Identify the actual and unimpeded (expected) taxi-in and taxi-out
    times from the ASPM database

3.  Calculate the percentage of time that weather is between LAAS minima
    and baseline minima

    a.  Use Baseline GPS minima whenever possible

    b.  In the absence of actual GPS minima, use GAME RNP-0.3 minima

4.  Calculate a normalized average IMC taxi-in and taxi-out delay per
    flight that isolates the delay due to protection of ILS critical
    areas:

    a.  Obtain the raw IMC taxi time delay by subtracting the IMC
        unimpeded taxi time from the IMC observed taxi time

    b.  Obtain the raw VMC taxi time delay by subtracting the VMC
        unimpeded taxi time from the VMC observed taxi time

    c.  Obtain the normalized IMC taxi time delay by subtracting the raw
        VMC delay from raw IMC delay -- this normalized IMC taxi delay
        represents delays in IMC, which may be due to both general
        operational slowdown in IMC and to protection of ILS critical
        areas

    d.  Further isolate the taxi delay specifically due to protection of
        critical areas by subtracting the average IMC taxi delay,
        normalized for VMC delay, observed at airports without critical
        areas

5.  Multiply this final normalized IMC taxi time delay, assumed to be
    due primarily to protection of ILS critical areas, by the cost of
    ground delay for each user group

6.  Adjust these delays for the percent of LAAS equipage

7.  Multiply by the downstream effect factor (see Appendix N)

8.  Multiply by .999, the assumed availability of LAAS

9.  Annualize the one-day delay savings and multiply by the cost[^55] of
    ground delay for each user group in \$/min

Note that this methodology accounts for taxi delays associated with
aircraft, but does not include restrictions on other types of airport
surface traffic due to protection of ILS critical areas.

### Results

Tables 11A and 11B show the total LAAS benefits from the reduction in
taxi times made possible with the elimination of ILS critical areas.
Table 11A shows these benefits for Cat I LAAS implementation, in terms
of both reduced direct operating costs and passenger time savings, as
well as for the two scenarios of user WAAS equipage. Table 11B shows
these benefits for Cat II/III LAAS implementation. Total taxi delay
benefits are obtained by adding corresponding cells from Tables 11A and
11B (*e.g.*, total DOC benefit for 0% WAAS is \$ 27.9M = \$17.6M +
\$10.3M)

[Table 11a: Discounted 20 year LAAS ILS Critical Area Taxi-In and
Taxi-Out Delay Benefits for Cat I]{.smallcaps}

+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
|                       | **Direct Operating  | **Passenger Time      |
|                       | Cost**              | Savings**             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$17,600,000**    | **\$28,300,000**      |
|                       |                     |                       |
| **(Assuming 0% WAAS   |                     |                       |
| equipage)**           |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$2,800,000**     | **\$4,600,000**       |
|                       |                     |                       |
| **(Assuming 100% WAAS |                     |                       |
| equipage)**           |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+

[Table 11b: Discounted 20 year LAAS ILS Critical Area Taxi-In and
Taxi-Out Delay Benefits for Cat II/III]{.smallcaps}

+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
|                       | **Direct Operating  | **Passenger Time      |
|                       | Cost**              | Savings**             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$10,300,000**    | **\$16,600,000**      |
|                       |                     |                       |
| **(Assuming 0% WAAS   |                     |                       |
| equipage)**           |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$10,300,000**    | **\$16,600,000**      |
|                       |                     |                       |
| **(Assuming 100% WAAS |                     |                       |
| equipage)**           |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+

##  [Benefits for Closely Spaced Parallel Approaches]{.smallcaps}

During VMC, the FAA allows aircraft to conduct simultaneous independent
approaches on parallel runways separated by as little as 700 feet as
long as the pilots take over separation responsibility using "see and
avoid" principles.

When weather deteriorates, maintaining visual separation is no longer
possible and there are specific rules about the required separation
between runways under which aircraft can conduct simultaneous
independent parallel approaches. Currently, the minimum required
separation is 4300 feet in IMC (without special Air Traffic Control
(ATC) radar surveillance equipment, called a Precision Runway Monitor
(PRM)). This separation is required to ensure adequate time to prevent a
collision in the event that one of the aircraft on a parallel runway
approach (the blundering aircraft) turns in the direction of the second
aircraft (the evading aircraft). The separation distance is a function
of the surveillance error, navigation system error, flight technical
error, and the time required to detect the blunder, alert the evading
aircraft, and conduct an evasive maneuver.

With improved surveillance, pilot and controller training, and special
procedures, it is possible to conduct simultaneous independent parallel
approaches down to as little as 3000 feet runway centerline separations.
This entails the use of PRM, a high update radar and high resolution
display, which can cost more than \$10M per unit[^56]. Currently, if the
runway centerlines are separated between 2500 and 3000 feet, the
approaches must be dependent with the aircraft positioned so as to have
a minimum 1.5 nautical mile stagger on the parallel runways. For runways
separated by less than 2500 feet, neither independent nor dependent
approaches can be conducted in IMC due to the potential hazardous
effects of wake vortices, and consequently one of the parallel runways
is shut down for arrivals.

### Evidence in Support of Potential LAAS Benefits

Given that the separation distances are based in part on navigation
system errors, it seems logical to assume that it may be possible to
achieve reductions in the required separations distances (*i.e.*, below
4300 feet) with new navigation systems such as WAAS and LAAS.

In fact, a number of research efforts have been conducted on this issue
as well as a host of other technical issues related to achieving
increased airport capacity through a reduction in runway separations.
These research efforts have included:

-   Various studies by Sharon Houck and her colleagues at Stanford
    University, showing the feasibility and potential benefits of WAAS
    or LAAS combined with tunnel-in-the-sky displays to reduce runway
    spacing while maintaining currently accepted safety levels. [^57]
    [^58] [^59]

-   NASA's Terminal Area Productivity Program which includes the
    Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing (AILS) and the Closely
    Spaced Parallel Approach (CSPA) Program. [^60] As part of this
    effort, NASA has been investigating ways to mitigate the effects of
    wake vortices on closely spaced parallel approaches.[^61]

-   Investigations of parallel runway technical issues and air traffic
    control procedures conducted by RTCA SC-186, Working Group 1.[^62]

-   Studies by [Eurocontrol]{.smallcaps} of the benefits of the Ground
    Based Augmentation System (GBAS), including studies specific to
    simultaneous independent operations.[^63] [^64] [^65]

-   Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Lincoln Lab analyses and
    tests of PRM and associated procedures.[^66]

-   Analyses by MITRE/CAASD over the past 20 years supporting the FAA's
    research, feasibility studies, and certification of various
    simultaneous independent parallel approach procedures (including
    most recently, the RNP Parallel Approach Transition or RPAT) as well
    as investigating reductions in wake turbulence constraints. [^67]
    [^68] [^69] [^70] [^71]

It is clear from these studies that the largest contributor to the
required separation between parallel runways is surveillance error,
flight technical error, and the distance needed to detect and resolve
potential blunders. Although navigation system errors are not
insignificant, their contribution to the required runway separation is
minor (*i.e.*, less than 20% of the 4300' separation requirement)
compared to other errors and required distances.

Without new technologies to reduce the size of the surveillance errors
and flight technical errors as well as automated methods for detecting
and resolving blunders, LAAS alone is likely to have a negligible impact
on the reduction of lateral separations required for simultaneous
independent parallel approaches.

Nevertheless, the existing studies indicate that LAAS can be combined
with other technologies such as a tunnel-in-the-sky display or Automated
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and Cockpit Display of Traffic
Information (CDTI) to enable those technologies to achieve performances
that they would not be able to attain without LAAS. For example, Houck
et al.[^72] illustrated that a tunnel-in-the-sky display in the cockpit
combined with linear instrument approach corridors made possible with
WAAS can result in reductions in the required separation between
parallel runways from 4300 feet to 3100 feet. Clearly, with the greater
horizontal and vertical accuracy of LAAS when compared to WAAS, it
should be possible for LAAS to achieve and possibly surpass the
reduction to 3100 feet estimated to be attainable with WAAS.

Although not explicitly tied to LAAS, the FAA's Safe Flight 21 program
indicates that ADS-B could provide PRM-like capability at a wider range
of airports[^73]. Since the utility of ADS-B is linked to the accuracy
and availability of its inputs, utilizing the best available positioning
information (*i.e.*, LAAS, where available) will maximize ADS-B's value.
The FAA is also exploring the use of RPAT (an ILS approach path on one
track combined with an RNP approach procedure and a visual guided side
step maneuver on the parallel track) for use with closely spaced
parallel runways. The possibility of using LAAS to increase the
usability of RPAT procedures appears to hold some promise, but is a
research topic outside of the scope of this benefits analysis.

Given the uncertainty associated with the procedures and additional
technologies that will be required to support simultaneous independent
parallel approaches in Cat II/III conditions in combination with LAAS,
IBM chose not to quantify the potential LAAS benefits from such an
application. Any benefits that might be achievable for simultaneous
independent parallel approaches in Cat II/III conditions would be in
addition to those stated in this report.

In the following analysis, the potential improvement that may be
achieved when LAAS is combined with improved cockpit displays was
estimated for both the 0% and 100% WAAS user equipage scenarios. For the
100% WAAS equipage case the incremental accuracy of LAAS over WAAS is
not expected to produce an appreciable difference in the required runway
centerline separation requirement for simultaneous independent parallel
approaches, and LAAS accrues benefits for the years prior to WAAS Cat I
capability in 2015.

There are 12 airports among the 121 candidate airports in the LAAS
benefits analysis that would be affected if the required separation for
simultaneous independent parallel approaches were reduced from 4300 feet
to 3100 feet. They include:

-   Detroit (DTW) • Memphis (MEM) • Portland (PDX)

-   Ft. Lauderdale (FLL) • Milwaukee (MKE) • Raleigh-Durham (RDU)

-   Jackson (JAN) • Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) • Salt Lake City (SLC)

-   Long Beach (LGB) • New York -- Kennedy (JFK) • Tampa (TPA)

Minneapolis-St. Paul already has a PRM and thus is unlikely to benefit
from a combination of LAAS and other technologies and therefore it was
excluded from the analysis. Ft. Lauderdale, Salt Lake City, Memphis, and
New York - Kennedy, are listed in the Aviation Capacity Enhancement
(ACE) Plan[^74] as sites recommended for a PRM. It is possible that
these airports may be too far along the procurement path to have LAAS
make a difference. However, since delays in implementation may still
occur, it was decided to include these airports in the analysis. The
remaining airports (Tampa, Detroit, Milwaukee, Jackson, Raleigh-Durham,
Long Beach, and Portland) are not in the list of sites recommended for a
PRM, and may be candidates for a capacity improvement with LAAS.

Using capacities from the FAA benchmark report[^75] and FAA's ASD
organization, an estimate was obtained of the impact that bad weather
has on these airports and the magnitude of the potential arrival
capacity gains that may be achieved if the capacity from the parallel
runways at these airports is partly or wholly regained with LAAS and
associated technologies. Note that these capacity gains are due to the
availability of runways that would otherwise be closed due to
insufficient runway separation or to runway pairs that would be reduced
to conducting dependent approaches. Thus, these gains are above and
beyond those calculated in the straight-in analysis described earlier in
this report. Table 12 contains a list of the 11 airports that were part
of this analysis and their capacities. Note that the capacity reduction
at these airports ranges from 14% at Detroit to a high of 67% at Long
Beach. A reduction of over 50% is probably caused by the closing of one
of the two parallel runways whereas a more limited reduction in capacity
(*e.g.*, 32% at MEM) is likely to indicate the use of dependent parallel
approaches at the airport when the weather deteriorates.

[Table 12. Capacities of Airports with Parallel Runways Between 3100 and
4300 ft. Separations Between Centerlines (Excluding MSP)]{.smallcaps}

  -------------- ---------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  Airport ID     Airport Name     Optimum Hourly Reduced Hourly \% Arrival
                                  Arrival        Arrival        Capacity
                                  Capacity       Capacity       Reduction

  DTW            Detroit          84             72             **14**

  FLL            Ft. Lauderdale   65             27             **58**

  JAN[^76]       Jackson          60             40             **33**

  JFK            New York-        74             48             **35**
                 Kennedy                                        

  LGB            Long Beach       70             23             **67**

  MEM            Memphis          88             60             **32**

  MKE            Milwaukee        72             34             **53**

  PDX            Portland         60             38             **37**

  RDU            Raleigh-Durham   60             40             **33**

  SLC            Salt Lake City   90             40             **56**

  TPA            Tampa            71             50             **30**
  -------------- ---------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

### Methodology

In order to describe the methodology employed in this analysis, an
example involving JFK is described. To determine the impact that a
capacity reduction of the size shown in Table 12 can have on congestion
and delays, the IBM Single Airport Delay Model was applied to the demand
and capacity data. The arrivals for a representative traffic day were
compared to the optimum and reduced capacities at JFK. This analysis
focused on Cat I operations, although there is no restriction preventing
Cat II/III simultaneous parallel operations on runways separated by 3400
feet. Since reduced capacity conditions occur approximately 7.5% of the
time at JFK, or on average about 1.75 hours per day, a moving window of
reduced delay was applied to the model, effectively creating different
scenarios representing many possible combinations of 1.75 hour windows
during the course of a day. For each of these scenarios, the average
daily delay was calculated. A total average delay was then calculated
across the scenarios. This model result (0.03 minutes per flight) was
compared to the total average delay obtained with JFK at optimum
capacity (0.0 minutes per flight). The difference in delays, 0.03
minutes per flight, represents the potential improvement that can be
achieved with LAAS.

Multiplying this value by the number of flights by user group yields the
delay minutes by user group. Then, multiplying by the cost of a minute
of airborne delay yields the total cost savings that might be achieved
at JFK. Finally, recognizing the fact that LAAS will need to be combined
with other technologies to achieve this benefit, a factor of ½ was
applied to the result. As with the other benefits estimated in this
report, a downstream effect factor (see Appendix N) was applied, as well
as an availability factor of .999, the assumed availability of LAAS.
Over the 20 year benefits period, the total direct operating cost
savings for the 0% WAAS equipage scenario at JFK is estimated to be
\$259,000.

### Results

Table 13 shows the LAAS closely spaced parallel approach benefit for Cat
I LAAS implementation, in terms of both reduced direct operating costs
and passenger time savings, as well as for the two scenarios of user
WAAS equipage.

[Table 13: Discounted 20 year LAAS Closely Spaced Parallel Approach
Benefits for Cat I]{.smallcaps}

+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
|                       | **Direct Operating  | **Passenger Time      |
|                       | Cost**              | Savings**             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$9,900,000**     | **\$10,600,000**      |
|                       |                     |                       |
| **(Assuming 0% WAAS   |                     |                       |
| equipage)**           |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| **LAAS Benefits**     | **\$200,000**       | **\$0**               |
|                       |                     |                       |
| **(Assuming 100% WAAS |                     |                       |
| equipage)**           |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+

As indicated above, LAAS without advanced cockpit technologies or LAAS
in the presence of a 100% WAAS equipage scenario is unlikely to lead to
a significant reduction in runway separation distances required to
conduct simultaneous independent parallel approaches. However, evidence
from previous studies seems to support the conclusion that LAAS, when
combined with other advanced avionics, may be able to reduce these
distances and result in sizable quantifiable benefits in the 0% WAAS
equipage scenario. This comes about from the combination of improved
navigation system accuracy and reduction in the flight technical error.
LAAS may also enable more accurate position reporting when used in
concert with ADS-B, thus reducing the surveillance error. This may lead
to additional reductions in the required separation distances between
runway centerlines.

## **[Qualitative Efficiency Benefits]{.smallcaps}**

Several sources of potential efficiency benefits were evaluated
qualitatively, including variable glideslopes, data uplink, airspace
conflict resolution, missed approach guidance, and surface navigation.
Each of these may prove to be an important source of benefits from LAAS
implementation. However, these sources were not considered for
quantitative estimation for several reasons, including the speculative
nature of such benefits, particularly the significant uncertainties
about the timing of implementation of such capabilities, and the
considerable changes to current operating procedures required to obtain
these benefits. Additionally, the lack of relevant data on current
operations places severe limits on the ability to quantify these
benefits.

### [Benefits From Variable Glideslopes]{.smallcaps}

The ability of LAAS to support multiple simultaneous glideslopes
(separate vertical paths, each at a unique vertical angle, and each
capable of providing precision vertical guidance for aircraft during
approach and landing) may provide a level of flexibility not available
with the current precision approach infrastructure. In addition to the
possibility of allowing various vertical angles, these independent
glideslopes may lead either to the same or to different touchdown points
on the same runway. This capability also opens the possibility of
providing temporary changes in precision approach paths (*e.g.*, to
accommodate runway construction) more readily than is possible with an
ILS.

Specific examples of potential benefits include:

-   EWR runway 11 -- Continued operations via steeper glideslope during
    times when harbor cargo ships interfere with current fixed ILS
    glideslope angle.

-   MEM runway 17/35 -- Temporary approaches used during runway
    construction.

-   Decreased longitudinal spacing between aircraft by placing lighter
    aircraft on a steeper glideslope than heavy aircraft, in order to
    avoid wake vortex problems (as shown in Figure 5B).

![](media/image9.wmf){width="0.960236220472441in"
height="0.28976377952755905in"}![](media/image9.wmf){width="0.960236220472441in"
height="0.2889763779527559in"}

### [Figure 5. Illustrations of Potential Benefits: A) Multiple Glideslopes, Same Touchdown Point and B) Multiple Glideslopes, Different Touchdown Points]{.smallcaps}

### Limitations

-   The range of practical glideslope angles is limited by aircraft
    performance characteristics, and therefore not all current
    limitations will be addressable.

-   Temporary approaches would still have to be flight tested and the
    displaced threshold may not accommodate all aircraft due to the
    shortened runway length.

### [Benefits from Digital Data Uplink]{.smallcaps}

The uplinking of data, including RNAV and precision approach path
waypoints, may provide a level of flexibility for air traffic operations
in the terminal area not available with the current precision approach
infrastructure. The ability for the service provider to dynamically
alter the paths taken by individual aircraft in the terminal area, while
positive guidance is maintained in the cockpit, would represent a
significant change in air traffic operations. The uplink of path
segments (*e.g.*, (Standard Instrument Departure Procedures) SIDs and
Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STARs)) using LAAS may have some
benefits, but at this time the technical and procedural details of this
capability have not been fully established, and a number of issues have
been identified[^77], including:

-   The need for software in the cockpit to convert waypoint data in the
    ARINC 424 format to that used by the FMS and/or multimode receiver
    (MMR). This software may result in substantial additional costs and
    probably would require recertification of the existing avionics.

-   The waypoint data for approaches (STARs) would have to be uplinked
    when the aircraft is still in the cruise stage or just beginning its
    descent at a point approximately 100 nautical miles from the
    airport. That would mean that the current service volume for LAAS
    Cat I operations of approximately 20 nm would have to be extended an
    additional 80 nm to support this activity. Obviously, this would
    introduce a host of major issues.

-   Every change in a SID or STAR would require flight checking the LAAS
    transmission, according to FAA regulations.

-   The uplinking of SID or STAR data would require replacing data in
    the FMS, possibly with pilot oversight. It is unclear what the role
    of the pilot would be in this process. New procedures would have to
    be defined.

-   There may not be sufficient channel capacity to support the
    uplinking of SID and STAR data (since these messages tend to be very
    complex), particularly if multiple segments need to be transmitted
    to provide an alternative plan in case of an emergency.

-   If the SID or STAR is uplinked directly to an MMR, there will be a
    requirement for a new cockpit display to visualize the trajectory.
    Such a display would take years to develop and certify.

If these issues are resolved, and procedures are developed to take
advantage of the flexibility provided by the LAAS data uplink, this
capability may provide important benefits for both operators and service
providers.

### [Benefits from Airspace Confliction Resolution]{.smallcaps}

The horizontal and vertical accuracy of LAAS, whether as precision
guidance system, or in support of RNAV/RNP procedures, may provide the
capability to resolve conflicts in airspace usage among adjacent
airports and between arrivals and departures at the same airport. The
capability to resolve airspace conflicts may reduce the airspace needed
per operation, thus allowing a greater density of operations in a given
airspace. This capability may be of particular importance in highly
congested airspace (*e.g.*, the Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles
areas).

The following airports were cited by airline and airport representatives
as examples of locations where this benefit could be applied.

-   SEA SEA may be able to increase efficiency by separating arrival and

> departure streams.

-   BFI BFI arrivals conflict with SEA operations during north flow
    operations.

-   MDW MDW 13C arrivals conflict with ORD 22L departures and 14L
    arrivals.

-   PWK PWK 34 circling arrivals conflict with ORD 32R departures.

-   HOU Conflict with IAH traffic

-   FLL Conflict with MIA traffic

-   BUR Conflict with LAX traffic

-   JFK-LGA-EWR-TEB Significant conflicts among these airports,
    depending on wind and

> weather conditions.

### Limitations

-   Each airspace environment is unique and must be evaluated thoroughly
    to identify how, and under what circumstances, LAAS may contribute
    to airspace conflict resolution. It is expected that only the most
    complex and congested airspace environments will require a
    LAAS-based solution.

-   Some airspace conflict resolution may be possible with RNAV
    capabilities through the use of GPS and/or WAAS. In these cases,
    LAAS may show little to no benefit.

### [Benefits from Guided Missed Approach]{.smallcaps}

LAAS may have the capability to provide precision guidance, potentially
including complex or curved paths, for the missed approach segment. A
low-RNP and/or complex guided missed approach may permit reductions in
approach minima and/or continued use of one or more runways during low
weather minima conditions. Figure 6 below shows an example of a
hypothetical precision guided missed approach for ORD and SEA.

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **ORD**                           | **SEA**                           |
|                                   |                                   |
| In order to maintain approaches   | A precision guided, curved missed |
| to 9R/9L and 4R, ORD would        | approach                          |
| benefit from the ability to have  |                                   |
| precision guided, curved missed   | would allow for increased arrival |
| approaches.                       | throughput to 16R, since arriving |
|                                   | aircraft would not have to wait   |
|                                   | for 16L Departures.               |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|                                   |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

### [Figure 6. Illustrations of Potential Benefits at Chicago O'Hare (ORD) and Seattle (SEA)]{.smallcaps} 

### Limitations

-   Some of these benefits may be achievable with RNAV capabilities
    through the use of GPS and/or WAAS. In these cases, LAAS may show
    little to no benefit.

-   No data exists at this time to determine the lower approach minima
    that may be associated with low-RNP and/or complex guided missed
    approach procedures.

### 

### [Benefits from Precision Guided Surface Navigation]{.smallcaps}

Precision guidance for surface navigation operations would give both
ground controllers and pilots greater situational awareness,
particularly at night and under low visibility conditions. This
precision guidance may help reduce ground delays (*e.g.,* delays caused
by aircraft and surface vehicle interactions, delays caused by aircraft
running off taxiways, delays caused by using an incorrect taxiway at
night). LAAS, used with enabling technologies such as ADS-B, moving map,
and CDTI, may contribute to achieving precision guidance for surface
navigation.

**Potential Benefit Examples**

-   Reduce delays from reduced:

    -   incidents of aircraft running off taxiways (*e.g.*, the new
        Airbus 380 has an unusually wide track which may limit access to
        many airports' taxiways).

    -   incidents when aircraft inadvertently use taxiways for takeoff

    -   incursions between airport ground vehicles and taxiing aircraft

**Examples of Airport Surface Incidents That May Have Benefited from
Precision Guided Surface Navigation:**

-   Aircraft ran off taxiway:

    -   "March 25, 2001. USA, Maryland, Baltimore International Airport:
        a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737, flight 459 with 141 people on
        board ran off a taxiway while preparing for takeoff; no one was
        injured."[^78]

    -   "An aircraft has run off the taxiway at Birmingham International
        Airport causing diversions for other flights. The plane landed
        safely and was taxiing when its nose wheel came off the
        tarmac."[^79]

-   Aircraft used taxiway for takeoff:

    -   \"The captain\'s selection of a taxiway instead of a runway for
        takeoff and the flight crew\'s inadequate coordination of the
        departure, resulted in a departure from a taxiway. A factor in
        the incident was inadequate airline operator\'s procedures that
        did not require the crew to verbalize and verify the runway in
        use prior to takeoff.\" [^80]

-   Ground vehicle causes incursion:

    -   "An unidentified vehicle crossed ORD Runway 22R via Taxiway N
        without clearance. B737, over landing threshold for Runway 22R
        executed a go-around, flying directly over the vehicle. Vertical
        separation was 50-100 feet." [^81]

### Limitations

-   Use of LAAS for surface navigation will require the addition of some
    combination of enabling technologies, potentially including ADS-B,
    CDTI, and moving-map.

-   Unless the horizontal accuracy (as well as availability, integrity,
    and continuity) provided by LAAS is shown to be exclusively
    required, GPS and/or WAAS may be an adequate alternative.

# [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 report, *Safety Benefits of the*

*Local Area Augmentation System,* 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.[^82] These airports have well over 10,000 runways, of which
more than 1,150 have ILS precision approaches[^83]. The remaining
runways have no instrument approaches or use 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[^84], 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.[^85]

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.[^86] The satellite-based navigation system has three
main components: the GPS satellite constellation, and two augmentation
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 attributable to a precision approach at runways without current
precision approach service and when weather conditions are below those
supported by systems in the baseline. Consequently, any precision
approach system (e.g, ILS, MLS, WAAS) should be capable of achieving the
same benefits. 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 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 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.

**Methodology**

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 were 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 the studied airports 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 in 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 GA 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)[^87] 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)
TAF. On-line databases were queried and forecast reports were
referenced. In addition to analyzing the National Transportation Safety
Board data, the Flight Safety Foundation conducted an exploratory search
of a single year\'s worth of NASA\'s Aviation Safety Reporting System
(ASRS) data to determine if these reports, voluntarily filed by pilots,
might shed information on the frequency and severity of hazardous
incidents that do not result in accidents, but that nevertheless might
benefit from LAAS. Based on this initial search, it was determined that
there appears to be some evidence that LAAS could have mitigated or
averted a number of incidents. However, the incidents described in ASRS
reports are not verified or investigated beyond an expert analysis of
the reporter's written narrative. As such, it is impossible to guarantee
their authenticity or accuracy. Collectively, the voluntary nature of
the ASRS and the reporting biases nullify the statistical utility of the
data. For this reason, IBM and FSF chose not to pursue a more detailed
review of this data.

**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.[^88] 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.[^89]
    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 results.

a)  **Corporate Aircraft Activity Assumptions:** For the analyses in
    this study, estimates for corporate aviation were derived by current
    and forecast activity statistics, reported by the NBAA in hours.
    These values were 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
    number of operations. 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 been
    prevented with LAAS. Consequently, one additional event in which an
    air carrier crashed and killed all on board 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 14 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 aircraft involved in the accident had been equipped
with appropriate LAAS receivers.

[Table 14]{.smallcaps}: Distribution of Accidents in the CONUS That
Would Have Benefited From LAAS, 1993-2002

  -------------- --------- -------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -----------
  **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 15 provides estimates of the future number of accidents with and
without the precision approach capability provided by WAAS, or LAAS. The
majority of the estimated benefits are associated directly with the
ability of LAAS to provide precision guidance service. Other
technologies exist which can also provide this service, including ILS.

[Table 15]{.smallcaps}: Number of Accidents With and Without LAAS and
WAAS, 2009-2028

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **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 16, 17, and 18 provide a summary of the 20-year discounted LAAS
safety benefits for precision approach and surface navigation. All three
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
timeframe of 2009-2028 at the 117 study airports in the CONUS. For the
scenario in which operators equip with WAAS, LAAS benefits were
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, the benefits calculated by FSF were
divided by two 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, other systems, like WAAS or multilateration,
may also be able to provide this service. Therefore, the LAAS surface
navigation benefit reported here for the 100% WAAS equipage scenario is
zero.

[Table 16: Discounted 20-Year LAAS Safety Precision Approach
Benefits]{.smallcaps}

+--------------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+--------+
|                    | **Accidents | **Fatal   | **Serious   | **T    |
|                    | Prevented   | Injuries  | Injuries    | otal** |
|                    | (Hull loss  | Pr        | Prevented** |        |
|                    | and         | evented** |             |        |
|                    | damage)**   |           |             |        |
+--------------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+--------+
| **LAAS Benefits**  | **\$3       | **\$0**   | **          | **\$   |
|                    | 7,569,000** |           | \$555,000** | 38,124 |
| **(Assuming 0%     |             |           |             | ,000** |
| WAAS equipage)**   |             |           |             |        |
+--------------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+--------+
| **LAAS Benefits**  | **\$1       | **\$0**   | **          | **\$   |
|                    | 4,636,000** |           | \$240,000** | 14,876 |
| **(Assuming 100%   |             |           |             | ,000** |
| WAAS equipage)**   |             |           |             |        |
+--------------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+--------+

[Table 17: Discounted 20-Year LAAS Safety Surface Guidance
Benefits]{.smallcaps}

+--------------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+--------+
|                    | **Accidents | **Fatal   | **Serious   | **T    |
|                    | Prevented   | Injuries  | Injuries    | otal** |
|                    | (Hull loss  | Pr        | Prevented** |        |
|                    | and         | evented** |             |        |
|                    | damage)**   |           |             |        |
+--------------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+--------+
| **LAAS Benefits**  | **\$        | **\$14,   | **          | **\$   |
|                    | 5,122,000** | 634,000** | \$419,500** | 20,175 |
| **(Assuming 0%     |             |           |             | ,500** |
| WAAS equipage)**   |             |           |             |        |
+--------------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+--------+
| **LAAS Benefits**  | **\$0**     | **\$0**   | **\$0**     | *      |
|                    |             |           |             | *\$0** |
| **(Assuming 100%   |             |           |             |        |
| WAAS equipage)**   |             |           |             |        |
+--------------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+--------+

[Table 18: Discounted 20-Year LAAS Safety-Related Monetary Benefits
(Precision Approaches and Surface Guidance)]{.smallcaps}

+--------------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+--------+
|                    | **Accidents | **Fatal   | **Serious   | **T    |
|                    | Prevented   | Injuries  | Injuries    | otal** |
|                    | (Hull loss  | Pr        | Prevented** |        |
|                    | and         | evented** |             |        |
|                    | damage)**   |           |             |        |
+--------------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+--------+
| **LAAS Benefits**  | **\$4       | **\$14,   | **          | **\$   |
|                    | 2,691,000** | 634,000** | \$974,500** | 58,299 |
| **(Assuming 0%     |             |           |             | ,500** |
| WAAS equipage)**   |             |           |             |        |
+--------------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+--------+
| **LAAS Benefits**  | **\$14      | **\$0**   | **          | **\$   |
|                    | ,636,000,** |           | \$240,000** | 14,876 |
| **(Assuming 100%   |             |           |             | ,000** |
| WAAS equipage)**   |             |           |             |        |
+--------------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+--------+

# 

# [Societal Benefits]{.smallcaps}

In addition to efficiency and safety benefits, other benefits may exist
which provide positive impact for society as a whole. The following
societal benefit areas have been investigated:

-   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 as a Complement to Homeland Security

-   LAAS and JPALS Providing 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. These quantitative societal benefits are highly
speculative, and are included only to illustrate the importance of the
economic impact LAAS may provide. These benefits estimates will not be
incorporated in the total benefits derived from the efficiency and
safety benefits analyses.

**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[^90]." LAAS could be an integral part of this modernization.

The FAA's Flight Plan 2004-2008[^91] 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[^92]. LAAS is an element in the full realization
of benefits from investment in satellite navigation programs. Further,
despite its inherently local nature, LAAS can be a truly global
navigation solution. A LAAS installation outside of the U.S. can provide
the same types of benefits as a domestic installation. In this context,
LAAS can be used to support the FAA's international leadership goal,
stated in the 2004-2008 Flight Plan, to "Promote seamless operations
around the globe..."

The U.S. has the world's most complex airspace and leads the world in
the development of the new CNS-ATM (Communication, Navigation,
Surveillance/Air Traffic Management) 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 may encourage a single standard for terminal area
navigation globally. International implementation of LAAS could bring
high-precision navigation service to areas now served by minimal or
outdated equipment, allowing expansion of reliable 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 possible extent of international sales would
be a significant undertaking, and is out of the scope of this project.
Instead, the market size and potential benefit of international sales of
both LGFs and LAAS avionics were estimated.

**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[^93]

3.  Estimate the number of international airports with current or
    planned MLS installations: 12 (plus 13 potential orders)[^94]

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
    121 studied airports: 846[^95]

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

3.  The maximum potential LAAS avionics benefit is (2) times \$10K

**Results: Market Estimate and Maximum Potential Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM) Benefit**

A.  International LGF

    a.  Market Estimate is 157 airports

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

B.  International (Part 129) Avionics

    a.  Market Estimate is 846

    b.  Maximum Potential OEM 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[^96]. 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. See Figure 7 for an example of a defined,
    repeatable flight path.

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.

![](media/image11.wmf){width="1.25in" height="0.34375in"}

![](media/image11.wmf){width="1.25in" height="0.34375in"}

### ![](media/image11.wmf){width="1.25in" height="0.34375in"}

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

[Figure 7: Defined, repeatable flight paths through lateral and vertical
containment]{.smallcaps}

### 

### 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.  Examples of Noise Abatement Program Costs

-   Nationwide - \$307 Million for airport noise pollution program [^97]

-   MSP - \$120M-\$150M on noise abatement program[^98]

-   ORD/MDW - \$300M to reduce the impacts of aircraft noise on
    communities[^99]

2.  Examples of Noise Rule Violations Costs

-   DEN[^100]: Violations of noise levels at DEN are subject to
    \$500,000 per violation

-   BOS[^101]: 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.  Examples of AIP Funded Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance
    for Noise Compatibility

> According to the U.S. GAO[^102], 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[^103]: \$4 million

-   ONT[^104]: \$2.5 million

4.  Examples of AIP Funded Residential Home Soundproofing[^105]

-   SNA: \$2.3 million

-   BUR: \$1 million for 30 residences

-   SFO^:^ \$1 million for 100 residences

-   FAT: \$1 million for 100 residences

5.  Examples of Federal, Local, or AIP Funded School Soundproofing

-   JFK[^106]: \$12.2 million for four schools

-   LGA[^107]: \$24.4 million for nine schools

-   SYR[^108]: \$3.38 million for a school

-   ORD[^109]: \$3 million for a school

-   MDW[^110]: \$3 million for a school

-   SAN[^111]: \$1.5 million for a school

6.  Examples of Litigation for Airport Noise

-   DEN[^112]

-   PBI[^113]

-   EWR[^114]

-   BUR[^115]

-   MEM[^116]

-   MSP[^117]

-   ORD[^118],[^119]

-   BDL[^120]

### Reduction or Lifting of Airport Curfews 

According to Boeing commercial noise data[^121], 28 of the 121 studied
airports, listed in Table 19, 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 19: Airports with Curfews within the 121]{.smallcaps} Studied
Airports

+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| **Airports with     |                      |                         |
| Noise-related       |                      |                         |
| Curfews**           |                      |                         |
|                     |                      |                         |
| **(**Curfew times   |                      |                         |
| in parentheses,     |                      |                         |
| when known)         |                      |                         |
+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| AUS (00:00 to       | HPN (00:00 to 06:30) | RIC (03:00 to 12:00)    |
| 06:00)              |                      |                         |
+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| BFI (22:00 to       | ILN                  | SAN (22:30 to 06:30)    |
| 07:00)              |                      |                         |
+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| BOS (23:00 to       | JFK (00:00 to 06:00) | SFO                     |
| 07:00)              |                      |                         |
+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| BUR                 | LAS (20:00 to 08:00) | SJC (23:30 to 06:30)    |
+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| DAL                 | LGB                  | SNA                     |
+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| DCA(22:00 to 07:00) | MDW (22:00 to 06:00) | STL (23:00 to 06:00)    |
+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| DEN                 | MSP                  | SYR (02:00 to 07:00)    |
+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| DVT (21:30 to       | ONT                  | VNY                     |
| 06:00)              |                      |                         |
+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| FAI (3:00 to 06:00) | PBI (22:00 to 07:00) |                         |
+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| HNL                 | PVD (0:00 to 07:00)  |                         |
+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+

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

With the expansion of airports and communities surrounding airports,
another growing concern is 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 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 FAA 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"[^122]), 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[^123].

### 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.

### Example Airports with Environmentally 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. See
Figure 7 for an example of a defined, repeatable flight path.

Example airports with environmentally sensitive areas: BOS[^124],
CVG[^125] , DCA[^126], SEA[^127]

## [LAAS as a Complement to 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 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 121 airports studied that have Aviation
    Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ) or temporary flight
    restrictions, as examples of airport and airspace locations where
    the ability to identify and detect deviations from expected flight
    paths may have been 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 20 lists examples of airports in the 121 airports studied that
have been subject to an ADIZ or TFR.

[Table 20: Airports with AD]{.smallcaps}IZ or TFR

+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Air  | **Comments**                                                |
| port** |                                                             |
+========+=============================================================+
| NY     | Flight Restrictions for the 2004 Republican National        |
| [^128] | Convention in New York City.                                |
| Area   |                                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| DCA    | **"National Capital Region (NCR) Aviation Defense           |
| [^129] | 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    |
| EWR    | level 180 in the area within the mode C veil (approximately |
| [^130] | 30 nm) surrounding JFK International (JFK), LaGuardia       |
|        | International (LGA), and Newark, New Jersey (EWR)           |
|        | International airports".                                    |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| MIA,   | **Presidential movement TFRs**                              |
| EWR,   |                                                             |
| JFK,   | Examples of presidential TFRs, that can be issued with      |
| LGA,   | little advance notice..                                     |
| DAY,   |                                                             |
|        | -   August 27: Miami, Florida                               |
| DTW,   |                                                             |
|        | -   August 29-30: Newark, New Jersey, and New York, New     |
| MHT,   |     York                                                    |
| BNA,   |                                                             |
| CMH    | -   August 30-September 1: New York, New York               |
| [^131] |                                                             |
|        | -   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               |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| ORD    | **Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR) -** March 22, 2003    |
| [^132] |                                                             |
|        | "The FAA and TSA created a temporary flight restriction for |
|        | the city of Chicago, focusing on the downtown skyline       |
|        | area".                                                      |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| SLC    | **"Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR) --** Winter Olympics |
| [^133] |                                                             |
|        | 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 Mean Sea    |
|        | Level (MSL) for 19 days, beginning on February 6, 2001".    |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| ATL    | **Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs)** Summer Olympics    |
| [^134] |                                                             |
|        | -   a radius of three nm around the Georgia Dome (below     |
|        |     3500 MSL)                                               |
|        |                                                             |
|        | -   one nm around the Olympic Village (below 3500 MSL)      |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+

## [LAAS and JPALS Providing 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 (*e.g.*, only one third of Navy aircraft, and
one half of Army aircraft are ILS equipped). 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 primary
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 121 studied airports that have a
    military presence that comprises greater than ten percent of total
    airport operations.

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

    a.  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 21 are those within the 121
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 121 airports
in this study.

[Table 21: Studied Airports with Considerable (\>10% of Total
Operations) Military Operations]{.smallcaps} [^135]

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **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 these 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. 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 approaches. In these cases, LAAS
may provide little or no benefit. However, in some terrain challenged
areas LAAS may be the best precision approach option.

Table 22 lists several example airports in small communities that may
have terrain constraints. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but
to illustrate the types of airports in this category.

[Table 22: Small Community Airports With ILS Terrain
Challenges]{.smallcaps}

  ------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------------
  **Airport Code**    **Airport Name**            **2003 Scheduled Arrivals**

  [ASE]{.smallcaps}   Aspen, CO                   4,162

  [EGE]{.smallcaps}   Eagle County, CO            2,257

  [SIT]{.smallcaps}   Sitka, AK                   1,647

  [JNU]{.smallcaps}   Juneau, AK                  19,806

  [SUN]{.smallcaps}   Sun Valley, ID              4,333
  ------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------------

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

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
factors[^136]. By reducing delay and increasing all-weather reliability
of air service, LAAS may offer this benefit. Increased load factors 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 on 1% of 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 23.

[Table 23: AIP Domestic Passenger Ticket Tax]{.smallcaps} [^137]

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **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 that experience an increase in load factor by 1%)
    x (total U.S. airline operations at the 121 studied airports).

5.  Airline Revenue is (avg. ticket price) x (average number of
    passengers) x (% increase in load factor) x (% of airline operations
    that experience an increase in load factor by 1%) x (total U.S.
    airline operations at the 121 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 24, the estimated LAAS benefit assuming 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 24: Discounted 20 year LAAS Benefits for a 1% Increase in Load
Factor on 1% of Domestic Major and Regional Airline
Operations]{.smallcaps}

+----------------------+----------------+------------------+----------+
|                      | **Increased    | **Increased      | *        |
|                      | AIP Revenue**  | Airline          | *Total** |
|                      |                | Revenue**        |          |
+----------------------+----------------+------------------+----------+
| **LAAS Benefits**    | *              | **\$89,347,725** | **\$96,0 |
|                      | *\$6,701,079** |                  | 48,805** |
| **(Assuming 0% WAAS  |                |                  |          |
| equipage)**          |                |                  |          |
+----------------------+----------------+------------------+----------+
| **LAAS Benefits**    | *              | **\$20,478,277** | **\$22,1 |
|                      | *\$1,652,875** |                  | 31,151** |
| **(Assuming 100%     |                |                  |          |
| WAAS equipage)**     |                |                  |          |
+----------------------+----------------+------------------+----------+

## [LAAS Signal in the Vicinity of the 121 Studied Airports]{.smallcaps}

**Overview**

The LAAS Concept of Operations (CONOPS), dated August 5, 2002, states
the LAAS service coverage volume extends out to 23nm[^138] radially from
the LAAS Ground Facility VDB \[Very High Frequency (VHF) Data Broadcast
(VDB)\] and with increasing altitude from the installed station (angle
of 0.9 degrees, so that at 23 NM the minimum receivable altitude is 2200
ft).

IBM identified the aviation facilities (*e.g.*, other airports, seaplane
bases, gliderports, and heliports) within 23nm of each of the 121
studied airports from entries in the NFDC[^139] database. Table 25 lists
the results of this investigation, which identified: 1) 6,453 total
aviation facilities within 23nm of all 121 airports, and 2) 428 total
aviation facilities within 23nm of the 6 LRIP Airports. This table shows
the scope of potential beneficiaries of the LAAS signal if LAAS were
installed at each of the 121 airports.

No claim of benefits is made for this potential capability, since the
LAAS signal is not required or expected to meet minimum field strength
requirements at low altitudes except at the airport where it is
installed. If a program decision were made to require LAAS services at
these nearby airports, design and installation requirements would have
to be updated to reflect this goal. Alternatively, it may be feasible to
exploit LAAS at these airports to some degree without any specific
requirements on the design or installation (*i.e.*, use LAAS where it is
receivable). It is not possible to estimate benefits in this scenario
since the achieved coverage is not yet known.

[Table 25. Number of Aviation Facilities Within 23 nm of Each of the 121
Airports]{.smallcaps}

The LAAS LRIP sites are shown in bold.

  ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ----------- -------- ------------ ----------- -------- ------------ ----- ----------- ------------
  **Airport   **\# of      **Airport   **\# of      **Airport   **\# of      **Airport            **\# of      **Airport            **\# of            **Airport   **\# of
  Code**      Proximate    Code**      Proximate    Code**      Proximate    Code**               Proximate    Code**               Proximate          Code**      Proximate
              Airports**               Airports**               Airports**                        Airports**                        Airports**                     Airports**

  ABQ         13           CLE         62           FLL         52           LAS         22                    **ORD**     **93**                SHV               28

  ACK         4            CLT         31           FWA         57           LAX         152                   ORF         34                    SJC               18

  AFW         124          CMH         71           FXE         41           LCK         50                    PBI         38                    SLC               28

  ALB         42           COS         23           GEG         32           LGA         104                   PDX         99                    SMF               37

  ANC         24           CVG         39           GRR         34           LGB         161                   PHL         148                   SNA               81

  ATL         75           DAB         23           GSO         30           LIT         35                    **PHX**     **78**                STL               66

  AUS         31           DAL         116          GSP         23           MCI         68                    PIE         35                    SWF               45

  AVL         11           DAY         57           HNL         13           MCO         64                    PIT         68                    SYR               34

  BDL         75           DCA         71           HOU         160          MDT         77                    PVD         49                    TEB               114

  BFI         75           DEN         73           HPN         68           MDW         77                    RDU         21                    TLH               11

  BGR         12           DFW         139          HSV         21           **MEM**     **38**                RFD         83                    TPA               42

  BHM         23           DLH         13           IAD         73           MHT         65                    RIC         35                    TRI               17

  BNA         29           DSM         25           **IAH**     **128**      MIA         57                    RNO         22                    TUL               50

  BOI         18           DTW         46           ICT         55           MKE         43                    ROC         40                    TUS               17

  BOS         75           DVT         73           ILN         42           MMU         149                   RSW         39                    TYS               34

  BUF         44           ELP         9            IND         94           MSP         72                    SAN         20                    VNY               137

  BUR         138          EUG         27           ISP         32           MSY         40                    SAT         59                                      

  BWI         70           EWR         141          JAN         25           OAK         32                    SDF         31                                      

  CAE         21           EYW         6            JAX         28           OKC         57                    **SEA**     **85**                                  

  CHA         18           FAI         13           JFK         86           OMA         35                    SFB         56                                      

  CHS         10           FAT         26           **JNU**     **6**        ONT         53                    SFO         26                                      
  ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ----------- -------- ------------ ----------- -------- ------------ ----- ----------- ------------

There is a wide variety of facilities included in the list above. To
give a sample of these facilities, Appendix H details the 85 aviation
facilities within 23nm of SEA.

# [Appendices]{.smallcaps}

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

Airports were selected for this study through an objective process that
included the following criteria:

-   High traffic airports associated with likely LAAS users:

    -   Major passenger airlines (Airports with 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 121 airports throughout the NAS were selected
for this study, as shown in Table A1 and the following map.

[Table A1: 121 Airports Names and Locations Included in
Study]{.smallcaps}

  ----- ---------------------------- ----- ------------------------- ----- ----------------
  ABQ   ALBUQUERQUE INTL SUNPORT,    FAT   FRESNO YOSEMITE           OMA   EPPLEY AIRFIELD,
        NEW MEXICO                         INTERNATIONAL, CALIFORNIA       NEBRASKA

  ACK   NANTUCKET MEMORIAL,          FLL   FORT LAUDERDALE/HOLLYWOOD ONT   ONTARIO INTL,
        MASSACHUSETTS                      INTL, FLORIDA                   CALIFORNIA

  AFW   FORT WORTH ALLIANCE, TEXAS   FWA   FORT WAYNE INTERNATIONAL, ORD   CHICAGO O\'HARE
                                           INDIANA                         INTL, ILLINOIS

  ALB   ALBANY INTL, NEW YORK        FXE   FORT LAUDERDALE           ORF   NORFOLK INTL,
                                           EXECUTIVE, FLORIDA              VIRGINIA

  ANC   TED STEVENS ANCHORAGE INTL,  GEG   SPOKANE INTL, WASHINGTON  PBI   PALM BEACH INTL,
        ALASKA                                                             FLORIDA

  ATL   THE WILLIAM B HARTSFIELD     GRR   GERALD R. FORD            PDX   PORTLAND INTL,
        ATLANTA INTL, GEORGIA              INTERNATIONAL, MICHIGAN         OREGON

  AUS   AUSTIN-BERGSTROM INTL, TEXAS GSO   PIEDMONT TRIAD            PHL   PHILADELPHIA
                                           INTERNATIONAL, NORTH            INTL,
                                           CAROLINA                        PENNSYLVANIA

  AVL   ASHEVILLE REGIONAL, NORTH    GSP   GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG    PHX   PHOENIX SKY
        CAROLINA                           INTL, SOUTH CAROLINA            HARBOR INTL,
                                                                           ARIZONA

  BDL   BRADLEY INTL, CONNECTICUT    HNL   HONOLULU INTL, HAWAII     PIE   ST PETERSBURG-
                                                                           INTL, FLORIDA

  BFI   BOEING FIELD/KING COUNTY     HOU   WILLIAM P HOBBY, TEXAS    PIT   PITTSBURGH INTL,
        INTL, WASHINGTON                                                   PENNSYLVANIA

  BGR   BANGOR INTL, MAINE           HPN   WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW   PVD   T.F. GREEN
                                           YORK                            STATE, RHODE
                                                                           ISLAND

  BHM   BIRMINGHAM INTL, ALABAMA     HSV   HUNTSVILLE INTL-CARL T    RDU   RALEIGH-DURHAM
                                           JONES FIELD, ALABAMA            INTL, NORTH
                                                                           CAROLINA

  BNA   NASHVILLE INTL, TENNESSEE    IAD   WASHINGTON DULLES INTL,   RFD   GREATER
                                           DIST. OF COLUMBIA (VA)          ROCKFORD,
                                                                           ILLINOIS

  BOI   BOISE AIR TERMINAL/GOWEN     IAH   GEORGE BUSH               RIC   RICHMOND INTL,
        FLD, IDAHO                         INTERCONTINENTAL                VIRGINIA
                                           ARPT/HOUSTON, TEXAS             

  BOS   GENERAL EDWARD LAWRENCE      ICT   WICHITA MID-CONTINENT,    RNO   RENO/TAHOE INTL,
        LOGAN INTL, MASSACHUSETTS          KANSAS                          NEVADA

  BUF   BUFFALO NIAGARA INTL, NEW    ILN   AIRBORNE AIRPARK, OHIO    ROC   GREATER
        YORK                                                               ROCHESTER INTL,
                                                                           NEW YORK

  BUR   BURBANK-GLENDALE-PASADENA,   IND   INDIANAPOLIS INTL,        RSW   SOUTHWEST
        CALIFORNIA                         INDIANA                         FLORIDA INTL,
                                                                           FLORIDA

  BWI   BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INTL,   ISP   LONG ISLAND MAC ARTHUR,   SAN   SAN DIEGO INTL-,
        MARYLAND                           NEW YORK                        CALIFORNIA

  CAE   COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN, SOUTH JAN   JACKSON INTERNATIONAL,    SAT   SAN ANTONIO
        CAROLINA                           MISSISSIPPI                     INTL, TEXAS

  CHA   LOVELL FIELD, TENNESSEE      JAX   JACKSONVILLE INTL,        SDF   LOUISVILLE
                                           FLORIDA                         INTL-, KENTUCKY

  CHS   CHARLESTON AFB/INTL, SOUTH   JFK   JOHN F KENNEDY INTL, NEW  SEA   SEATTLE-TACOMA
        CAROLINA                           YORK                            INTL, WASHINGTON

  CLE   CLEVELAND-HOPKINS INTL, OHIO JNU   JUNEAU INTL, ALASKA       SFB   ORLANDO SANFORD,
                                                                           FLORIDA

  CLT   CHARLOTTE/DOUGLAS INTL,      LAS   MC CARRAN INTL, NEVADA    SFO   SAN FRANCISCO
        NORTH CAROLINA                                                     INTL, CALIFORNIA

  CMH   PORT COLUMBUS INTL, OHIO     LAX   LOS ANGELES INTL,         SHV   SHREVEPORT
                                           CALIFORNIA                      REGIONAL,
                                                                           LOUISIANA

  COS   CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS     LCK   RICKENBACKER              SJC   SAN JOSE INTL,
        MUNI, COLORADO                     INTERNATIONAL, OHIO             CALIFORNIA

  CVG   CINCINNATI/NORTHERN KENTUCKY LGA   LA GUARDIA, NEW YORK      SLC   SALT LAKE CITY
        INTL, KENTUCKY                                                     INTL, UTAH

  DAB   DAYTONA BEACH INTL, FLORIDA  LGB   LONG BEACH /DAUGHERTY     SMF   SACRAMENTO INTL,
                                           FIELD/, CALIFORNIA              CALIFORNIA

  DAL   DALLAS LOVE FIELD, TEXAS     LIT   ADAMS FIELD, ARKANSAS     SNA   JOHN WAYNE
                                                                           ORANGE COUNTY,
                                                                           CALIFORNIA

  DAY   JAMES M COX DAYTON INTL,     MCI   KANSAS CITY INTL,         STL   LAMBERT-ST LOUIS
        OHIO                               MISSOURI                        INTL, MISSOURI

  DCA   RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON     MCO   ORLANDO INTL, FLORIDA     SWF   STEWART INT\'L,
        NATIONAL, DIST. OF COLUMBIA                                        NEW YORK

  DEN   DENVER INTL, COLORADO        MDT   HARRISBURG INTERNATIONAL, SYR   SYRACUSE HANCOCK
                                           PENNSYLVANIA                    INTL, NEW YORK

  DFW   DALLAS/FORT WORTH            MDW   CHICAGO MIDWAY, ILLINOIS  TEB   TETERBORO, NEW
        INTERNATIONAL, TEXAS                                               JERSEY

  DLH   DULUTH INTL, MINNESOTA       MEM   MEMPHIS INTL, TENNESSEE   TLH   TALLAHASSEE
                                                                           REGIONAL,
                                                                           FLORIDA

  DSM   DES MOINES INTL, IOWA        MHT   MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE TPA   TAMPA INTL,
                                                                           FLORIDA

  DTW   DETROIT METROPOLITAN WAYNE   MIA   MIAMI INTL, FLORIDA       TRI   TRI-CITIES RGNL
        COUNTY, MICHIGAN                                                   TN/VA, TENNESSEE

  DVT   PHOENIX DEER VALLEY, ARIZONA MKE   GENERAL MITCHELL          TUL   TULSA INTL,
                                           INTERNATIONAL, WISCONSIN        OKLAHOMA

  ELP   EL PASO INTL, TEXAS          MMU   MORRISTOWN MUNI, NEW      TUS   TUCSON INTL,
                                           JERSEY                          ARIZONA

  EUG   MAHLON SWEET FIELD, OREGON   MSP   MINNEAPOLIS-ST PAUL       TYS   MC GHEE TYSON,
                                           INTL/WOLD-CHAMBERLAIN/,         TENNESSEE
                                           MINNESOTA                       

  EWR   NEWARK INTL, NEW JERSEY      MSY   LOUIS ARMSTRONG NEW       VNY   VAN NUYS,
                                           ORLEANS INTL, LOUISIANA         CALIFORNIA

  EYW   KEY WEST INTL, FLORIDA       OAK   METROPOLITAN OAKLAND            
                                           INTL, CALIFORNIA                

  FAI   FAIRBANKS INTL, ALASKA       OKC   WILL ROGERS WORLD,              
                                           OKLAHOMA                        
  ----- ---------------------------- ----- ------------------------- ----- ----------------

###  Map of Airports Included in this Study

# ![](media/image12.png){width="1.8958333333333333in" height="1.44375in"}

# 

# 

# 

# ![](media/image13.png){width="6.045138888888889in" height="4.411111111111111in"}

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

![](media/image14.png){width="1.8847222222222222in" height="1.41875in"}

## [Appendix B: Order of Installation of LAAS Ground Facilities]{.smallcaps}

The order in which LAAS ground facilities are installed is an important
factor in the estimation of LAAS benefits. For this study, airport
installations are assumed to take place at a pace of 24 per year, and in
order of greatest to least benefit; that is, the first installations
will be at airports with the highest benefit. In general, each airport
receives one LAAS installation. The exception is DEN, which due to its
large area, was assumed to require two LAAS installations (see Appendix
I, #16). A rank ordered list of airports is constructed by calculating
the full 20-year discounted benefit, assuming LAAS is installed at all
airports at IOC[^140] (June 2009 for Cat I; June 2013 for Cat II/III). A
separate rank ordering is obtained depending on whether user equipage of
WAAS is assumed to be 0% or 100%, since this assumption changes the
benefits at many airports, and thus, potentially changes the order among
airports. The following tables show the assumed date of installation at
each of the 121 airports studied (LAAS LRIP sites, which are the first
to be installed with Cat I LAAS are highlighted in bold). Table B1 gives
this list in alphabetical order by airport, Table B2 shows the time
order of LAAS installations for the 0% WAAS and 100% WAAS equipage
scenarios.

[Table B1: Order of Installation of LAAS Ground Facilities]{.smallcaps}
-- Alphabetical Listing

+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| > A    | 0% WAAS  |            |   | 100% WAAS        |             |
| irport |          |            |   |                  |             |
+========+==========+============+===+==================+=============+
|        | Cat I    | Cat II/III |   | Cat I            | Cat II/III  |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| ABQ    | Dec-10   | Jun-16     |   | Sep-10           | Jun-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| ACK    |          | Feb-14     |   |                  | Feb-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| AFW    |          | Feb-18     |   |                  | Feb-18      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| ALB    | Mar-10   | Jun-14     |   |                  | Jun-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| ANC    | Feb-10   | Dec-14     |   | Oct-09           | Dec-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| ATL    | Oct-10   | Sep-13     |   | Dec-09           | Sep-13      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| AUS    |          | May-15     |   |                  | May-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| AVL    |          | Nov-16     |   |                  | Nov-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| BDL    | Jan-10   | Mar-15     |   |                  | Mar-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| BFI    |          | Mar-17     |   |                  | Mar-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| BGR    |          | Sep-17     |   |                  | Sep-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| BHM    | Jan-10   | Nov-17     |   | Apr-10           | Nov-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| BNA    | Jan-11   | Jul-16     |   |                  | Jul-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| BOI    |          | Nov-15     |   |                  | Nov-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| BOS    |          | Nov-13     |   |                  | Nov-13      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| BUF    | Sep-11   | Oct-14     |   | Jul-11           | Oct-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| BUR    | Sep-09   | Feb-17     |   |                  | Feb-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| BWI    |          | Jul-14     |   |                  | Jul-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| CAE    | Apr-11   | Sep-16     |   | Apr-11           | Sep-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| CHA    | Jul-12   | Dec-17     |   | Sep-11           | Dec-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| CHS    | Feb-11   | Jun-16     |   | May-10           | Jun-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| CLE    | Oct-09   | Oct-14     |   | Oct-09           | Oct-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| CLT    |          | Oct-13     |   |                  | Oct-13      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| CMH    |          | Apr-15     |   |                  | Apr-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| COS    | Nov-10   | Jul-14     |   | Oct-10           | Jul-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| CVG    | Mar-10   | Dec-13     |   | Sep-09           | Dec-13      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| DAB    |          | Jun-17     |   |                  | Jun-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| DAL    |          | Jun-15     |   |                  | Jun-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| DAY    | Dec-10   | May-16     |   | Jul-10           | May-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| DCA    | Sep-09   | Oct-15     |   | Aug-11           | Oct-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| DEN    |          | Aug-13     |   |                  | Aug-13      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| DFW    | Nov-09   | Jun-13     |   | Sep-09           | Jun-13      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| DLH    | Jun-12   | Apr-17     |   | Oct-11           | Apr-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| DSM    |          | May-16     |   |                  | May-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| DTW    | Nov-09   | Sep-13     |   | Feb-11           | Sep-13      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| DVT    | Aug-12   |            |   |                  |             |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| ELP    |          | Apr-18     |   |                  | Apr-18      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| EUG    | May-11   | Jan-16     |   | Jun-10           | Jan-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| EWR    |          | Nov-13     |   |                  | Nov-13      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| EYW    | Dec-11   | Apr-18     |   | May-11           | Apr-18      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| FAI    | Nov-11   | Jul-17     |   |                  | Jul-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| FAT    |          | Nov-17     |   |                  | Nov-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| FLL    | Jun-11   | Dec-15     |   | Jun-10           | Dec-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| FWA    | Jul-10   | Jun-17     |   |                  | Jun-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| FXE    | Jul-12   | Jun-18     |   | Dec-11           | Jun-18      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| GEG    | Jun-10   | Apr-15     |   | Apr-10           | Apr-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| GRR    | Aug-11   | Mar-15     |   |                  | Mar-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| GSO    |          | Aug-14     |   |                  | Aug-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| GSP    |          | Dec-16     |   |                  | Dec-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| HNL    | Apr-10   | Mar-18     |   | May-11           | Mar-18      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| HOU    | Sep-11   | Dec-13     |   | Apr-11           | Dec-13      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| HPN    | Dec-11   | Mar-14     |   | Jul-10           | Mar-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| HSV    |          | Mar-17     |   |                  | Mar-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| IAD    |          | Feb-14     |   |                  | Feb-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| *      | Jun-09   | Oct-13     |   | Jun-09           | Oct-13      |
| *IAH** |          |            |   |                  |             |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| ICT    | Feb-11   | Aug-16     |   | Dec-10           | Aug-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| ILN    |          | Sep-16     |   |                  | Sep-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| IND    |          | Sep-15     |   |                  | Sep-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| ISP    | Jul-11   | Jan-15     |   |                  | Jan-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| JAN    |          | Oct-17     |   |                  | Oct-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| JAX    |          | Mar-16     |   |                  | Mar-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| JFK    | Oct-11   | Nov-14     |   | Oct-11           | Nov-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| *      | Jun-09   | Jul-17     |   | Jun-09           | Jul-17      |
| *JNU** |          |            |   |                  |             |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| LAS    | Jul-11   | May-18     |   | Jun-11           | May-18      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| LAX    |          | Mar-14     |   |                  | Mar-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| LCK    |          | Feb-18     |   |                  | Feb-18      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| LGA    | Dec-09   | Aug-13     |   |                  | Aug-13      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| LGB    | Apr-10   | Oct-15     |   | Dec-09           | Oct-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| LIT    | Feb-12   | May-17     |   | Mar-11           | May-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| MCI    |          | Dec-14     |   |                  | Dec-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| MCO    | Sep-10   | Jul-15     |   |                  | Jul-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| MDT    |          | Apr-16     |   |                  | Apr-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| MDW    | Apr-12   | Jul-13     |   | Jul-11           | Jul-13      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| *      | Jul-09   | Apr-14     |   | Jul-09           | Apr-14      |
| *MEM** |          |            |   |                  |             |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| MHT    | Aug-10   | Apr-14     |   | Mar-10           | Apr-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| MIA    | Jul-10   | Aug-15     |   | Mar-10           | Aug-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| MKE    | Dec-09   | Aug-14     |   | Nov-09           | Aug-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| MMU    | Jan-12   | Dec-17     |   | Jan-11           | Dec-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| MSP    |          | May-14     |   |                  | May-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| MSY    | May-10   | Sep-15     |   | Feb-10           | Sep-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| OAK    | Feb-12   | Jul-16     |   |                  | Jul-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| OKC    | Sep-10   | Feb-16     |   | Feb-10           | Feb-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| OMA    |          | Aug-16     |   |                  | Aug-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| ONT    |          | Sep-17     |   |                  | Sep-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| *      | Jul-09   | Jun-13     |   | Jul-09           | Jun-13      |
| *ORD** |          |            |   |                  |             |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| ORF    | Mar-12   | Sep-14     |   | Feb-11           | Sep-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| PBI    | Mar-11   | Dec-16     |   | Nov-10           | Dec-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| PDX    | May-12   | Jun-15     |   | Nov-11           | Jun-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| PHL    |          | May-14     |   |                  | May-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| *      | Aug-09   | May-15     |   | Aug-09           | May-15      |
| *PHX** |          |            |   |                  |             |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| PIE    | Jan-12   | Aug-17     |   | Sep-11           | Aug-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| PIT    |          | Jan-14     |   |                  | Jan-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| PVD    | Jan-11   | Nov-14     |   | Aug-10           | Nov-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| RDU    | Apr-12   | Jan-15     |   | Aug-11           | Jan-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| RFD    | Apr-11   | Oct-16     |   | Jan-11           | Oct-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| RIC    | May-10   | Jul-15     |   | Jan-10           | Jul-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| RNO    | Aug-10   | Apr-17     |   | May-10           | Apr-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| ROC    | Mar-11   | Nov-16     |   | Jan-10           | Nov-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| RSW    |          | Jun-14     |   |                  | Jun-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| SAN    | Oct-09   | Feb-17     |   |                  | Feb-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| SAT    |          | Feb-16     |   |                  | Feb-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| SDF    |          | May-17     |   |                  | May-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| *      | Aug-09   | Jan-14     |   | Aug-09           | Jan-14      |
| *SEA** |          |            |   |                  |             |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| SFB    | Aug-12   | Jan-18     |   | Nov-11           | Jan-18      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| SFO    |          | Jan-16     |   |                  | Jan-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| SHV    | May-11   | Oct-17     |   | Dec-10           | Oct-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| SJC    | Feb-10   | Sep-14     |   | Nov-09           | Sep-14      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| SLC    | Oct-10   | Feb-15     |   | Aug-10           | Feb-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| SMF    |          | Aug-15     |   |                  | Aug-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| SNA    | Mar-12   | Feb-15     |   | Dec-11           | Feb-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| STL    |          | Nov-15     |   |                  | Nov-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| SWF    | Aug-11   | Mar-18     |   | Jun-11           | Mar-18      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| SYR    | Jun-11   | Jan-17     |   | Oct-10           | Jan-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| TEB    | Jun-10   | Apr-16     |   | Mar-11           | Apr-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| TLH    |          | Mar-16     |   |                  | Mar-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| TPA    | Nov-10   | Dec-15     |   | Sep-10           | Dec-15      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| TRI    | May-12   | Jan-18     |   |                  | Jan-18      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| TUL    | Oct-11   | Jan-17     |   | Nov-10           | Jan-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| TUS    | Jun-12   | May-18     |   |                  | May-18      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| TYS    |          | Oct-16     |   |                  | Oct-16      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+
| VNY    | Nov-11   | Aug-17     |   | Jan-12           | Aug-17      |
+--------+----------+------------+---+------------------+-------------+

[Table B2: Order of Installation of LAAS Ground Facilities -- Date
Ordered - 0% WAAS and 100% WAAS Equipage Scenarios]{.smallcaps}

  --------- --------- ---------- -------------- --------- --------- ----------
  Airport   0% WAAS                             Airport   100% WAAS 

            Cat I     Cat II/III                          Cat I     Cat II/III

  **IAH**   Jun-09    Oct-13                    **IAH**   Jun-09    Oct-13

  **JNU**   Jun-09    Jul-17                    **JNU**   Jun-09    Jul-17

  **ORD**   Jul-09    Jun-13                    **ORD**   Jul-09    Jun-13

  **MEM**   Jul-09    Apr-14                    **MEM**   Jul-09    Apr-14

  **SEA**   Aug-09    Jan-14                    **SEA**   Aug-09    Jan-14

  **PHX**   Aug-09    May-15                    **PHX**   Aug-09    May-15

  DCA       Sep-09    Oct-15                    DFW       Sep-09    Jun-13

  BUR       Sep-09    Feb-17                    CVG       Sep-09    Dec-13

  CLE       Oct-09    Oct-14                    CLE       Oct-09    Oct-14

  SAN       Oct-09    Feb-17                    ANC       Oct-09    Dec-14

  DFW       Nov-09    Jun-13                    MKE       Nov-09    Aug-14

  DTW       Nov-09    Sep-13                    SJC       Nov-09    Sep-14

  LGA       Dec-09    Aug-13                    ATL       Dec-09    Sep-13

  MKE       Dec-09    Aug-14                    LGB       Dec-09    Oct-15

  BDL       Jan-10    Mar-15                    RIC       Jan-10    Jul-15

  BHM       Jan-10    Nov-17                    ROC       Jan-10    Nov-16

  SJC       Feb-10    Sep-14                    MSY       Feb-10    Sep-15

  ANC       Feb-10    Dec-14                    OKC       Feb-10    Feb-16

  CVG       Mar-10    Dec-13                    MHT       Mar-10    Apr-14

  ALB       Mar-10    Jun-14                    MIA       Mar-10    Aug-15

  LGB       Apr-10    Oct-15                    GEG       Apr-10    Apr-15

  HNL       Apr-10    Mar-18                    BHM       Apr-10    Nov-17

  RIC       May-10    Jul-15                    CHS       May-10    Jun-16

  MSY       May-10    Sep-15                    RNO       May-10    Apr-17

  GEG       Jun-10    Apr-15                    FLL       Jun-10    Dec-15

  TEB       Jun-10    Apr-16                    EUG       Jun-10    Jan-16

  MIA       Jul-10    Aug-15                    HPN       Jul-10    Mar-14

  FWA       Jul-10    Jun-17                    DAY       Jul-10    May-16

  MHT       Aug-10    Apr-14                    PVD       Aug-10    Nov-14

  RNO       Aug-10    Apr-17                    SLC       Aug-10    Feb-15

  MCO       Sep-10    Jul-15                    TPA       Sep-10    Dec-15

  OKC       Sep-10    Feb-16                    ABQ       Sep-10    Jun-16

  ATL       Oct-10    Sep-13                    COS       Oct-10    Jul-14

  SLC       Oct-10    Feb-15                    SYR       Oct-10    Jan-17

  COS       Nov-10    Jul-14                    PBI       Nov-10    Dec-16

  TPA       Nov-10    Dec-15                    TUL       Nov-10    Jan-17

  DAY       Dec-10    May-16                    ICT       Dec-10    Aug-16

  ABQ       Dec-10    Jun-16                    SHV       Dec-10    Oct-17

  PVD       Jan-11    Nov-14                    RFD       Jan-11    Oct-16

  BNA       Jan-11    Jul-16                    MMU       Jan-11    Dec-17

  CHS       Feb-11    Jun-16                    DTW       Feb-11    Sep-13

  ICT       Feb-11    Aug-16                    ORF       Feb-11    Sep-14

  ROC       Mar-11    Nov-16                    TEB       Mar-11    Apr-16

  PBI       Mar-11    Dec-16                    LIT       Mar-11    May-17

  CAE       Apr-11    Sep-16                    HOU       Apr-11    Dec-13

  RFD       Apr-11    Oct-16                    CAE       Apr-11    Sep-16

  EUG       May-11    Jan-16                    HNL       May-11    Mar-18

  SHV       May-11    Oct-17                    EYW       May-11    Apr-18

  FLL       Jun-11    Dec-15                    SWF       Jun-11    Mar-18

  SYR       Jun-11    Jan-17                    LAS       Jun-11    May-18

  ISP       Jul-11    Jan-15                    MDW       Jul-11    Jul-13

  LAS       Jul-11    May-18                    BUF       Jul-11    Oct-14

  GRR       Aug-11    Mar-15                    RDU       Aug-11    Jan-15

  SWF       Aug-11    Mar-18                    DCA       Aug-11    Oct-15

  HOU       Sep-11    Dec-13                    PIE       Sep-11    Aug-17

  BUF       Sep-11    Oct-14                    CHA       Sep-11    Dec-17

  JFK       Oct-11    Nov-14                    JFK       Oct-11    Nov-14

  TUL       Oct-11    Jan-17                    DLH       Oct-11    Apr-17

  FAI       Nov-11    Jul-17                    PDX       Nov-11    Jun-15

  VNY       Nov-11    Aug-17                    SFB       Nov-11    Jan-18

  HPN       Dec-11    Mar-14                    SNA       Dec-11    Feb-15

  EYW       Dec-11    Apr-18                    FXE       Dec-11    Jun-18

  PIE       Jan-12    Aug-17                    VNY       Jan-12    Aug-17

  MMU       Jan-12    Dec-17                    DEN                 Aug-13

  OAK       Feb-12    Jul-16                    LGA                 Aug-13

  LIT       Feb-12    May-17                    CLT                 Oct-13

  ORF       Mar-12    Sep-14                    BOS                 Nov-13

  SNA       Mar-12    Feb-15                    EWR                 Nov-13

  MDW       Apr-12    Jul-13                    PIT                 Jan-14

  RDU       Apr-12    Jan-15                    ACK                 Feb-14

  PDX       May-12    Jun-15                    IAD                 Feb-14

  TRI       May-12    Jan-18                    LAX                 Mar-14

  DLH       Jun-12    Apr-17                    MSP                 May-14

  TUS       Jun-12    May-18                    PHL                 May-14

  CHA       Jul-12    Dec-17                    ALB                 Jun-14

  FXE       Jul-12    Jun-18                    RSW                 Jun-14

  SFB       Aug-12    Jan-18                    BWI                 Jul-14

  DVT       Aug-12                              GSO                 Aug-14

  DEN                 Aug-13                    MCI                 Dec-14

  CLT                 Oct-13                    ISP                 Jan-15

  BOS                 Nov-13                    BDL                 Mar-15

  EWR                 Nov-13                    GRR                 Mar-15

  PIT                 Jan-14                    CMH                 Apr-15

  ACK                 Feb-14                    AUS                 May-15

  IAD                 Feb-14                    DAL                 Jun-15

  LAX                 Mar-14                    MCO                 Jul-15

  MSP                 May-14                    SMF                 Aug-15

  PHL                 May-14                    IND                 Sep-15

  RSW                 Jun-14                    BOI                 Nov-15

  BWI                 Jul-14                    STL                 Nov-15

  GSO                 Aug-14                    SFO                 Jan-16

  MCI                 Dec-14                    SAT                 Feb-16

  CMH                 Apr-15                    JAX                 Mar-16

  AUS                 May-15                    TLH                 Mar-16

  DAL                 Jun-15                    MDT                 Apr-16

  SMF                 Aug-15                    DSM                 May-16

  IND                 Sep-15                    BNA                 Jul-16

  BOI                 Nov-15                    OAK                 Jul-16

  STL                 Nov-15                    OMA                 Aug-16

  SFO                 Jan-16                    ILN                 Sep-16

  SAT                 Feb-16                    TYS                 Oct-16

  JAX                 Mar-16                    AVL                 Nov-16

  TLH                 Mar-16                    GSP                 Dec-16

  MDT                 Apr-16                    BUR                 Feb-17

  DSM                 May-16                    SAN                 Feb-17

  OMA                 Aug-16                    BFI                 Mar-17

  ILN                 Sep-16                    HSV                 Mar-17

  TYS                 Oct-16                    SDF                 May-17

  AVL                 Nov-16                    DAB                 Jun-17

  GSP                 Dec-16                    FWA                 Jun-17

  BFI                 Mar-17                    FAI                 Jul-17

  HSV                 Mar-17                    BGR                 Sep-17

  SDF                 May-17                    ONT                 Sep-17

  DAB                 Jun-17                    JAN                 Oct-17

  BGR                 Sep-17                    FAT                 Nov-17

  ONT                 Sep-17                    TRI                 Jan-18

  JAN                 Oct-17                    AFW                 Feb-18

  FAT                 Nov-17                    LCK                 Feb-18

  AFW                 Feb-18                    ELP                 Apr-18

  LCK                 Feb-18                    TUS                 May-18

  ELP                 Apr-18                    DVT                 
  --------- --------- ---------- -------------- --------- --------- ----------

## [Appendix C: Derivation of Disruption Costs]{.smallcaps} 

Disruptions occur when there is an interruption to a planned or optimum
flight schedule, and are categorized as delays, cancellations, and
diversions. These disruptions have costs for both aircraft operators
(Direct Operating Cost; DOC) and passengers (Passenger Time Savings;
PTS). Both DOC and PTS costs are assessed and reported by user type:
Major passenger airlines, Regional airlines, Cargo carriers, Corporate
jet operators, and General Aviation (GA). The disruptions costs
described in this section were used to calculate the LAAS benefits from
straight-in and complex approaches.

### Direct Operating Costs

A weighted average delay cost was computed for direct operating cost of
Major, Regional, Cargo, Corporate, and other GA assuming two-thirds of
delays are ground delays and one-third occur in the air. FAA APO data
sources were used to obtain the recommended values.[^141] For example,
APO states that the ground delay for a Major carrier is \$30.70 per
minute and that the airborne cost is \$43.85 per minute (see Table D3 in
Appendix D). Taking 2/3\*(\$30.70) + 1/3\*(\$43.85) gives an average
delay cost of \$35.08 per minute for the Major carriers. Corporate jet
DOC costs were provided by the FAA's Office of Investment Analysis and
Operations Research (ASD) including cost of crew, fuel and maintenance.

Cancellation costs were calculated assuming a typical mid size aircraft
for Majors (*i.e.*, MD80) and for Regional carriers (*i.e.*, F100).
Based on inputs from airline representatives, it was assumed that Cargo
operators do not cancel flights, so no cost was needed for this user
group. It was also assumed that since general aviation flights are not
scheduled, corporate jet operators and other GA operators do not incur
cancellations.

Diversion costs were derived from the Issue Paper analyzing "Schedule
Disruptions" from the FAA's Office of Aviation Policy and Plans (APO).
The estimated average hourly costs of the aircraft for diverted flights
were obtained for Majors and Regional carriers. It was further assumed
that an average diversion time is approximately two hours, and the per
hour costs were multiplied to obtain the total diversion cost per
incident.

The average unit costs of disruptions used for DOC values are summarized
in Table C1.

[Table C1: Average DOC Delay, Cancellation, Diversion Costs (2004
dollars)]{.smallcaps}

  ----------------------- --------- ---------- --------- ----------- ----------
  Type of Disruption      Majors    Regional   Cargo     Corporate   General
                                                         (NBAA)      Aviation

  Delay (per minute)\*    \$35.08   \$21.43    \$69.95   \$20.80     \$6.97

  Cancellation (per       \$6,820   \$2,132    \$0       \$0         \$0
  incident)                                                          

  Diversion (per          \$8,047   \$4,412    \$9,845   \$4,231     \$2,202
  incident)\*\*                                                      
  ----------------------- --------- ---------- --------- ----------- ----------

\* Weighted Average direct operating cost

\*\*Assume average duration of a diversion is 2 hours

### Passenger Time Savings

To monetize passenger benefits, the following PTS economic values were
used, listed in Table C2 by user type.

[Table C2: Breakdown of PTS]{.smallcaps}[^142]
[(dollars/hr)]{.smallcaps}

![](media/image15.png){width="5.588888888888889in"
height="2.5618055555555554in"}

The Air Carrier's All Purposes recommended values in Table C2 were used
for Major and Regional users. General Aviation Business category was
used for all corporate jet travelers. General Aviation All Purposes was
applied to all GA operations.

Aircraft capacity and utilization factors identified in Table C3 were
applied to Passenger Time Savings to obtain total PTS per flight.[^143]

[Table C3: Aircraft Capacity and Utilization Factors]{.smallcaps}

+--------------------------+---------------------+--------------------+
| #### User Type           | **Assumed Aircraft  | **Passenger Load   |
|                          | Seating Capacity**  | Factor**           |
+--------------------------+---------------------+--------------------+
| Major Carrier            | 157                 | 72%                |
+--------------------------+---------------------+--------------------+
| Regional                 | 100                 | 62%                |
+--------------------------+---------------------+--------------------+
| Corporate                | 10                  | 50%                |
+--------------------------+---------------------+--------------------+
| General Aviation         | 6                   | 60%                |
+--------------------------+---------------------+--------------------+

### Results Summary:

A weighted average cost of a disruption was calculated using the
observed occurrence of the three categories of disruption types.
Observed disruptions for major and regional airlines were analyzed based
on scheduled arrivals from Airline Service Quality Performance (ASQP)
database. The proportion of each disruption type was then used to
determine cargo, corporate, and GA disruptions.

An average duration of delay, used to compute the weighted average DOC
and PTS, was determined based on ASQP gate arrival delay, with NCDC
weather data used to isolate those delays occurring in Cat I/II/III
conditions. Delays greater than 15 minutes were extracted to calculate
the point estimate[^144]. Average delay during visual conditions was
subtracted from these Cat I/II/III delays to obtain an average
weather-related delay that is normalized for the amount of delay
inherent in the NAS during operations in visual conditions. This
resulted in an average weather-related delay of 45 minutes for Majors
and Cargo carriers, and 37 minutes for Regional, Corporate, and GA.
Furthermore, since ASQP gate arrival delay includes the ripple effect,
the average durations were divided by the ripple effect factor of 1.8.
This results in average delays of 25 and 21 minutes for Majors and
Regional respectively.

Table C4 shows the average length of delay values used to compute
weighted average disruption costs. See Appendix D for a detailed
discussion of Sensitivity Analysis for Average Duration of Delay and
Table D5 for the Delay Ranges used.

[Table C4: Average Duration of Delay During Cat I/II/III
Conditions]{.smallcaps}

+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| #### User Type                          | **Mean Delay**             |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Major Carrier                           | 25                         |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Regional                                | 21                         |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Cargo                                   | 25                         |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Corporate                               | 21                         |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| General Aviation                        | 21                         |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+

Table C5 provides the final weighted average disruption DOC and PTS
costs by user type. Costs were computed using FAA-APO recommended
values.

[Table C5: Weighted Average Disruption Costs Per Incident by
Carrier]{.smallcaps}

+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| #### User Type      | **Direct     | **Passenger | **Total Cost**   |
|                     | Operating    | Time        |                  |
|                     | Cost**       | Savings**   |                  |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| Major Carrier       | \$1,983      | \$2,545     | \$4,528          |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| Regional            | \$805        | \$1,330     | \$2,135          |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| Cargo               | \$1,903      | \$0         | \$1,903          |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| Corporate           | \$502        | \$89        | \$591            |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
| General Aviation    | \$182        | \$53        | \$235            |
+---------------------+--------------+-------------+------------------+

The impact of using an average disruption cost rather than a separate
cost for each of the 121 airports was investigated. While there are
differences in disruption cost among airports, the net impact to the
total benefits calculation was estimated to be less than 1%, which did
not justify the additional complexity required to introduce
airport-specific cost calculations.

### Data Sources:

1.  The DOT's ASQP database was used for scheduled arrivals and
    disruption data from January 1998 to July 2003. Outliers, such as
    the time period after September 11 and time periods associated with
    airline strikes were removed from the data.

2.  GRA Incorporated, Aviation Specialist Group Inc., Database Products,
    \"Economic Values for FAA Investment and Regulatory Decisions, A
    Guide\", Prepared for FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, Final
    Report -- May 28, 2004. \[http://apo.faa.gov/arcc/Research.htm\]

3.  Inflation Factors Source: Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
    Analysis, GDP Price Indexes. OMB\'s GDP Price Index Guidelines were
    applied for projection to 2004 dollars.

## [Appendix D: Sensitivity Analyses]{.smallcaps}

There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the proper values of
several input parameters used in this benefits estimate. A sensitivity
analysis was conducted to determine the impact of this uncertainty on
the estimated benefits. This report on the LAAS efficiency benefits
includes sensitivity analyses on five parameters:

-   the cost of a disruption,

-   the rate at which LAAS avionics equipage occurs,

-   the minimum avionics equipage level required for benefit accrual,

-   the downstream effect factor, and

-   the average duration of delay.

These parameters were selected due to both the uncertainty of their
values, and their central importance in building the benefits estimates.
Based on research of historical precedents, published estimates, and
interviews with airline and other industry representatives, there is a
wide range of opinion regarding the correct value to assign to the cost
of a flight disruption, the likely pace at which users will install new
technology avionics, the fraction of users that must be equipped before
concerns about mixed-equipage operations are overcome, the correct
downstream effect factor and the average duration of delay. From this
research, a range of expected values was developed for each of these
parameters, including a central, or most likely value, as well as upper
and lower bounds. In each case, the central value was first developed
from research, and then validated with airline representatives, with the
upper and lower bounds also emerging from these industry discussions.

The risk modeling approach selected for this analysis varies the
parameter values between these upper and lower bounds in order to
explore the extent to which the uncertainty in the parameter values may
affect the benefits. This risk analysis was conducted using \@RISK, a
commercial software tool, which employs Monte Carlo simulation[^145] to
explore a large number of possible values of the uncertain parameters.

The sensitivity analysis was conducted in four steps. The first analysis
varied parameter values of both direct operating costs and passenger
time savings for the five user groups (major airlines, regional
airlines, cargo carriers, corporate jets, and general aviation). A
triangular distribution was applied, representing low, most likely and
high values of these costs. Table D1 shows the cost value ranges applied
for the Straight-in and Complex Approaches analyses:

[Table D1: Direct Operating Costs Ranges - Disruptions]{.smallcaps}

+----------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------+
| #### User Type | **Low         | **Most Likely   | **High           |
|                | Estimate**    | Estimate**      | Estimate**       |
+----------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------+
| Major Carrier  | \$782         | \$1,983         | \$4,269          |
+----------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------+
| Regional       | \$700         | \$805           | \$1,035          |
+----------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------+
| Cargo          | \$937         | \$1,903         | \$3,400          |
+----------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------+
| Corporate      | \$297         | \$502           | \$767            |
+----------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------+
| General        | \$145         | \$182           | \$237            |
| Aviation       |               |                 |                  |
+----------------+---------------+-----------------+------------------+

Table D2 shows the cost value ranges applied to determine the Passenger
Time Savings.

Table D2: Passenger Time Savings Costs Ranges - Disruptions

+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| #### User Type | **Low          | **Most Likely   | **High          |
|                | Estimate**     | Estimate**      | Estimate**      |
+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Major Carrier  | \$1,547        | \$2,545         | \$4,374         |
+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Regional       | \$625          | \$1,330         | \$2,569         |
+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Cargo          | \$0            | \$0             | \$0             |
+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Corporate      | \$17           | \$89            | \$234           |
+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| General        | \$26           | \$53            | \$98            |
| Aviation       |                |                 |                 |
+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

Table D3 shows the cost value ranges applied for the Take-off Guidance,
ILS Critical Area, and Closely Spaced Simultaneous Independent Parallel
Approach analyses.

[Table D3: Ground and Airborne Delay Direct Operating Cost Ranges (Per
Minute)]{.smallcaps}

+-----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| #### User Type  | **Low          | **Most Likely  | **High          |
|                 | Estimate**     | Estimate**     | Estimate**      |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
|                 | Ground /       | Ground /       | Ground /        |
|                 | Airborne       | Airborne       | Airborne        |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Major Carrier   | \$27.63 /      | \$30.70 /      | \$33.77 /       |
|                 | \$39.47        | \$43.85        | \$48.24         |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Regional        | \$16.88 /      | \$18.75 /      | \$20.63 /       |
|                 | \$24.11        | \$26.79        | \$29.47         |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Cargo           | \$55.09 /      | \$61.21 /      | \$67.33 /       |
|                 | \$78.70        | \$87.44        | \$96.18         |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Corporate       | \$14.04 /      | \$15.60 /      | \$17.16 /       |
|                 | \$28.08        | \$31.20        | \$34.32         |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| General         | \$5.49 /       | \$6.10 /       | \$6.71 / \$9.58 |
| Aviation        | \$7.84         | \$8.71         |                 |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+

Table D4 shows the cost value ranges applied for ground and airborne
delay (per minute) PTS.

Table D4: Ground and Airborne Delay (Per Minute) Cost Ranges

+-----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| #### User Type  | **Low          | **Most Likely  | **High          |
|                 | Estimate**     | Estimate**     | Estimate**      |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Major Carrier   | 41.33          | 53.88          | 72.54           |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Regional        | 13.88          | 29.55          | 57.08           |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Cargo           | \-             | \-             | \-              |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Corporate       | 0.74           | 3.75           | 9.89            |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+
| General         | 1.08           | 2.33           | 4.13            |
| Aviation        |                |                |                 |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+

In the second analysis, low, most likely, and high values of the time to
equip and the minimum required equipage (or "critical mass") was
applied. These values are consistent with recommendations received
through interviews with airline and air traffic control representatives:

-   High: 5 years to equip with 0% critical mass,

-   Most Likely: 6 years for fleet to equip with 80% critical mass and

-   Low: 8 years equipage rate with 100% critical mass, respectively.

For the third analysis, a downstream effect range with low, most likely,
and high was applied to the overall analysis and the takeoff guidance
analysis. Table D5 shows the downstream effect factors that were used
and the bounds placed to conduct the sensitivity analysis. These factors
were received from SME inputs and additional research. A more detailed
discussion of the downstream effect factors can be found in Appendix N.

[Table D5: Downstream Effect Ranges]{.smallcaps}

+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| #### User Type | **Low          | **Most Likely   | **High          |
|                | Estimate**     | Estimate**      | Estimate**      |
+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| All Analysis   | 1.0            | 1.8             | 2.6             |
| (except        |                |                 |                 |
| Takeoff        |                |                 |                 |
| Guidance)      |                |                 |                 |
+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Takeoff        | 1.0            | 3.7             | 7.0             |
| Guidance       |                |                 |                 |
| Analysis       |                |                 |                 |
+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

Finally, the fourth step varied the average duration of delay. Weather
delays greater than 0, 15, and 30 minutes were extracted for low, most
likely and high values. For Majors and Cargo operators, delays greater
then 0 resulted in an average of 24 minutes, greater then 15 resulted in
45 minutes and above 30 resulted in an average of 73 minutes. For
remaining regional, corporate and general aviation aircraft and average
of 37 minutes was used. Furthermore, to exclude the ripple effect, these
values were divided by the 1.8 factor. Table D6 shows the average
duration of delay used for the low, most likely and high ranges.

[Table D6]{.smallcaps}: Average Duration of Delay Ranges

+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| #### User Type | **Low          | **Most Likely   | **High          |
|                | Estimate**     | Estimate**      | Estimate**      |
+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Majors         | 13             | 25              | 41              |
+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Regional       | 21             | 21              | 21              |
+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Cargo          | 13             | 25              | 41              |
+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Corporate      | 21             | 21              | 21              |
+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| General        | 21             | 21              | 21              |
| Aviation       |                |                 |                 |
+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

Conducting the sensitivity analysis using all these bounds produces
risk-adjusted benefits for both direct operating cost and passenger time
savings, for the two WAAS user equipage scenarios. Figures D1 through D4
show the range of estimated LAAS benefits, highlighting the 5^th^ and
95^th^ percentiles. Figures D1 and D2 show these results for direct
operating costs and the 0% and 100% WAAS user equipage scenarios,
respectively. Figures D3 and D4 show these results for passenger time
savings and the 0% and 100% WAAS user equipage scenarios, respectively.

Another output of the sensitivity analysis is an estimate of the
relative influence that the uncertain parameters have on the benefits.
In both the 0% and 100% WAAS equipage scenarios for DOC, disruption cost
is the most influential parameter followed closely by downstream effect.

![](media/image16.wmf){width="4.15625in" height="1.9916666666666667in"}

Figure D1: Sensitivity Analysis: LAAS Direct Operating Cost Benefits -
0% WAAS scenario

![](media/image17.wmf){width="4.15625in" height="2.0819444444444444in"}

Figure D2: Sensitivity Analysis: LAAS Direct Operating Cost Benefits -
100% WAAS scenario

![](media/image18.wmf){width="4.15625in" height="2.0319444444444446in"}

Figure D3: Sensitivity Analysis: LAAS Passenger Time Savings - 0% WAAS
scenario

![](media/image19.wmf){width="4.15625in" height="2.091666666666667in"}

Figure D4: Sensitivity Analysis: LAAS Passenger Time Savings - 100% WAAS

## [Appendix E: Derivation of the Single Airport Delay Model]{.smallcaps}

The Single Airport Delay Model is a deterministic model that can be used
to estimate delays at a single airport when demand exceeds capacity.
Since the model is deterministic, it does not take into account all of
the delays that may occur due to the randomness of operations at a
capacity constrained resource. Nevertheless, it offers a very reasonable
approximation to those delays. This model is used in the Takeoff
Guidance, ILS Critical Area, and Parallel Approach benefit sections.

### Basic Methodology and Illustrative Example

The model is based on a methodology described on pp. 339-343 of Robert
Horonjeff's and Francis McKelvey's "Planning and Design of Airports"
(4^th^ edition, 1994). The idea behind the model is fairly
straightforward. Any demand that cannot be satisfied by the available
capacity during a particular period rolls over into the next period and
contributes to delay. If the capacity during that period is sufficient
to handle the rollover demand plus the new demand arriving in that
period, there is no additional delay. However, if the demand exceeds the
capacity, a rollover into the next period occurs once again and the
delay accumulates. The spreadsheet model calculates the average delay
and a number of other metrics that summarize the performance of the
airport.

A simple example can help illustrate how the model calculates delay.
Figure E1 illustrates the overall problem. A given airport has
insufficient capacity to handle the demand. This demand can be in the
form of arrivals, departures, or both, and the capacity can be for a
single runway or multiple runways at the airport. The unit of time is a
quarter hour, but can just as well be any other value. Note in this
example that in the second quarter hour, the demand of 5 flights exceeds
the capacity of 4 flights per 15 minute period.

![](media/image20.wmf)

Figure E1. Illustrative Example of Demand and Capacity versus Time at an
Airport

Figure E2 shows another way of representing this same data. In this
graph, the demand and capacity are depicted as cumulative functions over
the specified time period. Note that the cumulative capacity curve
begins at the point in time when the demand rate starts to exceed the
service rate or capacity (end of the first time period). For any point
in time after that on the horizontal axis (until the two curves
intersect once again), the vertical distance between the two curves
represents the total queue at that point in time. Similarly, for any
flight on the vertical axis, the horizontal distance between the two
curves corresponds to the total delay experienced by that flight. The
area between the two curves is the total delay for all the flights in
this five quarter hour period.

![](media/image21.wmf)

[Figure E2. Cumulative Demand and Capacity Versus Time]{.smallcaps}

In order to simplify Figure E2, the difference between the cumulative
demand and cumulative capacity is computed and the result is plotted as
a function of time over the period of interest when the demand exceeds
the capacity. This effectively transforms Figure E2 into another graph
(see Figure E3) with the y-value representing the total queue at any
point in time. Note that in addition to obtaining the queue length, a
number of other performance measurements can also be derived from this
graph. For example, the maximum queue length can be easily seen to be 3.

![](media/image22.wmf)

[Figure E3. Difference Between Cumulative Demand and Cumulative Capacity
as a Function of Time]{.smallcaps}

Service time is the reciprocal of the capacity. For this particular
example, the capacity is 16 aircraft/60 minutes, which gives a service
time of 3.75 minutes per aircraft. Therefore the value for the longest
delayed aircraft can be obtained by multiplying the maximum queue length
by 3.75 minutes, thus obtaining 3 x 3.75 minutes = 11.25 minutes. The
delay for all aircraft during any 15 minute period can be derived by
calculating the area of the curve for that 15 minute period. This
amounts to calculating the area of one of the triangles or trapezoids
labeled A, B, C, or D in Figure E3. For example, the delay during the
first 15 minute period is simply the area of triangle A - ½ x base x
height or ½ x 15 minutes x 1 = 7.5 minutes. Note that the calculation of
the area of D is a little more complex since the function does not
intersect the x-axis at a convenient break point (multiple of the
quarter hour time interval). Therefore, it is necessary to determine the
exact point of intersection before the calculation can be performed.

Once the areas under the curve are determined for each quarter hour
period, the total delay for all aircraft during the entire period can be
obtained by summing the areas of all these triangles and trapezoids. In
this example, this area turns out to be 85 minutes. The average delay
per aircraft is then simply the total delay divided by the number of
aircraft or 85 minutes/16 aircraft = 5.3 minutes/aircraft.

### Inputs and Outputs in the Model 

### Model Input: Estimated Total Traffic 

The total traffic demand at an airport, a key input to the Single
Airport Delay Model, is estimated for each fifteen minute time period
for a typical day by using the scheduled volume and factoring in an
estimate of unscheduled traffic. The total traffic is built up from
three elements; 1) scheduled, 2) unscheduled IFR, and 3) VFR traffic. To
address these three elements, three data sources from FAA-APO were used
for this analysis: Flight Schedule Data System (FSDS), Enhanced Traffic
Management System Counts (ETMSC), and Operations Network (OPSNET).

Scheduled volume was obtained from the FSDS database, using April 30,
2003 as a representative traffic volume day. This date was selected
because the arrival count for that date had the median volume,
nationwide, of the 2003 calendar year. Scheduled traffic is allotted to
15 minute periods throughout the day. To add unscheduled volume, ETMSC
data, which include both scheduled and unscheduled IFR traffic, was
obtained. Four Wednesdays within the same month were selected, April 9,
16, 23 and 30, 2003 to obtain a representative sampling of the
variability of this unscheduled traffic. An average ETMSC count of
arrivals and departures for these four days was calculated and the
number of flights above and beyond the scheduled traffic was then added
to the original FSDS-based daily volume. These flights were added
randomly to 15 minute periods over the 24 hours of the day. VFR traffic
was added through a similar process. Flight counts were obtained from
OPSNET, which includes both IFR and VFR flights. OPSNET flight counts
above and beyond the average ETMSC traffic represent an estimate of VFR
traffic, and were added to the scheduled and unscheduled traffic. Since
these VFR flights typically occur during daylight hours, this volume was
added randomly between 6am and 10pm to complete the total traffic
estimate.

#### Example: 

To illustrate the method of building the total traffic, the following
chart shows simulated numbers of arrivals reported by each database, for
an imaginary example airport, ABC, on April 30th, 2003.

  ----------- ---------------- -------------------- ---------------------
  Airport     FSDS Arrivals    ETMSC Arrivals       OPSNET Arrivals

  ABC         200              224                  240
  ----------- ---------------- -------------------- ---------------------

The 200 scheduled FSDS arrivals are allotted to their proper
quarter-hour periods. ETMSC reports 24 additional arrivals beyond those
in FSDS. A random number generator was used to assign these 24 flights
to quarter-hour time slots, adding these to the FSDS arrivals already in
those quarter-hours. NOTE: The random number generator allows for
replacement[^146], so any quarter-hour throughout the day can have any
number of these 24 flights added to it.

The random assignment process is repeated for the additional 16 OPSNET
arrivals above and beyond those recorded in the ETMSC database. These
sixteen flights will be added at random to the new volume calculated
from the FSDS + ETMSC data. The end result is an estimate of the total
traffic encountered at an airport, and it is used as an input to IBM's
Single Airport Delay Model to simulate the actual flights that arrive
and depart at each airport on that day.

Table E1 below illustrates how these arrivals might be assigned to
quarter-hour periods to build a total number of arrivals for each
period. Only part of a complete 24 hour day is shown for this example.

**[Table E1. Illustrative Example of Building Total
Traffic]{.smallcaps}**

+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| Time Period | FSDS         | ETMSC     | OPSNET       | Total       |
|             |              |           |              |             |
|             | Arrivals     | Arrivals  | Arrivals     | Arrivals    |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| .           |              |           |              |             |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| .           |              |           |              |             |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| .           |              |           |              |             |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 8:00        | 12           |           |              | 12          |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 8:15        | 11           | 1         |              | 12          |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 8:30        | 13           |           | 4            | 17          |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 8:45        | 9            |           |              | 9           |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 9:00        | 6            | 2         | 1            | 9           |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 9:15        | 4            |           |              | 4           |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 9:30        | 3            | 4         |              | 7           |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 9:45        | 5            | 1         |              | 6           |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 10:00       | 3            |           | 1            | 4           |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 10:15       | 6            |           |              | 6           |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 10:30       | 10           |           |              | 10          |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 10:45       | 11           |           |              | 11          |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 11:00       | 12           | 2         |              | 14          |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 11:15       | 5            |           |              | 5           |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 11:30       | 6            |           |              | 6           |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 11:45       | 3            |           |              | 3           |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 12:00       | 0            | 3         | 1            | 4           |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 12:15       | 8            |           |              | 8           |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 12:30       | 7            |           |              | 7           |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 12:45       | 4            | 1         |              | 5           |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| 13:00       | 0            |           |              | 0           |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| .           |              |           |              |             |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| .           |              |           |              |             |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+
| .           |              |           |              |             |
+-------------+--------------+-----------+--------------+-------------+

Continuing the example from Figure E3, Table E2 shows the values derived
by the model for this illustrative example, including all of the
critical system performance parameters.

[Table E2. Single Airport Delay Model Inputs and Results for
Illustrative Example]{.smallcaps}

  ----------------- ---------- ------------ ------- -------------- ------------------ --------------- ----------
  **Quarter Hour**  **Demand   **Capacity   **D -   **\# of        **Delays/Quarter   **Dem\>Cap?**   **A/C in
                    (D)**      (C)**        C**     Aircraft in    Hour**                             Queue?**
                                                    Queue**                                           

  0:15              1          4            -3      0                                 0               0

  0:30              5          4            1       1              7.5                1               1

  0:45              6          4            2       3              30.0               1               1

  1:00              3          4            -1      2              37.5               0               1

  1:15              1          4            -3      0              10.0               0               0

                    16                                                                                

                                                                                                      

  Total delay =                             85.0    minutes        or                 1.4             hours

  Average delay per                         5.3     min/aircraft                                       
  aircraft =                                                                                          

  Largest number of                         3       aircraft                                           
  aircraft delayed                                                                                    
  =                                                                                                   

  Delay time for                            11.3    minutes                                            
  longest-delayed                                                                                     
  aircraft =                                                                                          

  \# of quarter                             2                      or                 40%             of the
  hours when                                                                                          time
  demand\>cap =                                                                                       

  \# of quarter                             3                      or                 60%             of the
  hours when ac in                                                                                    time
  queue =                                                                                             
  ----------------- ---------- ------------ ------- -------------- ------------------ --------------- ----------

The inputs to the model are the demand and the capacity. Demand at each
airport was estimated as described above, using the scheduled volume and
factoring in an estimate of unscheduled traffic. Airport capacity data
was provided by FAA ASD-430.

The model simply calculates the difference between the demand and
capacity during each period. The "#of Aircraft in Queue" column contains
the queue lengths (shown as y-axis values (Aircraft In Queue) in Figure
E3). They are obtained by calculating the difference between the overall
demand (flights left over from the previous period plus those arriving
in this period) and the capacity. Negative values are set equal to zero
since a negative queue length is not allowed.

The "Delays/Quarter Hour" are obtained by calculating the areas of the
triangles and trapezoids as described earlier (in reference to Figure
E3). The last two columns are simply set to 1 when the fourth and fifth
columns, respectively, are greater than 0.

### Model Outputs

The highlighted metrics at the bottom of the table summarize the results
of the computations. The methods for deriving the first four values were
described previously. The last two metrics are obtained by taking the
sum of the last two columns and dividing by the total number of quarter
hour periods to obtain the "# of quarter hours when demand exceeds
capacity" and the "# of quarter hours when aircraft are in queue",
respectively.

### Summary

In summary, it is important to note that the Single Airport Delay Model
is extremely simple to use and can be easily adapted to determine delays
associated with any demand and capacity imbalance. It is not restricted
to aircraft and airports, but in fact can be used for a wide variety of
applications. In particular, it has already proven to be useful in
determining delays that may occur from the introduction of new security
screening equipment and procedures at airline cargo facilities.

## [Appendix F: Navigation Capabilities Baseline]{.smallcaps}

LAAS benefits are estimated relative to a baseline of existing and
planned systems. This baseline was defined in the Navigation
Capabilities Baseline delivered November 2003. The following three
tables, excerpted from the earlier deliverable, contain the key elements
of the baseline:

F1. NAS Baseline -- existing and planned ground and space-based
infrastructure

> F2. System Capabilities -- capabilities associated with existing and
> planned systems
>
> F3.User Baseline -- estimates of avionics equipage levels for the
> relevant systems

Table F1 lists the NAS Capabilities Baseline at each runway associated
with the 121 studied airports. Any system available before or during
year 2005 is given a value of 2005.

### [Table F1: NAS Baseline]{.smallcaps}

![](media/image23.wmf){width="6.89375in" height="5.758333333333334in"}

![](media/image24.wmf){width="6.89375in" height="9.478472222222223in"}

![](media/image25.wmf){width="6.89375in" height="8.263194444444444in"}

![](media/image26.wmf){width="6.89375in" height="8.975in"}

![](media/image27.wmf){width="6.89375in" height="9.478472222222223in"}

![](media/image28.wmf){width="6.89375in" height="9.230555555555556in"}

![](media/image29.wmf){width="6.89375in" height="8.975in"}

![](media/image30.wmf){width="6.89375in" height="8.983333333333333in"}

![](media/image31.wmf){width="6.89375in" height="9.478472222222223in"}

![](media/image32.wmf){width="6.89375in" height="8.998611111111112in"}

![](media/image33.wmf){width="6.89375in" height="1.8256944444444445in"}

[Table F2: System Capabilities]{.smallcaps}

![](media/image34.wmf){width="6.875in" height="9.411111111111111in"}

[Table F3: User Baseline]{.smallcaps}

![](media/image35.wmf){width="6.89375in" height="8.761111111111111in"}

![](media/image36.wmf){width="6.89375in" height="9.025in"}

## [Appendix G: Potential LAAS Sites Outside of the 121 Airports]{.smallcaps}

The following airports, listed in alphabetical order, have been
identified by airline representatives as potential LAAS candidate
airports outside the 121 studied airports.

> [Table G1. Potential LAAS Sites Outside of the 121
> Airports]{.smallcaps}

  ------------ -------------------------------- ------------------ -----------
  **Airport    **Location**                     **2003 Scheduled   
  Code**                                        Arrivals**         

  ASE          Aspen, CO                        4,162              []{.mark}

  EAT          Wenatchee, WA                    2,334              

  EGE          Eagle County, CO                 2,257              []{.mark}

  GUC          Gunnison County, CO              1,387              []{.mark}

  JAC          Jackson Hole, WY                 4,979              []{.mark}

  PUW          Pullman, WA                      1,744              []{.mark}

  SIT          Sitka, AK                        1,647              []{.mark}

  SUN          Sun Valley, ID                   4,333              []{.mark}

  YAK          Yakutat, AK                      1,196              []{.mark}
  ------------ -------------------------------- ------------------ -----------

### Limitations

-   Lack of operational data precludes analyzing these airports at the
    same level of detail as was performed for the IBM 121 Airports.

-   Analysis of airports outside of the original list of 121 is
    currently out of scope for this study.

## [Appendix H: LAAS Signal in the Vicinity of the 121 Studied Airports - Example]{.smallcaps} 

Table H1 details the 85 aviation facilities within 23nm of
Seattle-Tacoma Airport (SEA).

[Table H1. Aviation Facilities Within 23 nm of SEA]{.smallcaps}

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Airport   **Airport Name**                      **City**             **State**
  Code**                                                                 
  ----------- ------------------------------------- -------------------- -----------
  02WA        CAWLEYS SOUTH PRAIRIE                 SOUTH PRAIRIE        WA

  08WA        MANCHESTER LABORATORY                 MANCHESTER           WA

  0S8         PORT ORCHARD                          PORT ORCHARD         WA

  0W0         SEATTLE SEAPLANES                     SEATTLE              WA

  0WA6        STEVENS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL             EDMONDS              WA

  0WA8        CHILDRENS HOSPITAL EMERGENCY          SEATTLE              WA

  1S0         PIERCE COUNTY - THUN FIELD            PUYALLUP             WA

  1WA1        WEBER POINT                           REDMOND              WA

  1WA6        FALL CITY                             FALL CITY            WA

  1WA8        MADIGAN HOSPITAL                      FORT LEWIS           WA

  23WA        BCAG - FREDERICKSON                   PUYALLUP             WA

  29WA        CROSSINGS                             TACOMA               WA

  2S1         VASHON MUNI                           VASHON               WA

  2WA2        QUARTERMASTER HARBOR                  DOCKTON              WA

  2WA4        MOSS FIELD                            GRAHAM               WA

  31WA        MARY BRIDGE                           TACOMA               WA

  3B8         SHADY ACRES                           SPANAWAY             WA

  3WA6        BOEING KENT                           KENT                 WA

  3WA7        KENT BENAROYA                         KENT                 WA

  43WA        WILSON                                WOODINVILLE          WA

  47WA        FITZ PAD 1                            WOODINVILLE          WA

  51WA        EVERGREEN SKY RANCH                   BLACK DIAMOND        WA

  54WA        TUKWILA OPERATIONS CENTER             TUKWILA              WA

  60WA        J. J. H.                              AUBURN               WA

  64WA        TAYMAR                                BELLEVUE             WA

  71WA        I-90/BELLEVUE BUSI PK BOEING COMP     BELLEVUE             WA
              SVCS H                                                     

  7WA8        GOOD SAMARITAN HOSP                   PUYALLUP             WA

  81WA        JOBE SKIS PLANT 1                     REDMOND              WA

  83Q         PORT OF POULSBO MARINA MOORAGE        POULSBO              WA

  88WA        PERSONAL 500 SALES CO.                SUMNER               WA

  8WA2        BOEING RENTON RAMP SITE NR 2          RENTON               WA

  8WA3        VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER                 RENTON               WA

  8WA8        SNOQUALMIE VALLEY HOSPITAL EMERGENCY  KING COUNTY          WA
              ROOM                                                       

  8WA9        BROADCAST HOUSE HELISTOP              SEATTLE              WA

  92WA        CONNER                                ISSAQUAH             WA

  95WA        BLACK DIAMOND                         BLACK DIAMOND        WA

  9WA0        BOEING PLANT 2                        SEATTLE              WA

  9WA6        PUGET SOUND PLAZA                     SEATTLE              WA

  9WA9        NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE BANGOR           SILVERDALE           WA

  BFI         BOEING FIELD/KING COUNTY INTL         SEATTLE              WA

  PWT         BREMERTON NATIONAL                    BREMERTON            WA

  RNT         RENTON MUNI                           RENTON               WA

  S36         CREST AIRPARK                         KENT                 WA

  S37         CLOVER PARK TECHNICAL COLLEGE         TACOMA               WA

  S42         APEX AIRPARK                          SILVERDALE           WA

  S44         SPANAWAY                              SPANAWAY             WA

  S50         AUBURN MUNI                           AUBURN               WA

  S60         KENMORE AIR HARBOR INC                KENMORE              WA

  TCM         MCCHORD AFB                           TACOMA               WA

  TIW         TACOMA NARROWS                        TACOMA               WA

  W36         WILL ROGERS WILEY POST MEML           RENTON               WA

  W37         AMERICAN LAKE                         TACOMA               WA

  W55         KENMORE AIR HARBOR                    SEATTLE              WA

  WA06        DON JOHNSON HOME                      AUBURN               WA

  WA11        BOEING MILITARY AIRPLANES             TUKWILA              WA

  WA19        BERKLEY STRUCTURES                    REDMOND              WA

  WA28        TOM MATSON                            AUBURN               WA

  WA53        HARBORVIEW MEDICAL CENTER             SEATTLE              WA

  WA54        1001 FOURTH AVENUE PLAZA              SEATTLE              WA

  WA55        ELLIOTT PARK                          SEATTLE              WA

  WA69        WAX ORCHARDS                          VASHON               WA

  WA75        FLYING \'O\' RANCH                    COVINGTON            WA

  WA77        ENUMCLAW                              ENUMCLAW             WA

  WA84        AUBURN ACADEMY                        AUBURN               WA

  WA85        WEYERHAEUSER                          AUBURN               WA

  WA86        BOEING - AUBURN COMPLEX               AUBURN               WA

  WA92        MC NEIL ISLAND EMERGENCY PAD          STEILACOOM           WA

  WA94        WASHINGTON AIR MUSEUM                 BLACK DIAMOND        WA

  WA96        LEISURELAND AIRPARK                   BREMERTON            WA

  WN01        SEATTLE PRIVATE NUMBER ONE            SEATTLE              WA

  WN13        VAUGHAN RANCH AIRFIELD                PORT ORCHARD         WA

  WN16        KOMO TV                               SEATTLE              WA

  WN19        GIG HARBOR                            GIG HARBOR           WA

  WN22        LAKE UNION                            SEATTLE              WA

  WN42        FLYING H RANCH                        BUCKLEY              WA

  WN50        ST JOSEPH HOSPITAL                    TACOMA               WA

  WN62        AUBURN FIRE DEPARTMENT                AUBURN               WA

  WN71        EVANS                                 BELLEVUE             WA

  WN76        BERGSETH FIELD                        ENUMCLAW             WA

  WN79        HALEY                                 WINSLOW              WA

  WN83        TELEPHONE UTILITIES/TIW/              GIG HARBOR           WA

  WN87        BRYAN                                 ENUMCLAW             WA

  WN91        EVANS                                 REDMOND              WA

  WN93        PARK 90                               SEATTLE              WA

  WN96        MISTY ISLE FARMS                      VASHON ISLAND        WA
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

### 

### Limitations

-   Investigation has shown that some double-counting of proximate
    facilities exists within the 121 airport list. For example, the list
    of proximate facilities for SEA includes BFI, and visa versa.

-   Final evaluation and certification of service provided to proximate
    facilities, if any, is to be determined by the FAA.

## [Appendix I: LAAS Benefits Analysis Assumptions]{.smallcaps}

This following list of assumptions was developed, prior to the start of
this analysis, through a series of meetings between IBM and the FAA.
Several of these assumptions have been modified or updated during the
course of this study as a result of new guidance from the FAA (*e.g.*,
#3, 4, 6, 13).

One key assumption regarding airline WAAS equipage (#20) is bounded in
this study, as shown in the LAAS benefit tables, by estimating LAAS
benefits for two cases:

> "0% WAAS" -- Assuming no WAAS equipage by users
>
> "100% WAAS" -- Assuming full WAAS equipage by users

Table I1. LAAS Benefits Analysis Assumptions

+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| * | **Assumption**                                                    |
| * |                                                                   |
| N |                                                                   |
| o |                                                                   |
| . |                                                                   |
| * |                                                                   |
| * |                                                                   |
+===+===================================================================+
| 1 | LAAS will accrue benefit only when and where it provides          |
|   | capabilities above and beyond those provided by other systems.    |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2 | Where LAAS provides capabilities above and beyond those provided  |
|   | by other systems, it may reduce flight disruptions, including:    |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | -- Diversions                                                     |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | -- Cancellations                                                  |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | -- Delays (Ground Delay Program and circular holding delays)      |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3 | LAAS Cat-I Initial Operational Capability (IOC) at end of FY06    |
|   | (changed to FY09; 2/26/04)                                        |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4 | LAAS Cat-II/III IOC in FY10 (changed to FY13; 2/26/04)            |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5 | LAAS may be installed at a maximum rate of 2 per month (24/yr),   |
|   | with a cap equal to the number of FAA LAAS airports to be studied |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6 | LAAS approach procedures, including complex procedures, will be   |
|   | available at commissioning of each site, for all weather          |
|   | conditions. (changed to 4 months after commissioning; 2/26/04)    |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 7 | LAAS training will keep pace with LAAS procedure development and  |
|   | publication.                                                      |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 8 | Appropriate infrastructure will exist at LAAS candidate runways   |
|   | at the time of LAAS installation                                  |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 9 | There may be some decommissioning of ground-based navaids         |
|   | (consistent with the Navigation and Landing Transition Strategy)  |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | LAAS provides no operational improvement during weather           |
| 0 | conditions that would be likely to close the airport.             |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | LAAS, coupled with other technologies, may provide operational    |
| 1 | improvement in extremely low visibility conditions.               |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | WAAS LNAV/VNAV and LPV approach procedures, including complex     |
| 2 | procedures, will be available at or before LAAS commissioning at  |
|   | each site.                                                        |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | WAAS Cat-I requires GPS L5 [and]{.underline} modifications to the |
| 3 | current architecture, and may not be achieved during the time     |
|   | period under study (2005 -- 2024) (changed to 2009 -- 2028;       |
|   | 2/26/04).                                                         |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | GPS L5 frequency will become operationally available after 2015   |
| 4 |                                                                   |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | Detailed study of quantitative DoD benefits are beyond the scope  |
| 5 | of this benefits analysis.                                        |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | Assume LAAS can be sited at every airport. If all runway ends at  |
| 6 | the airport are within 5 nm\* of each other, assume that one (1)  |
|   | LAAS will cover every runway end. Otherwise, assume that two (2)  |
|   | LAAS are required. (\*Note: DEN is the only airport in this study |
|   | that meets this criterion)                                        |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | If any navigation system performance assumptions stated herein    |
| 7 | (*SOW*) cannot be achieved at a specific location, then the       |
|   | actual performance parameters will be used.                       |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| * | **Assumption**                                                    |
| * |                                                                   |
| N |                                                                   |
| o |                                                                   |
| . |                                                                   |
| * |                                                                   |
| * |                                                                   |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | RNAV and RNP operations (approaches) intercept a straight-in      |
| 8 | approach at or above 500' HAT.                                    |
| a |                                                                   |
|   | The straight-in approach can be supported by ILS, LAAS, or WAAS,  |
|   | to the appropriate operating minima.                              |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | RNAV and RNP departures and missed approaches have a              |
|   | straight-ahead segment to at least 400' HAT.                      |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | Typical required performance (above 500' HAT on approach, above   |
|   | 400' HAT on missed approach or departure) is RNP-0.1.             |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | GPS/INS, GPS/WAAS and GPS/LAAS all provide an RNP-0.1 capability, |
| 8 | with potentially different levels of service availability         |
| b |                                                                   |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | Cat I: The Cat I LAAS should obtain the benefits accruing from:   |
| 8 |                                                                   |
| c | 1\) the reduction in weather minima below those supported by      |
|   | other systems                                                     |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | 2\) greater availability, where demonstrated.                     |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | Cat I: LAAS performance would generally achieve Cat I GLS with    |
| 8 | \[0.99999\] availability                                          |
| d |                                                                   |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | Cat II/III: The Cat II/III LAAS should obtain the benefits        |
| 9 | accruing from:                                                    |
| a |                                                                   |
|   | 1\) the reduction in weather minima below those supported by      |
|   | other systems                                                     |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | 2\) greater availability, where demonstrated.                     |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | The benefits analysis does not include any decommissioning of Cat |
| 9 | II/III ILS facilities                                             |
| b |                                                                   |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2 | The *initial* airline equipage assumption is that all users equip |
| 0 | with GPS/WAAS LPV as the baseline.                                |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | The *final* airline equipage assumption will be based on the      |
|   | airline benefit assessment.                                       |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2 | For efficiency analyses, expected LAAS user groups include:       |
| 1 | High-end GA (corporate turbine; helicopters), and commercial      |
|   | (airline and air-taxi) operators. Low-end (recreational) GA       |
|   | operators are not among the expected users of LAAS and will not   |
|   | be addressed in this efficiency analysis                          |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2 | Navigation capabilities baseline will include:                    |
| 2 |                                                                   |
|   | [NAS Baseline]{.underline} [User Baseline]{.underline}            |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [Current Systems]{.underline}                                     |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [ILS X                                                            |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [WAAS-LPV X                                                       |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [VOR X                                                            |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [DME X                                                            |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [GPS X                                                            |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [Loran X                                                          |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [NDB X                                                            |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [INS                                                              |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [FMS                                                              |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [PRM X                                                            |
|   | \_\_\_                                                            |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [Multilateration X                                                |
|   | \_\_\_                                                            |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [TAWS                                                             |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [HUD                                                              |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2 | Navigation capabilities baseline will include:                    |
| 3 |                                                                   |
|   | [NAS Baseline]{.underline} [User Baseline]{.underline}            |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [Planned Systems]{.underline}                                     |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [WAAS-GLS X                                                       |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [GPS L5 X                                                         |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [GPS -- III X                                                     |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [ASDE-X X                                                         |
|   | \_\_\_\                                                           |
|   | _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [ADS-B X                                                          |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
|   |                                                                   |
|   | [CDTI                                                             |
|   | X\_\_\_                                                           |
|   | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2 | LAAS improves safety by providing vertical guidance               |
| 4 |                                                                   |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2 | LAAS may be a source of positioning information for surface       |
| 5 | navigation systems                                                |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2 | For safety analyses covering operations in Alaska, low-end GA     |
| 6 | users, in addition to high-end GA and commercial users, will be   |
|   | considered.                                                       |
+---+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

## [Appendix J: LAAS Efficiency Benefits by User Group]{.smallcaps}

[Table J1: Discounted 20 Year LAAS Operating Cost Benefits -- 0% Waas
Equipage Scenario,]{.smallcaps} by Airport

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Airport**   **Total Benefit**   **Rank by   Major Passenger     Regional Passenger  Cargo Carriers     Corporate Jet GA   Other GA
                                    Total       Airlines            Airlines                               Operators          Operators
                                    Benefit**                                                                                 
  ------------- ------------------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------ ------------------ -----------------
  ABQ           \$2,374,000         73          \$1,859,000         \$287,000           \$192,000          \$36,000           \$0

  ACK           \$7,637,000         28          \$0                 \$6,887,000         \$196,000          \$554,000          \$0

  AFW           \$149,000           116         \$0                 \$0                 \$139,000          \$10,000           \$0

  ALB           \$8,502,000         24          \$4,630,000         \$3,054,000         \$609,000          \$209,000          \$0

  ANC           \$8,319,000         25          \$3,890,000         \$0                 \$3,062,000        \$95,000           \$1,272,000

  ATL           \$13,200,000        11          \$11,310,000        \$1,600,000         \$262,000          \$28,000           \$0

  AUS           \$3,149,000         59          \$2,944,000         \$48,000            \$0                \$157,000          \$0

  AVL           \$740,000           95          \$230,000           \$303,000           \$2,000            \$205,000          \$0

  BDL           \$10,191,000        18          \$7,293,000         \$1,678,000         \$888,000          \$332,000          \$0

  BFI           \$542,000           101         \$0                 \$22,000            \$194,000          \$326,000          \$0

  BGR           \$345,000           109         \$0                 \$264,000           \$33,000           \$48,000           \$0

  BHM           \$6,020,000         34          \$4,323,000         \$965,000           \$293,000          \$439,000          \$0

  BNA           \$2,193,000         76          \$1,723,000         \$336,000           \$84,000           \$50,000           \$0

  BOI           \$2,521,000         70          \$1,509,000         \$752,000           \$174,000          \$86,000           \$0

  BOS           \$10,483,000        17          \$7,324,000         \$2,805,000         \$245,000          \$109,000          \$0

  BUF           \$4,827,000         45          \$3,058,000         \$1,347,000         \$213,000          \$209,000          \$0

  BUR           \$20,777,000        7           \$19,996,000        \$130,000           \$399,000          \$252,000          \$0

  BWI           \$5,106,000         42          \$4,342,000         \$537,000           \$166,000          \$61,000           \$0

  CAE           \$1,645,000         80          \$443,000           \$743,000           \$399,000          \$60,000           \$0

  CHA           \$310,000           111         \$51,000            \$164,000           \$29,000           \$66,000           \$0

  CHS           \$2,244,000         75          \$1,106,000         \$959,000           \$72,000           \$107,000          \$0

  CLE           \$21,214,000        5           \$12,544,000        \$7,528,000         \$874,000          \$268,000          \$0

  CLT           \$11,320,000        15          \$9,184,000         \$1,776,000         \$261,000          \$99,000           \$0

  CMH           \$3,291,000         58          \$2,091,000         \$847,000           \$1,000            \$352,000          \$0

  COS           \$6,251,000         32          \$4,734,000         \$816,000           \$292,000          \$409,000          \$0

  CVG           \$13,032,000        12          \$6,225,000         \$5,682,000         \$1,071,000        \$54,000           \$0

  DAB           \$462,000           104         \$223,000           \$51,000            \$0                \$188,000          \$0

  DAL           \$2,960,000         63          \$1,903,000         \$91,000            \$71,000           \$895,000          \$0

  DAY           \$2,436,000         71          \$1,004,000         \$783,000           \$576,000          \$73,000           \$0

  DCA           \$27,535,000        3           \$23,584,000        \$3,922,000         \$0                \$29,000           \$0

  DEN           \$14,830,000        10          \$12,048,000        \$2,338,000         \$407,000          \$37,000           \$0

  DFW           \$34,071,000        1           \$26,584,000        \$6,221,000         \$1,242,000        \$24,000           \$0

  DLH           \$533,000           102         \$155,000           \$147,000           \$20,000           \$211,000          \$0

  DSM           \$1,227,000         86          \$490,000           \$454,000           \$214,000          \$69,000           \$0

  DTW           \$29,190,000        2           \$23,100,000        \$5,486,000         \$476,000          \$128,000          \$0

  DVT           \$4,000             121         \$0                 \$0                 \$0                \$4,000            \$0

  ELP           \$84,000            118         \$71,000            \$0                 \$6,000            \$7,000            \$0

  EUG           \$2,596,000         67          \$592,000           \$1,243,000         \$513,000          \$248,000          \$0

  EWR           \$9,749,000         20          \$7,670,000         \$1,331,000         \$694,000          \$54,000           \$0

  EYW           \$279,000           113         \$0                 \$262,000           \$0                \$17,000           \$0

  FAI           \$716,000           96          \$339,000           \$0                 \$32,000           \$0                \$345,000

  FAT           \$301,000           112         \$13,000            \$249,000           \$29,000           \$10,000           \$0

  FLL           \$2,680,000         65          \$2,048,000         \$453,000           \$98,000           \$81,000           \$0

  FWA           \$2,546,000         69          \$38,000            \$1,604,000         \$821,000          \$83,000           \$0

  FXE           \$45,000            120         \$0                 \$0                 \$0                \$45,000           \$0

  GEG           \$5,371,000         39          \$2,735,000         \$1,518,000         \$1,069,000        \$49,000           \$0

  GRR           \$3,870,000         53          \$1,263,000         \$1,326,000         \$729,000          \$552,000          \$0

  GSO           \$4,796,000         46          \$2,828,000         \$1,267,000         \$540,000          \$161,000          \$0

  GSP           \$850,000           94          \$310,000           \$459,000           \$51,000           \$30,000           \$0

  HNL           \$2,667,000         66          \$754,000           \$1,734,000         \$177,000          \$2,000            \$0

  HOU           \$9,799,000         19          \$7,491,000         \$599,000           \$1,000            \$1,708,000        \$0

  HPN           \$6,461,000         31          \$1,343,000         \$1,614,000         \$1,000            \$3,503,000        \$0

  HSV           \$551,000           100         \$256,000           \$101,000           \$121,000          \$73,000           \$0

  IAD           \$7,093,000         29          \$3,970,000         \$2,775,000         \$127,000          \$221,000          \$0

  IAH           \$10,989,000        16          \$8,980,000         \$1,772,000         \$174,000          \$63,000           \$0

  ICT           \$1,873,000         78          \$829,000           \$473,000           \$266,000          \$305,000          \$0

  ILN           \$1,045,000         90          \$0                 \$0                 \$1,045,000        \$0                \$0

  IND           \$2,835,000         64          \$1,344,000         \$394,000           \$996,000          \$101,000          \$0

  ISP           \$4,098,000         50          \$2,225,000         \$1,708,000         \$0                \$165,000          \$0

  JAN           \$335,000           110         \$208,000           \$74,000            \$31,000           \$22,000           \$0

  JAX           \$1,779,000         79          \$1,373,000         \$234,000           \$116,000          \$56,000           \$0

  JFK           \$4,525,000         49          \$3,356,000         \$760,000           \$379,000          \$30,000           \$0

  JNU           \$13,021,000        13          \$2,595,000         \$0                 \$2,469,000        \$40,000           \$7,917,000

  LAS           \$408,000           106         \$392,000           \$6,000             \$0                \$10,000           \$0

  LAX           \$6,752,000         30          \$5,446,000         \$1,027,000         \$240,000          \$39,000           \$0

  LCK           \$136,000           117         \$0                 \$0                 \$136,000          \$0                \$0

  LGA           \$20,988,000        6           \$16,569,000        \$4,262,000         \$0                \$157,000          \$0

  LGB           \$5,319,000         41          \$3,084,000         \$92,000            \$840,000          \$1,303,000        \$0

  LIT           \$690,000           97          \$334,000           \$156,000           \$25,000           \$175,000          \$0

  MCI           \$4,001,000         51          \$3,063,000         \$703,000           \$210,000          \$25,000           \$0

  MCO           \$4,722,000         48          \$2,966,000         \$1,445,000         \$284,000          \$27,000           \$0

  MDT           \$1,464,000         85          \$661,000           \$440,000           \$269,000          \$94,000           \$0

  MDW           \$16,086,000        9           \$14,364,000        \$1,570,000         \$22,000           \$130,000          \$0

  MEM           \$8,906,000         23          \$4,852,000         \$1,172,000         \$2,518,000        \$364,000          \$0

  MHT           \$7,929,000         27          \$5,706,000         \$1,225,000         \$914,000          \$84,000           \$0

  MIA           \$4,985,000         44          \$3,628,000         \$759,000           \$543,000          \$55,000           \$0

  MKE           \$12,902,000        14          \$4,248,000         \$7,026,000         \$1,311,000        \$317,000          \$0

  MMU           \$406,000           107         \$0                 \$0                 \$0                \$406,000          \$0

  MSP           \$6,041,000         33          \$5,069,000         \$859,000           \$101,000          \$12,000           \$0

  MSY           \$5,092,000         43          \$4,267,000         \$483,000           \$273,000          \$69,000           \$0

  OAK           \$1,188,000         88          \$825,000           \$22,000            \$295,000          \$46,000           \$0

  OKC           \$3,858,000         54          \$2,613,000         \$754,000           \$325,000          \$166,000          \$0

  OMA           \$1,115,000         89          \$715,000           \$178,000           \$161,000          \$61,000           \$0

  ONT           \$364,000           108         \$296,000           \$11,000            \$54,000           \$3,000            \$0

  ORD           \$23,601,000        4           \$19,838,000        \$3,225,000         \$477,000          \$61,000           \$0

  ORF           \$4,754,000         47          \$2,925,000         \$1,273,000         \$335,000          \$221,000          \$0

  PBI           \$1,547,000         84          \$941,000           \$364,000           \$40,000           \$202,000          \$0

  PDX           \$3,080,000         61          \$2,117,000         \$664,000           \$235,000          \$64,000           \$0

  PHL           \$5,771,000         35          \$4,282,000         \$1,023,000         \$343,000          \$123,000          \$0

  PHX           \$3,081,000         60          \$2,742,000         \$137,000           \$148,000          \$54,000           \$0

  PIE           \$501,000           103         \$153,000           \$0                 \$76,000           \$272,000          \$0

  PIT           \$8,132,000         26          \$5,814,000         \$2,074,000         \$178,000          \$66,000           \$0

  PVD           \$5,378,000         38          \$2,802,000         \$1,998,000         \$283,000          \$295,000          \$0

  RDU           \$3,931,000         52          \$2,117,000         \$1,552,000         \$126,000          \$136,000          \$0

  RFD           \$1,561,000         83          \$0                 \$71,000            \$1,273,000        \$217,000          \$0

  RIC           \$5,525,000         37          \$3,239,000         \$1,563,000         \$544,000          \$179,000          \$0

  RNO           \$2,420,000         72          \$2,060,000         \$138,000           \$147,000          \$75,000           \$0

  ROC           \$1,633,000         81          \$657,000           \$633,000           \$243,000          \$100,000          \$0

  RSW           \$5,611,000         36          \$4,387,000         \$651,000           \$117,000          \$456,000          \$0

  SAN           \$16,784,000        8           \$14,383,000        \$1,728,000         \$413,000          \$260,000          \$0

  SAT           \$2,074,000         77          \$1,722,000         \$22,000            \$154,000          \$176,000          \$0

  SDF           \$560,000           99          \$223,000           \$60,000            \$266,000          \$11,000           \$0

  SEA           \$9,276,000         21          \$6,557,000         \$2,204,000         \$497,000          \$18,000           \$0

  SFB           \$179,000           115         \$0                 \$80,000            \$0                \$99,000           \$0

  SFO           \$2,253,000         74          \$2,006,000         \$192,000           \$32,000           \$23,000           \$0

  SHV           \$890,000           93          \$58,000            \$683,000           \$86,000           \$63,000           \$0

  SJC           \$9,197,000         22          \$8,347,000         \$153,000           \$379,000          \$318,000          \$0

  SLC           \$5,344,000         40          \$4,251,000         \$615,000           \$259,000          \$219,000          \$0

  SMF           \$2,975,000         62          \$2,488,000         \$209,000           \$240,000          \$38,000           \$0

  SNA           \$3,459,000         56          \$2,498,000         \$126,000           \$74,000           \$761,000          \$0

  STL           \$2,580,000         68          \$2,229,000         \$328,000           \$1,000            \$22,000           \$0

  SWF           \$461,000           105         \$32,000            \$377,000           \$20,000           \$32,000           \$0

  SYR           \$1,196,000         87          \$514,000           \$549,000           \$109,000          \$24,000           \$0

  TEB           \$3,464,000         55          \$0                 \$0                 \$63,000           \$3,401,000        \$0

  TLH           \$1,621,000         82          \$249,000           \$834,000           \$240,000          \$298,000          \$0

  TPA           \$3,339,000         57          \$2,708,000         \$419,000           \$49,000           \$163,000          \$0

  TRI           \$272,000           114         \$31,000            \$180,000           \$9,000            \$52,000           \$0

  TUL           \$983,000           91          \$485,000           \$351,000           \$38,000           \$109,000          \$0

  TUS           \$63,000            119         \$58,000            \$0                 \$1,000            \$4,000            \$0

  TYS           \$902,000           92          \$371,000           \$370,000           \$106,000          \$55,000           \$0

  VNY           \$568,000           98          \$0                 \$0                 \$0                \$568,000          \$0

  **Total**     **\$638,902,000**   ** **       **\$434,913,000**   **\$128,009,000**   **\$39,763,000**   **\$26,683,000**   **\$9,534,000**
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Table J2: Discounted 20 year LAAS Passenger Time Savings -- 0% Waas
Equipage Scenario,]{.smallcaps} by Airport

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Airport**   **Total Benefit**   **Rank by   Major Passenger     Regional Passenger  Cargo      Corporate Jet GA  Other GA
                                    Total       Airlines            Airlines            Carriers   Operators         Operators
                                    Benefit**                                                                        
  ------------- ------------------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------- ----------------- -----------------
  ABQ           \$2,945,000         69          \$2,465,000         \$473,000           \$0        \$7,000           \$0

  ACK           \$11,477,000        22          \$0                 \$11,379,000        \$0        \$98,000          \$0

  AFW           \$2,000             118         \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$2,000           \$0

  ALB           \$11,300,000        23          \$6,227,000         \$5,030,000         \$0        \$43,000          \$0

  ANC           \$5,383,000         49          \$4,996,000         \$0                 \$0        \$17,000          \$370,000

  ATL           \$18,415,000        11          \$15,806,000        \$2,603,000         \$0        \$6,000           \$0

  AUS           \$3,959,000         59          \$3,850,000         \$79,000            \$0        \$30,000          \$0

  AVL           \$885,000           92          \$345,000           \$493,000           \$0        \$47,000          \$0

  BDL           \$12,216,000        19          \$9,384,000         \$2,772,000         \$0        \$60,000          \$0

  BFI           \$108,000           113         \$0                 \$36,000            \$0        \$72,000          \$0

  BGR           \$444,000           101         \$0                 \$435,000           \$0        \$9,000           \$0

  BHM           \$7,221,000         34          \$5,548,000         \$1,595,000         \$0        \$78,000          \$0

  BNA           \$2,776,000         72          \$2,211,000         \$556,000           \$0        \$9,000           \$0

  BOI           \$3,193,000         65          \$1,936,000         \$1,242,000         \$0        \$15,000          \$0

  BOS           \$14,053,000        16          \$9,400,000         \$4,634,000         \$0        \$19,000          \$0

  BUF           \$6,194,000         40          \$3,932,000         \$2,225,000         \$0        \$37,000          \$0

  BUR           \$26,026,000        7           \$25,765,000        \$214,000           \$0        \$47,000          \$0

  BWI           \$6,471,000         36          \$5,573,000         \$887,000           \$0        \$11,000          \$0

  CAE           \$1,807,000         81          \$569,000           \$1,227,000         \$0        \$11,000          \$0

  CHA           \$348,000           107         \$66,000            \$270,000           \$0        \$12,000          \$0

  CHS           \$3,022,000         67          \$1,419,000         \$1,584,000         \$0        \$19,000          \$0

  CLE           \$28,585,000        5           \$16,099,000        \$12,438,000        \$0        \$48,000          \$0

  CLT           \$14,740,000        14          \$11,787,000        \$2,935,000         \$0        \$18,000          \$0

  CMH           \$4,308,000         57          \$2,841,000         \$1,393,000         \$0        \$74,000          \$0

  COS           \$8,038,000         29          \$6,610,000         \$1,339,000         \$0        \$89,000          \$0

  CVG           \$15,891,000        13          \$7,913,000         \$7,970,000         \$0        \$8,000           \$0

  DAB           \$450,000           100         \$324,000           \$83,000            \$0        \$43,000          \$0

  DAL           \$3,124,000         66          \$2,772,000         \$149,000           \$0        \$203,000         \$0

  DAY           \$2,605,000         74          \$1,300,000         \$1,292,000         \$0        \$13,000          \$0

  DCA           \$36,752,000        3           \$30,267,000        \$6,480,000         \$0        \$5,000           \$0

  DEN           \$19,332,000        10          \$15,463,000        \$3,862,000         \$0        \$7,000           \$0

  DFW           \$49,929,000        1           \$40,027,000        \$9,897,000         \$0        \$5,000           \$0

  DLH           \$513,000           99          \$226,000           \$241,000           \$0        \$46,000          \$0

  DSM           \$1,392,000         85          \$629,000           \$751,000           \$0        \$12,000          \$0

  DTW           \$39,394,000        2           \$30,349,000        \$9,025,000         \$0        \$20,000          \$0

  DVT           \$1,000             119         \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$1,000           \$0

  ELP           \$101,000           114         \$99,000            \$0                 \$0        \$2,000           \$0

  EUG           \$2,968,000         68          \$878,000           \$2,033,000         \$0        \$57,000          \$0

  EWR           \$12,052,000        20          \$9,843,000         \$2,199,000         \$0        \$10,000          \$0

  EYW           \$436,000           102         \$0                 \$433,000           \$0        \$3,000           \$0

  FAI           \$535,000           97          \$435,000           \$0                 \$0        \$0               \$100,000

  FAT           \$429,000           103         \$17,000            \$410,000           \$0        \$2,000           \$0

  FLL           \$3,477,000         63          \$2,716,000         \$746,000           \$0        \$15,000          \$0

  FWA           \$2,714,000         73          \$49,000            \$2,650,000         \$0        \$15,000          \$0

  FXE           \$9,000             117         \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$9,000           \$0

  GEG           \$6,044,000         42          \$3,527,000         \$2,508,000         \$0        \$9,000           \$0

  GRR           \$4,043,000         58          \$1,750,000         \$2,179,000         \$0        \$114,000         \$0

  GSO           \$5,752,000         45          \$3,629,000         \$2,094,000         \$0        \$29,000          \$0

  GSP           \$1,162,000         90          \$398,000           \$759,000           \$0        \$5,000           \$0

  HNL           \$3,834,000         61          \$968,000           \$2,866,000         \$0        \$0               \$0

  HOU           \$12,574,000        17          \$11,207,000        \$981,000           \$0        \$386,000         \$0

  HPN           \$5,459,000         48          \$2,030,000         \$2,624,000         \$0        \$805,000         \$0

  HSV           \$564,000           96          \$382,000           \$165,000           \$0        \$17,000          \$0

  IAD           \$9,718,000         25          \$5,095,000         \$4,584,000         \$0        \$39,000          \$0

  IAH           \$14,353,000        15          \$11,532,000        \$2,811,000         \$0        \$10,000          \$0

  ICT           \$1,899,000         79          \$1,064,000         \$781,000           \$0        \$54,000          \$0

  ILN           \$0                 120         \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$0               \$0

  IND           \$2,392,000         75          \$1,724,000         \$650,000           \$0        \$18,000          \$0

  ISP           \$5,974,000         43          \$3,133,000         \$2,807,000         \$0        \$34,000          \$0

  JAN           \$395,000           105         \$268,000           \$123,000           \$0        \$4,000           \$0

  JAX           \$2,160,000         77          \$1,764,000         \$386,000           \$0        \$10,000          \$0

  JFK           \$5,555,000         47          \$4,294,000         \$1,256,000         \$0        \$5,000           \$0

  JNU           \$5,671,000         46          \$3,357,000         \$0                 \$0        \$8,000           \$2,306,000

  LAS           \$516,000           98          \$505,000           \$9,000             \$0        \$2,000           \$0

  LAX           \$8,693,000         27          \$6,989,000         \$1,697,000         \$0        \$7,000           \$0

  LCK           \$0                 121         \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$0               \$0

  LGA           \$28,334,000        6           \$21,264,000        \$7,042,000         \$0        \$28,000          \$0

  LGB           \$4,579,000         55          \$4,215,000         \$151,000           \$0        \$213,000         \$0

  LIT           \$740,000           93          \$449,000           \$258,000           \$0        \$33,000          \$0

  MCI           \$5,096,000         51          \$3,931,000         \$1,161,000         \$0        \$4,000           \$0

  MCO           \$6,414,000         38          \$4,037,000         \$2,372,000         \$0        \$5,000           \$0

  MDT           \$1,665,000         83          \$921,000           \$723,000           \$0        \$21,000          \$0

  MDW           \$22,049,000        8           \$19,439,000        \$2,584,000         \$0        \$26,000          \$0

  MEM           \$8,143,000         28          \$6,163,000         \$1,932,000         \$0        \$48,000          \$0

  MHT           \$9,579,000         26          \$7,542,000         \$2,020,000         \$0        \$17,000          \$0

  MIA           \$5,921,000         44          \$4,657,000         \$1,254,000         \$0        \$10,000          \$0

  MKE           \$17,122,000        12          \$5,469,000         \$11,599,000        \$0        \$54,000          \$0

  MMU           \$83,000            115         \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$83,000          \$0

  MSP           \$7,927,000         30          \$6,506,000         \$1,419,000         \$0        \$2,000           \$0

  MSY           \$6,352,000         39          \$5,541,000         \$798,000           \$0        \$13,000          \$0

  OAK           \$1,194,000         89          \$1,148,000         \$37,000            \$0        \$9,000           \$0

  OKC           \$4,660,000         54          \$3,383,000         \$1,246,000         \$0        \$31,000          \$0

  OMA           \$1,222,000         86          \$918,000           \$293,000           \$0        \$11,000          \$0

  ONT           \$398,000           104         \$380,000           \$18,000            \$0        \$0               \$0

  ORD           \$30,997,000        4           \$25,665,000        \$5,321,000         \$0        \$11,000          \$0

  ORF           \$6,175,000         41          \$4,051,000         \$2,076,000         \$0        \$48,000          \$0

  PBI           \$1,879,000         80          \$1,237,000         \$602,000           \$0        \$40,000          \$0

  PDX           \$3,911,000         60          \$2,804,000         \$1,095,000         \$0        \$12,000          \$0

  PHL           \$7,399,000         33          \$5,695,000         \$1,681,000         \$0        \$23,000          \$0

  PHX           \$4,442,000         56          \$4,207,000         \$222,000           \$0        \$13,000          \$0

  PIE           \$265,000           109         \$208,000           \$0                 \$0        \$57,000          \$0

  PIT           \$10,901,000        24          \$7,462,000         \$3,427,000         \$0        \$12,000          \$0

  PVD           \$7,615,000         32          \$4,266,000         \$3,286,000         \$0        \$63,000          \$0

  RDU           \$5,302,000         50          \$2,715,000         \$2,564,000         \$0        \$23,000          \$0

  RFD           \$163,000           110         \$0                 \$116,000           \$0        \$47,000          \$0

  RIC           \$6,786,000         35          \$4,178,000         \$2,575,000         \$0        \$33,000          \$0

  RNO           \$2,911,000         70          \$2,668,000         \$229,000           \$0        \$14,000          \$0

  ROC           \$2,026,000         78          \$994,000           \$1,012,000         \$0        \$20,000          \$0

  RSW           \$7,756,000         31          \$6,590,000         \$1,061,000         \$0        \$105,000         \$0

  SAN           \$21,360,000        9           \$18,459,000        \$2,855,000         \$0        \$46,000          \$0

  SAT           \$2,331,000         76          \$2,260,000         \$37,000            \$0        \$34,000          \$0

  SDF           \$387,000           106         \$286,000           \$99,000            \$0        \$2,000           \$0

  SEA           \$12,268,000        18          \$8,764,000         \$3,501,000         \$0        \$3,000           \$0

  SFB           \$153,000           111         \$0                 \$132,000           \$0        \$21,000          \$0

  SFO           \$2,908,000         71          \$2,586,000         \$318,000           \$0        \$4,000           \$0

  SHV           \$1,214,000         88          \$74,000            \$1,129,000         \$0        \$11,000          \$0

  SJC           \$11,882,000        21          \$11,562,000        \$252,000           \$0        \$68,000          \$0

  SLC           \$6,425,000         37          \$5,380,000         \$1,016,000         \$0        \$29,000          \$0

  SMF           \$3,651,000         62          \$3,299,000         \$344,000           \$0        \$8,000           \$0

  SNA           \$4,759,000         52          \$4,384,000         \$202,000           \$0        \$173,000         \$0

  STL           \$3,407,000         64          \$2,862,000         \$541,000           \$0        \$4,000           \$0

  SWF           \$670,000           94          \$42,000            \$622,000           \$0        \$6,000           \$0

  SYR           \$1,572,000         84          \$660,000           \$908,000           \$0        \$4,000           \$0

  TEB           \$653,000           95          \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$653,000         \$0

  TLH           \$1,799,000         82          \$368,000           \$1,363,000         \$0        \$68,000          \$0

  TPA           \$4,707,000         53          \$3,986,000         \$684,000           \$0        \$37,000          \$0

  TRI           \$346,000           108         \$39,000            \$298,000           \$0        \$9,000           \$0

  TUL           \$1,221,000         87          \$623,000           \$579,000           \$0        \$19,000          \$0

  TUS           \$78,000            116         \$77,000            \$0                 \$0        \$1,000           \$0

  TYS           \$1,098,000         91          \$476,000           \$612,000           \$0        \$10,000          \$0

  VNY           \$112,000           112         \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$112,000         \$0

  **Total**     **\$795,785,000**   ** **       **\$578,642,000**   **\$209,006,000**   **\$0**    **\$5,361,000**   **\$2,776,000**
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Table J3: Discounted 20 year LAAS operating cost Benefits -- 100% Waas
Equipage Scenario,]{.smallcaps} by Airport

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Airport**   **Total Benefit**   **Rank by   Major Passenger     Regional Passenger Cargo Carriers     Corporate Jet GA   Other GA
                                    Total       Airlines            Airlines                              Operators          Operators
                                    Benefit**                                                                                
  ------------- ------------------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ---------------
  ABQ           \$1,131,000         74          \$873,000           \$129,000          \$106,000          \$23,000           \$0

  ACK           \$7,637,000         16          \$0                 \$6,887,000        \$196,000          \$554,000          \$0

  AFW           \$149,000           112         \$0                 \$0                \$139,000          \$10,000           \$0

  ALB           \$5,382,000         25          \$2,937,000         \$1,861,000        \$423,000          \$161,000          \$0

  ANC           \$4,619,000         33          \$2,254,000         \$0                \$1,778,000        \$55,000           \$532,000

  ATL           \$11,922,000        7           \$10,275,000        \$1,403,000        \$221,000          \$23,000           \$0

  AUS           \$3,149,000         46          \$2,944,000         \$48,000           \$0                \$157,000          \$0

  AVL           \$740,000           86          \$230,000           \$303,000          \$2,000            \$205,000          \$0

  BDL           \$3,510,000         42          \$2,503,000         \$570,000          \$315,000          \$122,000          \$0

  BFI           \$542,000           94          \$0                 \$22,000           \$194,000          \$326,000          \$0

  BGR           \$345,000           103         \$0                 \$264,000          \$33,000           \$48,000           \$0

  BHM           \$386,000           100         \$297,000           \$58,000           \$0                \$31,000           \$0

  BNA           \$1,141,000         73          \$983,000           \$105,000          \$21,000           \$32,000           \$0

  BOI           \$2,521,000         59          \$1,509,000         \$752,000          \$174,000          \$86,000           \$0

  BOS           \$10,483,000        10          \$7,324,000         \$2,805,000        \$245,000          \$109,000          \$0

  BUF           \$4,517,000         34          \$3,058,000         \$1,165,000        \$181,000          \$113,000          \$0

  BUR           \$587,000           90          \$464,000           \$10,000           \$29,000           \$84,000           \$0

  BWI           \$5,106,000         26          \$4,342,000         \$537,000          \$166,000          \$61,000           \$0

  CAE           \$1,021,000         79          \$283,000           \$455,000          \$245,000          \$38,000           \$0

  CHA           \$290,000           108         \$51,000            \$164,000          \$29,000           \$46,000           \$0

  CHS           \$1,273,000         70          \$630,000           \$545,000          \$38,000           \$60,000           \$0

  CLE           \$4,949,000         29          \$2,761,000         \$1,921,000        \$190,000          \$77,000           \$0

  CLT           \$11,320,000        8           \$9,184,000         \$1,776,000        \$261,000          \$99,000           \$0

  CMH           \$3,291,000         45          \$2,091,000         \$847,000          \$1,000            \$352,000          \$0

  COS           \$4,999,000         28          \$3,754,000         \$624,000          \$254,000          \$367,000          \$0

  CVG           \$9,628,000         12          \$4,825,000         \$4,060,000        \$709,000          \$34,000           \$0

  DAB           \$462,000           98          \$223,000           \$51,000           \$0                \$188,000          \$0

  DAL           \$2,960,000         53          \$1,903,000         \$91,000           \$71,000           \$895,000          \$0

  DAY           \$1,307,000         69          \$579,000           \$385,000          \$300,000          \$43,000           \$0

  DCA           \$2,762,000         56          \$2,356,000         \$403,000          \$0                \$3,000            \$0

  DEN           \$14,830,000        4           \$12,048,000        \$2,338,000        \$407,000          \$37,000           \$0

  DFW           \$21,031,000        2           \$16,906,000        \$3,490,000        \$624,000          \$11,000           \$0

  DLH           \$511,000           96          \$155,000           \$147,000          \$20,000           \$189,000          \$0

  DSM           \$1,227,000         72          \$490,000           \$454,000          \$214,000          \$69,000           \$0

  DTW           \$13,288,000        6           \$10,904,000        \$2,119,000        \$217,000          \$48,000           \$0

  DVT           \$0                 121         \$0                 \$0                \$0                \$0                \$0

  ELP           \$84,000            116         \$71,000            \$0                \$6,000            \$7,000            \$0

  EUG           \$2,021,000         64          \$501,000           \$817,000          \$463,000          \$240,000          \$0

  EWR           \$9,749,000         11          \$7,670,000         \$1,331,000        \$694,000          \$54,000           \$0

  EYW           \$70,000            117         \$0                 \$62,000           \$0                \$8,000            \$0

  FAI           \$474,000           97          \$339,000           \$0                \$32,000           \$0                \$103,000

  FAT           \$301,000           107         \$13,000            \$249,000          \$29,000           \$10,000           \$0

  FLL           \$2,306,000         60          \$1,734,000         \$415,000          \$98,000           \$59,000           \$0

  FWA           \$518,000           95          \$12,000            \$270,000          \$193,000          \$43,000           \$0

  FXE           \$24,000            120         \$0                 \$0                \$0                \$24,000           \$0

  GEG           \$3,404,000         43          \$2,001,000         \$740,000          \$623,000          \$40,000           \$0

  GRR           \$3,516,000         41          \$1,263,000         \$1,209,000        \$599,000          \$445,000          \$0

  GSO           \$4,796,000         30          \$2,828,000         \$1,267,000        \$540,000          \$161,000          \$0

  GSP           \$850,000           83          \$310,000           \$459,000          \$51,000           \$30,000           \$0

  HNL           \$105,000           115         \$20,000            \$85,000           \$0                \$0                \$0

  HOU           \$9,495,000         13          \$7,491,000         \$367,000          \$1,000            \$1,636,000        \$0

  HPN           \$6,308,000         20          \$1,312,000         \$1,544,000        \$1,000            \$3,451,000        \$0

  HSV           \$551,000           93          \$256,000           \$101,000          \$121,000          \$73,000           \$0

  IAD           \$7,093,000         17          \$3,970,000         \$2,775,000        \$127,000          \$221,000          \$0

  IAH           \$10,989,000        9           \$8,980,000         \$1,772,000        \$174,000          \$63,000           \$0

  ICT           \$1,092,000         76          \$515,000           \$246,000          \$136,000          \$195,000          \$0

  ILN           \$1,045,000         78          \$0                 \$0                \$1,045,000        \$0                \$0

  IND           \$2,835,000         55          \$1,344,000         \$394,000          \$996,000          \$101,000          \$0

  ISP           \$3,727,000         40          \$2,225,000         \$1,375,000        \$0                \$127,000          \$0

  JAN           \$335,000           105         \$208,000           \$74,000           \$31,000           \$22,000           \$0

  JAX           \$1,779,000         66          \$1,373,000         \$234,000          \$116,000          \$56,000           \$0

  JFK           \$4,269,000         36          \$3,109,000         \$760,000          \$379,000          \$21,000           \$0

  JNU           \$411,000           99          \$236,000           \$0                \$74,000           \$15,000           \$86,000

  LAS           \$32,000            118         \$31,000            \$0                \$0                \$1,000            \$0

  LAX           \$6,752,000         18          \$5,446,000         \$1,027,000        \$240,000          \$39,000           \$0

  LCK           \$136,000           113         \$0                 \$0                \$136,000          \$0                \$0

  LGA           \$13,568,000        5           \$10,712,000        \$2,755,000        \$0                \$101,000          \$0

  LGB           \$2,648,000         57          \$1,305,000         \$65,000           \$649,000          \$629,000          \$0

  LIT           \$552,000           92          \$334,000           \$107,000          \$25,000           \$86,000           \$0

  MCI           \$4,001,000         37          \$3,063,000         \$703,000          \$210,000          \$25,000           \$0

  MCO           \$3,065,000         50          \$2,300,000         \$591,000          \$152,000          \$22,000           \$0

  MDT           \$1,464,000         68          \$661,000           \$440,000          \$269,000          \$94,000           \$0

  MDW           \$16,034,000        3           \$14,364,000        \$1,570,000        \$22,000           \$78,000           \$0

  MEM           \$6,430,000         19          \$2,810,000         \$1,125,000        \$2,381,000        \$114,000          \$0

  MHT           \$6,213,000         21          \$4,453,000         \$945,000          \$743,000          \$72,000           \$0

  MIA           \$3,083,000         48          \$2,267,000         \$462,000          \$320,000          \$34,000           \$0

  MKE           \$5,060,000         27          \$1,631,000         \$2,786,000        \$528,000          \$115,000          \$0

  MMU           \$264,000           109         \$0                 \$0                \$0                \$264,000          \$0

  MSP           \$6,041,000         22          \$5,069,000         \$859,000          \$101,000          \$12,000           \$0

  MSY           \$2,896,000         54          \$2,600,000         \$146,000          \$99,000           \$51,000           \$0

  OAK           \$1,079,000         77          \$825,000           \$6,000            \$215,000          \$33,000           \$0

  OKC           \$2,222,000         62          \$1,616,000         \$325,000          \$166,000          \$115,000          \$0

  OMA           \$1,115,000         75          \$715,000           \$178,000          \$161,000          \$61,000           \$0

  ONT           \$364,000           101         \$296,000           \$11,000           \$54,000           \$3,000            \$0

  ORD           \$23,601,000        1           \$19,838,000        \$3,225,000        \$477,000          \$61,000           \$0

  ORF           \$4,701,000         32          \$2,899,000         \$1,253,000        \$330,000          \$219,000          \$0

  PBI           \$780,000           85          \$527,000           \$98,000           \$6,000            \$149,000          \$0

  PDX           \$3,030,000         51          \$2,072,000         \$664,000          \$235,000          \$59,000           \$0

  PHL           \$5,771,000         23          \$4,282,000         \$1,023,000        \$343,000          \$123,000          \$0

  PHX           \$3,081,000         49          \$2,742,000         \$137,000          \$148,000          \$54,000           \$0

  PIE           \$353,000           102         \$100,000           \$0                \$59,000           \$194,000          \$0

  PIT           \$8,132,000         15          \$5,814,000         \$2,074,000        \$178,000          \$66,000           \$0

  PVD           \$4,347,000         35          \$2,802,000         \$1,078,000        \$237,000          \$230,000          \$0

  RDU           \$3,873,000         38          \$2,073,000         \$1,552,000        \$126,000          \$122,000          \$0

  RFD           \$852,000           82          \$0                 \$20,000           \$666,000          \$166,000          \$0

  RIC           \$3,134,000         47          \$1,838,000         \$874,000          \$315,000          \$107,000          \$0

  RNO           \$597,000           89          \$509,000           \$31,000           \$32,000           \$25,000           \$0

  ROC           \$992,000           80          \$440,000           \$374,000          \$122,000          \$56,000           \$0

  RSW           \$5,611,000         24          \$4,387,000         \$651,000          \$117,000          \$456,000          \$0

  SAN           \$672,000           88          \$576,000           \$67,000           \$19,000           \$10,000           \$0

  SAT           \$2,074,000         63          \$1,722,000         \$22,000           \$154,000          \$176,000          \$0

  SDF           \$560,000           91          \$223,000           \$60,000           \$266,000          \$11,000           \$0

  SEA           \$8,761,000         14          \$6,236,000         \$2,055,000        \$454,000          \$16,000           \$0

  SFB           \$172,000           111         \$0                 \$80,000           \$0                \$92,000           \$0

  SFO           \$2,253,000         61          \$2,006,000         \$192,000          \$32,000           \$23,000           \$0

  SHV           \$342,000           104         \$58,000            \$217,000          \$41,000           \$26,000           \$0

  SJC           \$4,718,000         31          \$4,208,000         \$54,000           \$225,000          \$231,000          \$0

  SLC           \$3,811,000         39          \$2,857,000         \$615,000          \$259,000          \$80,000           \$0

  SMF           \$2,975,000         52          \$2,488,000         \$209,000          \$240,000          \$38,000           \$0

  SNA           \$3,352,000         44          \$2,498,000         \$98,000           \$74,000           \$682,000          \$0

  STL           \$2,580,000         58          \$2,229,000         \$328,000          \$1,000            \$22,000           \$0

  SWF           \$130,000           114         \$32,000            \$71,000           \$3,000            \$24,000           \$0

  SYR           \$784,000           84          \$384,000           \$323,000          \$59,000           \$18,000           \$0

  TEB           \$1,264,000         71          \$0                 \$0                \$14,000           \$1,250,000        \$0

  TLH           \$1,621,000         67          \$249,000           \$834,000          \$240,000          \$298,000          \$0

  TPA           \$2,002,000         65          \$1,609,000         \$202,000          \$49,000           \$142,000          \$0

  TRI           \$220,000           110         \$31,000            \$152,000          \$9,000            \$28,000           \$0

  TUL           \$710,000           87          \$485,000           \$146,000          \$21,000           \$58,000           \$0

  TUS           \$29,000            119         \$24,000            \$0                \$1,000            \$4,000            \$0

  TYS           \$902,000           81          \$371,000           \$370,000          \$106,000          \$55,000           \$0

  VNY           \$334,000           106         \$0                 \$0                \$0                \$334,000          \$0

  **Total**     **\$429,303,000**   ** **       **\$296,024,000**   **\$86,585,000**   **\$26,461,000**   **\$19,512,000**   **\$721,000**
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Table J4: Discounted 20 year LAAS Passenger Time Savings -- 100% Waas
Equipage Scenario,]{.smallcaps} by Airport

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Airport**   **Total Benefit**   **Rank by   Major Passenger     Regional Passenger  Cargo      Corporate Jet GA  Other GA
                                    Total       Airlines            Airlines            Carriers   Operators         Operators
                                    Benefit**                                                                        
  ------------- ------------------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------- ----------------- ---------------
  ABQ           \$1,417,000         71          \$1,200,000         \$212,000           \$0        \$5,000           \$0

  ACK           \$11,477,000        15          \$0                 \$11,379,000        \$0        \$98,000          \$0

  AFW           \$2,000             118         \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$2,000           \$0

  ALB           \$7,147,000         23          \$4,054,000         \$3,058,000         \$0        \$35,000          \$0

  ANC           \$3,061,000         57          \$2,896,000         \$0                 \$0        \$10,000          \$155,000

  ATL           \$16,289,000        7           \$13,990,000        \$2,294,000         \$0        \$5,000           \$0

  AUS           \$3,959,000         45          \$3,850,000         \$79,000            \$0        \$30,000          \$0

  AVL           \$885,000           83          \$345,000           \$493,000           \$0        \$47,000          \$0

  BDL           \$4,200,000         43          \$3,237,000         \$941,000           \$0        \$22,000          \$0

  BFI           \$108,000           109         \$0                 \$36,000            \$0        \$72,000          \$0

  BGR           \$444,000           95          \$0                 \$435,000           \$0        \$9,000           \$0

  BHM           \$482,000           91          \$381,000           \$95,000            \$0        \$6,000           \$0

  BNA           \$1,442,000         70          \$1,262,000         \$174,000           \$0        \$6,000           \$0

  BOI           \$3,193,000         55          \$1,936,000         \$1,242,000         \$0        \$15,000          \$0

  BOS           \$14,053,000        10          \$9,400,000         \$4,634,000         \$0        \$19,000          \$0

  BUF           \$5,877,000         31          \$3,932,000         \$1,925,000         \$0        \$20,000          \$0

  BUR           \$732,000           87          \$698,000           \$16,000            \$0        \$18,000          \$0

  BWI           \$6,471,000         26          \$5,573,000         \$887,000           \$0        \$11,000          \$0

  CAE           \$1,121,000         78          \$363,000           \$751,000           \$0        \$7,000           \$0

  CHA           \$344,000           102         \$66,000            \$270,000           \$0        \$8,000           \$0

  CHS           \$1,721,000         68          \$809,000           \$901,000           \$0        \$11,000          \$0

  CLE           \$6,730,000         25          \$3,543,000         \$3,173,000         \$0        \$14,000          \$0

  CLT           \$14,740,000        8           \$11,787,000        \$2,935,000         \$0        \$18,000          \$0

  CMH           \$4,308,000         42          \$2,841,000         \$1,393,000         \$0        \$74,000          \$0

  COS           \$6,457,000         27          \$5,352,000         \$1,023,000         \$0        \$82,000          \$0

  CVG           \$12,294,000        11          \$6,151,000         \$6,138,000         \$0        \$5,000           \$0

  DAB           \$450,000           94          \$324,000           \$83,000            \$0        \$43,000          \$0

  DAL           \$3,124,000         56          \$2,772,000         \$149,000           \$0        \$203,000         \$0

  DAY           \$1,397,000         72          \$754,000           \$635,000           \$0        \$8,000           \$0

  DCA           \$3,690,000         50          \$3,024,000         \$666,000           \$0        \$0               \$0

  DEN           \$19,332,000        4           \$15,463,000        \$3,862,000         \$0        \$7,000           \$0

  DFW           \$28,953,000        2           \$23,293,000        \$5,658,000         \$0        \$2,000           \$0

  DLH           \$509,000           90          \$226,000           \$241,000           \$0        \$42,000          \$0

  DSM           \$1,392,000         73          \$629,000           \$751,000           \$0        \$12,000          \$0

  DTW           \$18,350,000        5           \$14,879,000        \$3,463,000         \$0        \$8,000           \$0

  DVT           \$0                 119         \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$0               \$0

  ELP           \$101,000           111         \$99,000            \$0                 \$0        \$2,000           \$0

  EUG           \$2,146,000         66          \$762,000           \$1,329,000         \$0        \$55,000          \$0

  EWR           \$12,052,000        13          \$9,843,000         \$2,199,000         \$0        \$10,000          \$0

  EYW           \$104,000           110         \$0                 \$103,000           \$0        \$1,000           \$0

  FAI           \$465,000           93          \$435,000           \$0                 \$0        \$0               \$30,000

  FAT           \$429,000           97          \$17,000            \$410,000           \$0        \$2,000           \$0

  FLL           \$3,018,000         58          \$2,322,000         \$684,000           \$0        \$12,000          \$0

  FWA           \$470,000           92          \$16,000            \$446,000           \$0        \$8,000           \$0

  FXE           \$5,000             117         \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$5,000           \$0

  GEG           \$3,814,000         49          \$2,584,000         \$1,223,000         \$0        \$7,000           \$0

  GRR           \$3,832,000         48          \$1,750,000         \$1,987,000         \$0        \$95,000          \$0

  GSO           \$5,752,000         32          \$3,629,000         \$2,094,000         \$0        \$29,000          \$0

  GSP           \$1,162,000         77          \$398,000           \$759,000           \$0        \$5,000           \$0

  HNL           \$167,000           106         \$26,000            \$141,000           \$0        \$0               \$0

  HOU           \$12,179,000        12          \$11,207,000        \$598,000           \$0        \$374,000         \$0

  HPN           \$5,283,000         35          \$1,976,000         \$2,514,000         \$0        \$793,000         \$0

  HSV           \$564,000           89          \$382,000           \$165,000           \$0        \$17,000          \$0

  IAD           \$9,718,000         17          \$5,095,000         \$4,584,000         \$0        \$39,000          \$0

  IAH           \$14,353,000        9           \$11,532,000        \$2,811,000         \$0        \$10,000          \$0

  ICT           \$1,102,000         79          \$661,000           \$406,000           \$0        \$35,000          \$0

  ILN           \$0                 120         \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$0               \$0

  IND           \$2,392,000         62          \$1,724,000         \$650,000           \$0        \$18,000          \$0

  ISP           \$5,417,000         34          \$3,133,000         \$2,256,000         \$0        \$28,000          \$0

  JAN           \$395,000           99          \$268,000           \$123,000           \$0        \$4,000           \$0

  JAX           \$2,160,000         65          \$1,764,000         \$386,000           \$0        \$10,000          \$0

  JFK           \$5,250,000         36          \$3,990,000         \$1,256,000         \$0        \$4,000           \$0

  JNU           \$357,000           101         \$329,000           \$0                 \$0        \$3,000           \$25,000

  LAS           \$42,000            115         \$42,000            \$0                 \$0        \$0               \$0

  LAX           \$8,693,000         18          \$6,989,000         \$1,697,000         \$0        \$7,000           \$0

  LCK           \$0                 121         \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$0               \$0

  LGA           \$18,318,000        6           \$13,748,000        \$4,552,000         \$0        \$18,000          \$0

  LGB           \$2,231,000         64          \$1,995,000         \$106,000           \$0        \$130,000         \$0

  LIT           \$644,000           88          \$449,000           \$177,000           \$0        \$18,000          \$0

  MCI           \$5,096,000         38          \$3,931,000         \$1,161,000         \$0        \$4,000           \$0

  MCO           \$4,147,000         44          \$3,182,000         \$961,000           \$0        \$4,000           \$0

  MDT           \$1,665,000         69          \$921,000           \$723,000           \$0        \$21,000          \$0

  MDW           \$22,040,000        3           \$19,439,000        \$2,584,000         \$0        \$17,000          \$0

  MEM           \$5,490,000         33          \$3,614,000         \$1,859,000         \$0        \$17,000          \$0

  MHT           \$7,505,000         21          \$5,934,000         \$1,556,000         \$0        \$15,000          \$0

  MIA           \$3,678,000         51          \$2,909,000         \$763,000           \$0        \$6,000           \$0

  MKE           \$6,731,000         24          \$2,117,000         \$4,594,000         \$0        \$20,000          \$0

  MMU           \$57,000            114         \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$57,000          \$0

  MSP           \$7,927,000         19          \$6,506,000         \$1,419,000         \$0        \$2,000           \$0

  MSY           \$3,652,000         52          \$3,402,000         \$240,000           \$0        \$10,000          \$0

  OAK           \$1,165,000         76          \$1,148,000         \$10,000            \$0        \$7,000           \$0

  OKC           \$2,662,000         61          \$2,103,000         \$537,000           \$0        \$22,000          \$0

  OMA           \$1,222,000         75          \$918,000           \$293,000           \$0        \$11,000          \$0

  ONT           \$398,000           98          \$380,000           \$18,000            \$0        \$0               \$0

  ORD           \$30,997,000        1           \$25,665,000        \$5,321,000         \$0        \$11,000          \$0

  ORF           \$6,120,000         29          \$4,019,000         \$2,054,000         \$0        \$47,000          \$0

  PBI           \$898,000           82          \$706,000           \$161,000           \$0        \$31,000          \$0

  PDX           \$3,855,000         46          \$2,748,000         \$1,095,000         \$0        \$12,000          \$0

  PHL           \$7,399,000         22          \$5,695,000         \$1,681,000         \$0        \$23,000          \$0

  PHX           \$4,442,000         41          \$4,207,000         \$222,000           \$0        \$13,000          \$0

  PIE           \$183,000           105         \$140,000           \$0                 \$0        \$43,000          \$0

  PIT           \$10,901,000        16          \$7,462,000         \$3,427,000         \$0        \$12,000          \$0

  PVD           \$6,084,000         30          \$4,266,000         \$1,767,000         \$0        \$51,000          \$0

  RDU           \$5,246,000         37          \$2,661,000         \$2,564,000         \$0        \$21,000          \$0

  RFD           \$70,000            113         \$0                 \$32,000            \$0        \$38,000          \$0

  RIC           \$3,839,000         47          \$2,380,000         \$1,439,000         \$0        \$20,000          \$0

  RNO           \$733,000           86          \$677,000           \$51,000            \$0        \$5,000           \$0

  ROC           \$1,235,000         74          \$619,000           \$605,000           \$0        \$11,000          \$0

  RSW           \$7,756,000         20          \$6,590,000         \$1,061,000         \$0        \$105,000         \$0

  SAN           \$851,000           85          \$739,000           \$110,000           \$0        \$2,000           \$0

  SAT           \$2,331,000         63          \$2,260,000         \$37,000            \$0        \$34,000          \$0

  SDF           \$387,000           100         \$286,000           \$99,000            \$0        \$2,000           \$0

  SEA           \$11,705,000        14          \$8,367,000         \$3,335,000         \$0        \$3,000           \$0

  SFB           \$152,000           108         \$0                 \$132,000           \$0        \$20,000          \$0

  SFO           \$2,908,000         60          \$2,586,000         \$318,000           \$0        \$4,000           \$0

  SHV           \$438,000           96          \$74,000            \$359,000           \$0        \$5,000           \$0

  SJC           \$6,390,000         28          \$6,250,000         \$88,000            \$0        \$52,000          \$0

  SLC           \$4,695,000         40          \$3,667,000         \$1,016,000         \$0        \$12,000          \$0

  SMF           \$3,651,000         53          \$3,299,000         \$344,000           \$0        \$8,000           \$0

  SNA           \$4,700,000         39          \$4,384,000         \$157,000           \$0        \$159,000         \$0

  STL           \$3,407,000         54          \$2,862,000         \$541,000           \$0        \$4,000           \$0

  SWF           \$164,000           107         \$42,000            \$117,000           \$0        \$5,000           \$0

  SYR           \$1,030,000         81          \$493,000           \$534,000           \$0        \$3,000           \$0

  TEB           \$272,000           104         \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$272,000         \$0

  TLH           \$1,799,000         67          \$368,000           \$1,363,000         \$0        \$68,000          \$0

  TPA           \$2,934,000         59          \$2,575,000         \$326,000           \$0        \$33,000          \$0

  TRI           \$295,000           103         \$39,000            \$251,000           \$0        \$5,000           \$0

  TUL           \$874,000           84          \$623,000           \$241,000           \$0        \$10,000          \$0

  TUS           \$35,000            116         \$34,000            \$0                 \$0        \$1,000           \$0

  TYS           \$1,098,000         80          \$476,000           \$612,000           \$0        \$10,000          \$0

  VNY           \$71,000            112         \$0                 \$0                 \$0        \$71,000          \$0

  **Total**     **\$542,146,000**   ** **       **\$395,958,000**   **\$141,826,000**   **\$0**    **\$4,152,000**   **\$210,000**
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

## [Appendix K: Data Sources]{.smallcaps}

### Air traffic data 

-   Growth rates: Terminal Area Forecast (TAF)

-   Scheduled traffic: Official Airline Guide (OAG) and Flight Schedule
    Data System (FSDS)

-   Unscheduled IFR traffic: Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS)

-   VFR traffic: FAA Operations Network (OPSNET) data

-   Cargo traffic: DOT TranStats Schedule T-3 data; Cargo airlines

### Weather data

-   National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) surface weather observations

### Flight data

-   Airline Service Quality Performance (ASQP) database

-   Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) database

### Airport data

-   National Flight Data Center (NFDC)

-   DOT/FAA U.S. Terminal Procedures

-   FAA Airport Capacity Benchmark Report

-   FAA Operational Evolution Plan (OEP)

-   FAA Airport Capacity Enhancement reports (ACE Plans)

-   FAA ASD-430 Airport capacity and configuration data

-   FAA National Airspace System Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years
    2004 -- 2008

-   FAA Blueprint for NAS Modernization

### Safety data

-   National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident and incident
    investigation database

-   National Airspace Incidents Monitoring System (NAIMS)

-   NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)

## [Appendix L: 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

GA General Aviation

FSDS Flight Schedule Data System

GAME GPS Approach Minima 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 System

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

MSL Mean Sea Level

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

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

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

RAIM Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring

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

SIDs Standard Instrument Departure Procedures

SOIT Satellite Operational Integration Team

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

STARs Standard Terminal Arrival Route

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

# 

## [Appendix M: Runway Utilization Analysis]{.smallcaps}

**Background**

The utilization of runways is a key driver of LAAS straight-in and
complex approach benefits estimates in this study. Since the required
data (*i.e.*, observations of runway utilization for all runways at all
of the airports studied, for all user equipment categories, and in
various weather conditions) is not readily available, a method was
developed for estimating arrival runway utilization in IMC from basic
data, including wind direction and speed and current patterns of runway
usage.

Wind direction is a primary factor for determining when a runway can be
used. However, other factors, including Air Traffic's preferred
configuration in specific weather conditions, also play a role,
particularly under conditions of low wind speed. The following
description illustrates the method used to accommodate both the current
runway usage patterns and the observed wind data to arrive at estimates
of future runway utilization during IMC. Port Columbus International
Airport in Ohio (CMH) serves as an example.

**Methodology**

The method used in this analysis estimates the percentage of time that a
runway could be utilized based on wind direction and speed, and then
modifies that percentage by taking into account the characteristics of
each runway and a measure of preferred usage of runways, based on
objective data.

***Wind Speed and Direction***

At wind speeds lower than a certain threshold, the airport
configuration, and therefore the arrival runways in use, can be
determined by the preferred configuration, and need not be dependent on
wind direction. Above this wind speed threshold, however, the wind
direction is a key factor in determining which runways can be used.
Based on aircraft performance data and interviews with airline and
airport operations staff, a wind speed threshold of 10 knots was
selected.

The wind direction analysis uses historical weather data, including wind
speed and direction, and current runway usage data in order to estimate
the arrival runway utilization for each runway at each airport within
the benefits study. Historical weather data covering 1998 through 2001
has been collected for the 121 airports from the NCDC database[^147].
Wind direction has been tabulated for the percent of time that wind
speeds greater than 10 knots occur in each cardinal direction in two
weather conditions, Visual and IMC[^148]. Table M1 shows an example of
this data for CMH.

**Table M1: [Wind Direction at CMH (Wind Speed Greater Than 10 Knots, in
Each Weather Condition)]{.smallcaps}**

  ------------- ------------- ------- ------- -------- -------- ------- -------- -------- ------- ---------
  **Airport**   **Weather**   **E**   **N**   **NE**   **NW**   **S**   **SE**   **SW**   **W**   **Less
                                                                                                  than 10
                                                                                                  knots**

  CMH           IMC           0.92%   3.18%   0.96%    2.96%    1.96%   0.88%    2.72%    3.44%   82.98%

                Visual        0.71%   1.45%   0.87%    3.43%    2.16%   0.59%    4.46%    6.29%   80.04%
  ------------- ------------- ------- ------- -------- -------- ------- -------- -------- ------- ---------

To calculate the wind-direction-based availability of a runway the
percent of time that winds greater than 10 knots are in this direction
are added to the percent of time that winds are less than 10 knots
divided among the possible arrival runways. Using the percentages in
Table M1, an eastbound runway would be available 82.98% of the time
divided by the number of possible runways, plus 0.92% of the time that
winds are greater than 10 knots for this direction. The following
formula shows how the availability of an eastbound runway at CMH is
calculated. Note that two arrival runways are assumed for this example
(as will be shown in the following section).

> Eastbound Runway Availability = 82.98% ÷ 2 + 0.92% = 42%

***Runway Characteristics and Preferred Usage***

Current runway configurations have been gathered from several sources,
including FAA's ASD organization[^149] and the FAA's airport-specific
capacity enhancement plans[^150]. Table M2 shows the runways identified
as arrival runways in any weather condition for CMH.

**Table M2: [Runways Used for Arrivals at CMH]{.smallcaps}**

  ------------- ------------ ----------------------------- ---------------------
  **Airport**   **Runway**   **Listed As An Arrival        **Source**
                             Runway?**                     

  CMH           10L          Yes                           ASD; ACE Plan

  CMH           10R          Yes                           ASD; ACE Plan

  CMH           28R          Yes                           ASD; ACE Plan

  CMH           28L          Yes                           ASD; ACE Plan
  ------------- ------------ ----------------------------- ---------------------

Runway length is an important consideration in this analysis. A runway
is only available for arrivals for a particular equipment category
(*e.g.*, large jet) if it meets the length requirement for that type of
equipment. Runway length requirements were established by searching
various databases containing aircraft performance characteristics, and
specific aircraft types were selected as representative for the entire
aircraft population[^151]. Table M3 lists the runway length requirements
applicable for each equipment category included in this study. Table M4
lists the arrival runway lengths at CMH, showing that all runways in
consideration are of sufficient length to accommodate any equipment
type.

Table M3: [Runway Length Requirements]{.smallcaps}[^152] [for Each
Equipment Category]{.smallcaps}

  -------------- --------------------------------------- -----------------
  **Equipment    **Example Aircraft**[^153]              **Runway Length
  Category**                                             Requirement
                                                         (ft)**

  Heavy Eqpt     D10; B757                               6250

  Large Jet Eqpt B737; M80                               6250

  Large Commuter CRJ                                     5750

  Small Commuter BE1                                     3750

  Small Eqpt     CNA; PAG (typically Alaska-based        2750
                 regional carriers)                      
  -------------- --------------------------------------- -----------------

**Table M4: [Runway Lengths at CMH]{.smallcaps}**

  ------------- ---------------- -----------------------------------------
  **Airport**   **Runway**       **Runway Length (ft)**

  CMH           10L              8000

                10R              10250

                28R              8000

                28L              10250
  ------------- ---------------- -----------------------------------------

If any runway at CMH were shorter than the requirement for a particular
category, that runway would be dropped from consideration for that
equipment type. Thus, at any airport, a particular runway may be
available for utilization by some or all equipment categories.

Additionally, multiple parallel runways may not be available for
simultaneous independent arrivals in IMC if their centerline separation
is less than 4300 feet[^154]. In these circumstances the runway to
retain is selected based on the following sequence of rules: Retain the
runway with the most capable landing system (*e.g.*, ILS Cat III vs. ILS
Cat I), or the lowest approach minima (decision height and visibility),
or the longest runway. The other parallel runway will be dropped from
consideration. This provides an objective way to retain those runways
most likely to be used for arrivals in IMC, and provides a level of
conservatism to the results, since in some cases, these parallel runways
might actually be used for dependent parallel approach operations. Table
M5 illustrates how two of the runways at CMH (10L and 28R) were dropped
from consideration due to close parallel separation distances. In this
case, the only objective distinction between these runways is the
length, which leads to 10L and 28R being omitted from further
consideration.

**Table M5: [Parallel Runway Analysis Details for CMH]{.smallcaps}**

+-------+--------+----------+----------+--------+----------+--------+
| *     | **     | **Se     | **Best   | **Best | **Runway | **     |
| *Airp | Runway | paration | Approach | L      | Length** | Runway |
| ort** | ID**   | Between  | Minima** | anding |          | to     |
|       |        | Parallel |          | Sy     | **(ft)** | Drop** |
|       |        | Runways  |          | stem** |          |        |
|       |        | (ft)**   |          |        |          |        |
+-------+--------+----------+----------+--------+----------+--------+
| CMH   | 10L    | 2804     | 200/2400 | ILS    | 8000     | 10L    |
|       |        |          |          | Cat I  |          |        |
+-------+--------+----------+----------+--------+----------+--------+
|       | 10R    |          | 200/2400 | ILS    | 10250    |        |
|       |        |          |          | Cat I  |          |        |
+-------+--------+----------+----------+--------+----------+--------+
|       | 28R    | 2804     | 200/2400 | ILS    | 8000     | 28R    |
|       |        |          |          | Cat I  |          |        |
+-------+--------+----------+----------+--------+----------+--------+
|       | 28L    |          | 200/2400 | ILS    | 10250    |        |
|       |        |          |          | Cat I  |          |        |
+-------+--------+----------+----------+--------+----------+--------+

It is understood that airport operators and Air Traffic will have a
preference for using certain runways over others, depending on weather
conditions. To account for this preference, the practice established in
the FAA's "Airway Planning Standard Number One - Terminal Air Navigation
Facilities and Air Traffic Control Services" document was followed. That
is, the arrival runway most likely to be preferred was designated as the
"Primary" runway, and other arrival runways were designated as
"Secondary". Specifically, the runway with the lowest approach minima
was designated as "Primary". In recognition that the majority of traffic
is directed to the most capable runway, a weighting of 70%[^155] [^156]
is applied to the primary runway and the remaining 30% is shared among
the secondary runways. In cases where there are only Primary runways
(*i.e.,* no distinctions between runway capabilities), a 50/50 weighting
is applied. This weighting is applied to the percentage of time the wind
speed is less than 10 knots, when runway configuration preferences,
rather than wind direction, is a primary decision factor. Table M6
illustrates how these weighting factors were applied to the two
remaining arrival runways at CMH (both considered primary since they
have the same type of ILS, identical approach minima, and runway
length).

Table M6: [Runway Weighting Factor Details for CMH]{.smallcaps}

+----+---+------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------+
| >  | > | **Ru | *    | *      | *     | **App | **P    | *       |
|  * |   | nway | *Arr | *Utili | *Best | roach | rimary | *Runway |
| *A | * | Leng | ival | zation | La    | Min   | or     | We      |
| ir | * | th** | Runw | Based  | nding | ima** | Sec    | ighting |
| po | R |      | ay** | on     | Sys   |       | ondary | F       |
| rt | u |      |      | Wind   | tem** |       | Ru     | actor** |
| ** | n |      | *    | Direc  |       |       | nway** |         |
|    | w |      | *?** | tion** |       |       |        |         |
|    | a |      |      |        |       |       | **?**  |         |
|    | y |      |      |        |       |       |        |         |
|    | * |      |      |        |       |       |        |         |
|    | * |      |      |        |       |       |        |         |
+----+---+------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------+
| C  | 1 | 8000 | No;  | N/A    | ILS   | 200/  | N/A    | N/A     |
| MH | 0 |      | Dro  |        | Cat I |       |        |         |
|    | L |      | pped |        |       | 2400  |        |         |
|    |   |      | due  |        |       |       |        |         |
|    |   |      | to   |        |       |       |        |         |
|    |   |      | para |        |       |       |        |         |
|    |   |      | llel |        |       |       |        |         |
|    |   |      | spa  |        |       |       |        |         |
|    |   |      | cing |        |       |       |        |         |
+----+---+------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------+
| C  | 1 | 1    | Yes  | 0.42   | ILS   | 200/  | P      | 0.5     |
| MH | 0 | 0250 |      |        | Cat I |       | rimary |         |
|    | R |      |      |        |       | 2400  |        |         |
+----+---+------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------+
| C  | 2 | 8000 | No;  | N/A    | ILS   | 200/  | N/A    | N/A     |
| MH | 8 |      | Dro  |        | Cat I |       |        |         |
|    | R |      | pped |        |       | 2400  |        |         |
|    |   |      | due  |        |       |       |        |         |
|    |   |      | to   |        |       |       |        |         |
|    |   |      | para |        |       |       |        |         |
|    |   |      | llel |        |       |       |        |         |
|    |   |      | spa  |        |       |       |        |         |
|    |   |      | cing |        |       |       |        |         |
+----+---+------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------+
| C  | 2 | 1    | Yes  | 0.46   | ILS   | 200/  | P      | 0.5     |
| MH | 8 | 0250 |      |        | Cat I |       | rimary |         |
|    | L |      |      |        |       | 2400  |        |         |
+----+---+------+------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------+

**Results**

Table M7 summarizes the results of this arrival runway utilization
analysis for CMH. As shown in Table M5, runways 10L and 28R drop out due
to parallel separation requirements. The wind direction analysis, Table
M1, showed that approximately 42% of the time winds were either lower
than 10 knots or were aligned with 10R, and 46% of the time with 28L.
Since both runways have nearly identical landing systems and approach
minima, both are designated "Primary" runways in Table M6, and a 50/50
weighting is applied to arrive at the final runway utilization of 47%
\[=(0.92+(82.98/2)\*.5)/((0.92+(82.98/2)\*.5)+(3.44+(82.98/2)\*.5))\]
for 10R and 53% for 28L.

**Table M7: [Summary of Estimated Arrival Utilization by Runway at
CMH]{.smallcaps}**

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Airport</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Runway</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><strong>Primary Wind Direction</strong></td>
<td><strong>Runway Length</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Currently Used As An Arrival Runway</strong></p>
<p><strong>?</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Considered as an IMC Arrival Runway for this
Study</strong></p>
<p><strong>?</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Utilization Based on Wind Direction</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Primary or Secondary Runway</strong></p>
<p><strong>?</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Runway Weighting Factor</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Heavy Equipment</strong><a href="#fn1"
class="footnote-ref" id="fnref1" role="doc-noteref"><sup>1</sup></a>
<strong>Weighted Utilization</strong></p>
<p><strong>in IMC</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>CMH</td>
<td>10L</td>
<td>East</td>
<td>8000</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>CMH</td>
<td>10R</td>
<td>East</td>
<td>10250</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>42%</td>
<td>Primary</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>47%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>CMH</td>
<td>28R</td>
<td>West</td>
<td>8000</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>CMH</td>
<td>28L</td>
<td>West</td>
<td>10250</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>46%</td>
<td>Primary</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>53%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<aside id="footnotes" class="footnotes footnotes-end-of-document"
role="doc-endnotes">
<hr />
<ol>
<li id="fn1"><p>The table shows results for the Heavy Equipment
category. Since these CMH runways are longer than the maximum runway
length requirement (see Table 3), all categories will have the same
runway utilization.<a href="#fnref1" class="footnote-back"
role="doc-backlink">↩︎</a></p></li>
</ol>
</aside>

For validation of this result, the utilizations above can be compared to
the individual capacity enhancement plan for CMH[^157]. This report
shows that in IMC, there is a 45% utilization for east flow (runways
10L/R), and 55% for west flow (runways 28L/R).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc86640378 .anchor}***[Appendix N: Analysis of the
Downstream Effect of Delays]{.smallcaps}***

**Background**

Flight disruptions of the kind studied here are not isolated events. In
general, a single flight disruption may have an impact on a number of
other flight operations. This connection between disruptions can be
accounted for either by formally modeling the network effects that link
flight operations, or by adding a factor for "downstream" effects.
Network effects include the impact of a reduced rate of operations at
one airport on operations at other airports, and the recognition that a
weather-related disruption at one airport, particularly an airline's
hub, can have substantial detrimental effects throughout that airline's
network. In this report, downstream effects of a flight disruption are
accounted for through a factor that is multiplied by the initial
disruption. A network model of the NAS is employed to establish support
for selecting the correct downstream effect multiplier. Additionally,
due to the importance of this factor, and the uncertainty surrounding
its proper value, the downstream factor is also included in the
sensitivity analysis.

**Methodology**

The specific value chosen for this factor has a substantial impact on
total benefits. The estimate used in this study is based on published
research[^158] [^159] and prior FAA usage[^160] of downstream effects of
delays, the single most common form of disruption. It is recognized that
such downstream factors for delays vary significantly with both the
magnitude of the original delay and the time of day at which it occurs,
with reported factors ranging from 1.0 to 13[^161]. Earlier studies have
been conducted using observed flight data covering a limited number of
flights. In this study, these observation-based results were extended to
a larger fraction of all NAS flights by applying a simulation model. For
this effort, the National Airspace System Performance Analysis
Capability (NASPAC) simulation model[^162] was employed. NASPAC
simulates all air traffic over the NAS including commercial, general
aviation, and military flights, with a detailed simulation covering 80
airports. Among its inputs are flight schedules, flight path data,
ground holds, and changes in airport capacity due to weather or other
factors. Outputs of NASPAC include many detailed delay data files which
allow tracking of delay by aircraft. It should be noted that this
analysis only looked at the ripple delay associated with a single
aircraft. Thus, this result may be conservative since it does not
include the impact that the delayed aircraft has on other flights. For
example, delayed arrival of passengers, baggage, equipment, and crews
can cause delay in other flights within a carrier's network.

Three NASPAC simulations were performed for varying weather conditions,
based on actual weather observations for three days. These three days
were chosen for their range of weather-related delays reported by the
FAA's OPSNET database[^163] and included a good weather day, with
relatively few weather-related delays, an average day, and a poor
weather day. This range of input values allows the exploration of a
wider variety of NAS performance conditions, including a range of
initial delays, than would be possible by analyzing a single "typical"
day.

Arrival delay outputs of the simulation model were then analyzed. In
order to remain consistent with the calculation of downstream effect
from previous studies, the following formula was used:

![](media/image37.png){width="1.4458333333333333in"
height="0.6402777777777777in"}

where DF is the downstream factor, D~i~ is the initial delay and D~d~ is
the sum of subsequent delays.

In analyzing the data, individual aircraft were followed throughout the
day by tracking their tail numbers in NASPAC output files. Only flights
that incurred initial delays greater than 15 minutes[^164] were included
in the analysis. In calculating the downstream effect for a specific
aircraft, the initial delay used in the calculation, D~i~, was the
number of minutes of delay in the first delayed flight segment for that
particular aircraft. The downstream delay used was the sum of the number
of minutes of delay for all flight segments of that same aircraft after
the initial delay flight segment. Using this method, a DF for every
delayed aircraft was calculated. For example, a particular aircraft
simulated in NASPAC which started the day with a flight from OAK to BUR
was delayed 53 minutes. These 53 minutes are the initial delay (D~i~)
for this aircraft. The same plane subsequently was simulated to have
flown to LAS where it was 36 minutes delayed, and then to SAT where it
was 31 minutes delayed, and finally to MIA where it was on-time. Summing
the subsequent delays (D~d~) after the initial delay, we find that this
aircraft experienced 67 (= 36 + 31 + 0) minutes of delay. Using the
formula for downstream factor, we find that DF = (53 + 67) / 53 = 2.3.
Therefore the downstream delay effect calculated for this aircraft's
simulated day was 2.3.

Thus, for each delayed aircraft, values were obtained for the magnitude
of initial delay, the time of day of initial delay, and the downstream
effect factor associated with that initial delay. These results were
tabulated, following the example of Beatty *et al* [^165], by magnitude
of initial delay and time of day. Additionally, descriptive statistics
were evaluated from the overall results, including mean and median DF.

**Results**

Previous studies have shown that the magnitude of the DF is strongly
dependent on both increased magnitude of initial delay and time of day
of the initial delay (larger factor for initial delays that occur
earlier in the day). The results of this analysis were consistent with
those findings. However, differences in DF among the three simulated
days were minimal, as increases in the number and duration of initial
delays due to the addition of bad weather to the simulation were offset
by similar increases in downstream delays, resulting in a similar
overall range of DF ratios for each simulated day. Thus, in order to
work with the richest data, the simulated day with the largest number of
delays (that is, the simulated day with the poorest weather) was
selected for further analysis. Table N1 reports DF by size of initial
delay and the time of day that the initial delay was incurred. Columns
in Table N1 represent initial delay groups of 15 to 24 minutes, 25 to 34
minutes, and so forth.

[Table N1. Downstream Factor by Initial Delay and Time of
Day]{.smallcaps}

(Blank entries indicate cells with insufficient observed delays)

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="13"><p><strong>INITIAL DELAY</strong></p>
<p><strong>(Minutes)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>TIME</strong></td>
<td><strong>15</strong></td>
<td><strong>25</strong></td>
<td><strong>35</strong></td>
<td><strong>45</strong></td>
<td><strong>55</strong></td>
<td><strong>65</strong></td>
<td><strong>75</strong></td>
<td><strong>85</strong></td>
<td><strong>95</strong></td>
<td><strong>105</strong></td>
<td><strong>115</strong></td>
<td><strong>125</strong></td>
<td><strong>135+</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>6:00</strong></td>
<td>5.1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>7:00</strong></td>
<td>9.7</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>10.6</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>8:00</strong></td>
<td>6.3</td>
<td>6.3</td>
<td>7.0</td>
<td>6.6</td>
<td>12.8</td>
<td>12.8</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>9:00</strong></td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>7.7</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>10:00</strong></td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>5.3</td>
<td>6.9</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td></td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td></td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>11:00</strong></td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>5.4</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>3.9</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>8.3</td>
<td>6.6</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>12:00</strong></td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>5.8</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>6.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>13:00</strong></td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td></td>
<td>5.1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>5.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>14:00</strong></td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>3.6</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>4.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>15:00</strong></td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>5.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>16:00</strong></td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>3.6</td>
<td>5.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>17:00</strong></td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td></td>
<td>3.9</td>
<td>4.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>18:00</strong></td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>19:00</strong></td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>20:00</strong></td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>2.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>21:00</strong></td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>2.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>22:00</strong></td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>23:00</strong></td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td></td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>0:00</strong></td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td></td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>1:00</strong></td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>2:00</strong></td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>3:00</strong></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>4:00</strong></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>5:00</strong></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

In order to determine an appropriate single value of the DF to use in
the efficiency benefits analyses, a weighted mean DF was calculated that
accounted for the time distribution of delayed air traffic arrivals, and
the magnitude of initial delays. Figure N1 shows the mean DF for each
hour of the day, and the timing of delayed air traffic arrivals reported
in the simulation outputs.

![](media/image38.wmf){width="6.897222222222222in"
height="3.6444444444444444in"}

[Figure N1. Downstream Factor and Delayed Arrivals by Time]{.smallcaps}

Finally, the mean DF for each hour was multiplied by the percentage of
delayed arrival traffic occurring during that hour for each delay group.
By using a traffic-weighted mean, a more realistic representation of the
true downstream effect of delays is achieved, and one that is applicable
to all delays, regardless of their time of occurrence. Mathematically,
this is shown as follows:

![](media/image39.png){width="1.6145833333333333in" height="0.75in"}

where DF~w~ is the weighted downstream factor, DF~tx~ is the mean
downstream factor at time t in initial delay group x, A~tx~ is the
arrival traffic at time t in delay group x, and ΣA is the sum of all
delayed arrival traffic. Note that the arrival traffic accounts only for
the number of delayed flights, not overall traffic. The resulting
weighted mean DF is 2.6.

Similarly, a weighted mean DF was calculated for use only with takeoff
disruptions, based on the time distribution of low visibility conditions
relevant to these disruptions. The resulting weighted mean DF for
takeoff disruptions is 3.7.

**Summary**

This study provides support to previous findings that a wide range of
downstream factors is possible, depending on the timing and magnitude of
the initial delay. Although this study showed that 2.6 is a reasonable
single value for this factor, given the poor weather included in the
simulation, previous similar studies have used lower values. Thus, an
intermediate value of 1.8[^166] was chosen as the primary DF for use in
the LAAS Benefits Analysis.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc86640379 .anchor}***[Appendix O: Severe Weather
Categories Eliminated From This Analsyis]{.smallcaps}***

[Table O1: NCDC Indicators Used to Eliminate Severe Weather]{.smallcaps}

> ![](media/image40.wmf){width="6.201388888888889in"
> height="6.1930555555555555in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc86640380 .anchor}***[Appendix P: Cargo 'Box Value
of Time' by Airport]{.smallcaps}***

[Table P1: Discounted 20 year LAAS Benefits -- Box Value of Time for
Cargo-only Operators,]{.smallcaps} by Airport

+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| > **      | **Box Value of Time**      |                             |
| Airport** |                            |                             |
|           | **LAAS Benefit**           |                             |
+===========+============================+=============================+
|           | [0% waas equipage          | [100% waas equipage         |
|           | scenario]{.smallcaps}      | scenario]{.smallcaps}       |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ABQ       | \$1,270,000                | \$723,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ACK       | \$1,249,000                | \$1,249,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| AFW       | \$885,000                  | \$885,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ALB       | \$4,089,000                | \$2,906,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ANC       | \$19,514,000               | \$11,337,000                |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ATL       | \$1,795,000                | \$1,489,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| AUS       | \$0                        | \$0                         |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| AVL       | \$12,000                   | \$12,000                    |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| BDL       | \$5,676,000                | \$2,024,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| BFI       | \$1,341,000                | \$1,341,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| BGR       | \$211,000                  | \$211,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| BHM       | \$1,865,000                | \$0                         |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| BNA       | \$536,000                  | \$136,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| BOI       | \$1,109,000                | \$1,109,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| BOS       | \$1,561,000                | \$1,561,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| BUF       | \$1,360,000                | \$1,155,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| BUR       | \$2,558,000                | \$196,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| BWI       | \$1,056,000                | \$1,056,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CAE       | \$2,538,000                | \$1,564,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CHA       | \$187,000                  | \$187,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CHS       | \$457,000                  | \$241,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CLE       | \$5,564,000                | \$1,208,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CLT       | \$1,659,000                | \$1,659,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CMH       | \$7,000                    | \$7,000                     |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| COS       | \$2,028,000                | \$1,787,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CVG       | \$6,235,000                | \$4,274,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| DAB       | \$0                        | \$0                         |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| DAL       | \$509,000                  | \$509,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| DAY       | \$3,697,000                | \$1,941,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| DCA       | \$0                        | \$0                         |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| DEN       | \$2,588,000                | \$2,588,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| DFW       | \$8,825,000                | \$4,218,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| DLH       | \$149,000                  | \$149,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| DSM       | \$1,362,000                | \$1,362,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| DTW       | \$3,116,000                | \$1,468,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| DVT       | \$0                        | \$0                         |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ELP       | \$47,000                   | \$47,000                    |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| EUG       | \$3,663,000                | \$3,344,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| EWR       | \$4,418,000                | \$4,418,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| EYW       | \$0                        | \$0                         |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| FAI       | \$204,000                  | \$204,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| FAT       | \$197,000                  | \$197,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| FLL       | \$664,000                  | \$664,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| FWA       | \$5,253,000                | \$1,256,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| FXE       | \$0                        | \$0                         |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| GEG       | \$6,840,000                | \$4,004,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| GRR       | \$4,952,000                | \$4,122,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| GSO       | \$3,435,000                | \$3,435,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| GSP       | \$322,000                  | \$322,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HNL       | \$1,125,000                | \$0                         |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HOU       | \$8,000                    | \$8,000                     |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HPN       | \$5,000                    | \$5,000                     |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HSV       | \$880,000                  | \$880,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| IAD       | \$809,000                  | \$809,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| IAH       | \$1,086,000                | \$1,086,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ICT       | \$1,696,000                | \$865,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ILN       | \$6,656,000                | \$6,656,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| IND       | \$6,341,000                | \$6,341,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ISP       | \$0                        | \$0                         |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| JAN       | \$200,000                  | \$200,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| JAX       | \$738,000                  | \$738,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| JFK       | \$2,414,000                | \$2,414,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| JNU       | \$15,763,000               | \$512,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| LAS       | \$0                        | \$0                         |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| LAX       | \$1,528,000                | \$1,528,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| LCK       | \$936,000                  | \$936,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| LGA       | \$0                        | \$0                         |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| LGB       | \$5,922,000                | \$4,708,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| LIT       | \$171,000                  | \$171,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MCI       | \$1,335,000                | \$1,335,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MCO       | \$1,882,000                | \$1,040,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MDT       | \$1,861,000                | \$1,861,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MDW       | \$153,000                  | \$153,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MEM       | \$16,222,000               | \$15,191,000                |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MHT       | \$6,032,000                | \$4,946,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MIA       | \$3,459,000                | \$2,037,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MKE       | \$8,388,000                | \$3,401,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MMU       | \$0                        | \$0                         |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MSP       | \$642,000                  | \$642,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MSY       | \$1,755,000                | \$648,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| OAK       | \$1,980,000                | \$1,471,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| OKC       | \$2,092,000                | \$1,076,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| OMA       | \$1,028,000                | \$1,028,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ONT       | \$346,000                  | \$346,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ORD       | \$3,063,000                | \$3,063,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ORF       | \$2,293,000                | \$2,270,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| PBI       | \$259,000                  | \$43,000                    |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| PDX       | \$1,555,000                | \$1,555,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| PHL       | \$2,256,000                | \$2,256,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| PHX       | \$1,121,000                | \$1,121,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| PIE       | \$519,000                  | \$411,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| PIT       | \$1,130,000                | \$1,130,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| PVD       | \$1,987,000                | \$1,694,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| RDU       | \$803,000                  | \$803,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| RFD       | \$8,645,000                | \$4,780,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| RIC       | \$3,483,000                | \$2,024,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| RNO       | \$948,000                  | \$214,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ROC       | \$1,697,000                | \$833,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| RSW       | \$843,000                  | \$843,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SAN       | \$2,631,000                | \$119,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SAT       | \$1,006,000                | \$1,006,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SDF       | \$1,694,000                | \$1,694,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SEA       | \$3,226,000                | \$2,997,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SFB       | \$0                        | \$0                         |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SFO       | \$204,000                  | \$204,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SHV       | \$547,000                  | \$263,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SJC       | \$2,609,000                | \$1,622,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SLC       | \$1,651,000                | \$1,651,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SMF       | \$1,589,000                | \$1,589,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SNA       | \$557,000                  | \$557,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| STL       | \$9,000                    | \$9,000                     |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SWF       | \$129,000                  | \$21,000                    |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SYR       | \$692,000                  | \$379,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| TEB       | \$409,000                  | \$93,000                    |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| TLH       | \$1,725,000                | \$1,725,000                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| TPA       | \$368,000                  | \$368,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| TRI       | \$59,000                   | \$59,000                    |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| TUL       | \$244,000                  | \$136,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| TUS       | \$5,000                    | \$5,000                     |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| TYS       | \$672,000                  | \$672,000                   |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| VNY       | \$0                        | \$0                         |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Total** | **\$259,084,000**          | **\$173,806,000**           |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc86640381 .anchor}***[Appendix Q: Government and
Industry Contributors]{.smallcaps}***

The IBM team wishes to recognize the following organizations and
individuals for providing feedback on the LAAS benefits analysis work.
Appearance on this list is an indication that each individual was
afforded an opportunity to comment on IBM's benefits analysis approach;
it does not imply agreement with IBM's approach.

An asterisk (\*) denotes a primary Point of Contact for each
organization.

### Airport and Airline Site Visits

A critical element of this study was the involvement of representatives
from the aviation industry, including airlines, airports, air traffic
service providers, and equipment manufacturers. The following
individuals provided subject matter expertise, data and valuable
feedback:

Table P1: Airport and Airline Site Visits

+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| **Visit  | **Or         | **Contact**  | **Position**               |
| Date**   | ganization** |              |                            |
+==========+==============+==============+============================+
| 02-      | Federal      | Cole, Ray    | Aircraft Standards         |
| Feb-2004 | Express      |              | Engineer                   |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 02-      | Federal      | Murdoch,     | \*Manager, Strategic       |
| Feb-2004 | Express      | Joel         | Projects                   |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 02-      | Federal      | Vail, Steve  | Senior Manager of Global   |
| Feb-2004 | Express      |              | Air Traffic                |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 03-      | Shelby       | White,       | \*Director of Operations   |
| Feb-2004 | County       | Walter       | and Public Safety          |
|          | Airport      |              |                            |
|          | Authority    |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 03-      | FAA          | Wertz, Bill  | \*MEM ATCT Manager         |
| Feb-2004 |              |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 05-      | Boeing       | Ackland,     | \*Senior Technical Fellow  |
| May-2004 |              | John         | -- Airplane Systems        |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 05-      | Boeing       | Alcabin,     | Principal Engineer         |
| May-2004 |              | Monica       |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 05-      | Boeing       | Malsom, Don  | Associate Director         |
| May-2004 |              |              | Business Development --    |
|          |              |              | Air Traffic Management     |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 05-      | Boeing       | Michael, Bob | Product Manager            |
| May-2004 |              |              |                            |
|          |              |              | Marketing & Business       |
|          |              |              | Strategy                   |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 05-      | Boeing       | Siegmund,    | Program Manager,           |
| May-2004 |              | Paul         | Regulatory Affairs         |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 05-      | Boeing       | Sipe, Alan   | \--                        |
| May-2004 |              |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 05-      | Boeing       | Tuttle, Tim  | Program Manager,           |
| May-2004 |              |              |                            |
|          |              |              | Product Development        |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 05-      | FAA          | Beckerdite,  | \*SEA TRACON Facility      |
| May-2004 |              | Ron          | Manager                    |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 05-      | Seattle      | Kikillus,    | \*SEA Operations           |
| May-2004 | Tacoma       | Rob          | Development Manager,       |
|          | Airport      |              | Airfield                   |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 05-      | FAA          | Vernon,      | \*SEA ATCT Facility        |
| May-2004 |              | Kathryn      | Manager                    |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 06-      | Alaska       | Dalton,      | \* Director of Flight      |
| May-2004 | Airlines     | Sarah        | Operations                 |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 06-      | Horizon      | Solmonson,   | \*Manager Flight           |
| May-2004 | Airlines     | Perry        | Operations Technical       |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 17-      | BDL          | Tebbetts,    | BDL Ops Manager            |
| May-2004 |              | Roland       |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 17-      | FAA          | Bellabona,   | Regional SR Ops Research   |
| May-2004 |              | Joseph       | Spc/ANE 520.6              |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 17-      | FAA          | Fiske, Gary  | \*BDL Tower/TRACON         |
| May-2004 |              |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 17-      | FAA          | Guiod, Mark  | BDL Air Traffic Manager    |
| May-2004 |              |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 17-      | FAA          | Hall, David  | Flight Standards -- NE     |
| May-2004 |              | L            | Region                     |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 19-      | FAA          | Gross, Stu   | EWR ATC                    |
| May-2004 |              |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 19-      | FAA          | Jennings, Al | EWR ATC Manager            |
| May-2004 |              |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 19-      | FAA          | Sandes,      | EWR ATC                    |
| May-2004 |              | Larry        |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 19-      | FAA          | Wagner, Mike | \*EWR ATC                  |
| May-2004 |              |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 20-      | FAA          | Kalpaxis,    | NATCA N90                  |
| May-2004 |              | Timon        |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 20-      | FAA          | Moss, Patti  | \*N90 Airspace             |
| May-2004 |              |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 20-      | NY,NJ Port   | Gatto, Ralph | \*Senior Airport Engineer  |
| May-2004 | Authority    |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 03-      | City of      | Foggia, John | Consultant                 |
| Jun-2004 | Chicago,     |              |                            |
|          | Dept of      |              |                            |
|          | Aviation     |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 03-      | City of      | Santos, Joe  | \*Executive Assistant      |
| Jun-2004 | Chicago,     |              |                            |
|          | Dept of      |              |                            |
|          | Aviation     |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 03-      | City of      | Bierbrodt,   | Consultant                 |
| Jun-2004 | Chicago,     | Jeffery      |                            |
|          | Dept of      |              |                            |
|          | Aviation     |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 08-      | United       | Baas, Jim    | Manager, Capacity          |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     |              | Enhancement                |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 08-      | United       | Burns, Joe   | Director, Flight Standards |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     |              | and Technology             |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 08-      | United       | Haynes,      | Manager, Flight Operations |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     | Brian        | Technology                 |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 08-      | United       | Holford, Tom | Manager, Navigation        |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     |              | Upgrades                   |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 08-      | United       | Stone, Rocky | \*Manager, Flight Systems  |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     |              | Technology                 |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 08-      | ATNSI        | Murphy, Mike | \*Consultant               |
| Jun-2004 |              |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 17-      | Continental  | Vaughn, Bill | \*Manager Advanced         |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     |              | Navigation                 |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 21-      | Southwest    | Crum, Greg   | Vice President Flight      |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     |              | Operations and Chief Pilot |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 21-      | Southwest    | Edens, Dave  | Chief Pilot                |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 21-      | Southwest    | Gleason,     | \* Director, Flight        |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     | Brian        | Operations Technical       |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 21-      | Southwest    | Haynes, Rob  | Regional Chief Pilot       |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 21-      | Southwest    | Humphrey,    | Pilot                      |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     | Stan D.      |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 21-      | Southwest    | Johns, Frank | Air Traffic Coordinator    |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 21-      | Southwest    | Mullis, Phil | Air Traffic Coordinator    |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     |              |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 21-      | Southwest    | Stephens,    | Senior Financial Planning  |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     | Jon          | Analyst                    |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 21-      | Southwest    | Ward, Edward | Manager, Navigation Data   |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     | T.           |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 21-      | Southwest    | Wiecek,      | Flight Operations Engineer |
| Jun-2004 | Airlines     | Kevin        |                            |
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------------------------+

### 

###  

### Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

The following individuals from the FAA provided subject matter
expertise, data and feedback:

[Table P2: FAA Contributors]{.smallcaps}

+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| **Organization**   | **Contact**     | **Position**                 |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, AFS-430       | Jarvis, Ed      | Flight Standards             |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, AIR-130       | Abduselam,      | Certification                |
|                    | Hamza           |                              |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, AIR-130       | DeCleene, Bruce | Certification                |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, AOP-200/ATO-W | Tran, Deborah   | NASPAS Program               |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, ARN-100       | Williams,       |                              |
|                    | Ammyanna        |                              |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, ATO-R         | MacNeill, Ken   | AT Requirements              |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, ATO-W         | Peterson, Dave  | OIT Team Lead                |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, ATO-P         | Citrenbaum, Dan | Operations Research Division |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, ATO-PFAA,     | Wright, Wes     | Business Case Analysis       |
| ASD-420            |                 | Division                     |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, ATO-PFAA,     | Depasquantonio, | Manager, Business Case       |
| ASD-420            | Maria           | Analysis Division            |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, ATO-PFAA,     | Melone, Fran    | Manager, Operations Research |
| ASD-430            |                 | Division                     |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, ATO-PFAA,     | Coleman,        | Operations Research Division |
| ASD-430            | Nastaran        |                              |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, ATO-W         | Bell, Hal       | WAAS PT Lead                 |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, ATO-W/AMTI    | Noto, John      | WAAS Task Lead               |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA,               | Packard,        | JPALS Liaison                |
| ATO-W/ESC/ARINC    | Richard         |                              |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, ATO-W/ISI     | Lay, Richard    | LAAS System Engineer         |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
| FAA, Navigation    | Rixmann, Gary   | (former MLS Contract         |
| Services, ATO-W    |                 | Technical Officer)           |
|                    |                 |                              |
|                    |                 | Lighting Systems Office      |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------------------+

### 

### MITRE/CAASD

The following individuals from MITRE/CAASD, listed in alphabetical order
by last name, provided subject matter expertise, tools, data and
valuable feedback:

[Table P3: MITRE/CAASD Subject Matter Experts]{.smallcaps}

  ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------
  **Organization**   **Contact**      **Position**

  MITRE/CAASD        Barrer, John     Lead Engineer

  MITRE/CAASD        Markin, Kelly    Program Manager

  MITRE/CAASD        Massimini, Vince Senior Principal Engineer

  MITRE/CAASD        Scales, Walt     Project Team Manager

  MITRE/CAASD        Swedish, William Principal Engineer
  ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------

### Conference Calls with Major Airline Representatives 

The following individuals, listed in alphabetical order by organization,
participated in discussions of the LAAS Benefits Analysis:

[Table P4: LAAS Benefits Discussion Airline Representative
Participants]{.smallcaps}

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ------------------------------------
  **Organization**                                                                                              **Contact**      **Position**

  Alaska Airlines                                                                                               Dalton, Sarah    Director of Flight Operations

  [American Trans                                                                                               Enias, James     Technical Pilot
  Air](http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=ATA+Airlines/v=2/SID=e/l=WS1/R=1/SS=4287501/H=0/*-http:/www.ata.com/)                    

  Boeing                                                                                                        Ackland, John    Senior Technical Fellow Airline
                                                                                                                                 System

  Continental Airlines                                                                                          Vaughn, Bill     Captain, Flight Technical

  Delta Airlines                                                                                                Speir, Ken       Fleet Technical Pilot

  Federal Express                                                                                               Murdock, Joel    Manager, Strategic Projects

  Honeywell                                                                                                     Hoodspith, Mike  Manager, Satellite Landing Systems,
                                                                                                                                 Commercial Products, Asia, Latin
                                                                                                                                 America & Western U.S.

  Horizon Airlines                                                                                              Bush, Steve      Flight Ops Technical

  JetBlue Airways                                                                                               Somerville,      Captain, GPS/RNAV Subject Matter
                                                                                                                Donald           Specialist

  Northwest Airlines                                                                                            Alexander, Frank Chief Pilot Technical Programs

  Southwest Airlines                                                                                            Gleason, Brian   Director, Flight Operations
                                                                                                                                 Technical

  United Airlines                                                                                               Stone, Rocky     Manager of Flight Systems Technology

  United Parcel Service                                                                                         Hilb, Bob        Manager of Advanced Flight Systems
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ------------------------------------

### GBAS FAA-Europe Coordination Meeting, April 2004

The following meeting participants provided subject matter expertise,
data and valuable feedback:

[Table P5: GBAS FAA-Europe Subject Matter Experts]{.smallcaps}

  ------------------ ------------------ ---------------------------------
  **Organization**   **Contact**        **Position**

  EUROCONTROL        Grand-Perret,      \*Expert -- Navigation
                     Sylvie             

  SKYGUIDE           Berz, Gerhard      \*System Engineer, Satellite
                                        Navigation

  SOFREAVIA          De La Burgade,     Consulting Division, Project
                     Olivier            Manager
  ------------------ ------------------ ---------------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc86640382 .anchor}***[Appendix R: Number of ILSs
Required to Achieve Equivalent LAAS Benefit]{.smallcaps}***

Table R1: [Number of ILSs Required to Achieve Equivalent LAAS
Benefit]{.smallcaps}

+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
|     | **[0%  |           |         | **[100% |           |        |
|     | WAAS   |           |         | WAAS    |           |        |
|     | Equip  |           |         | Eq      |           |        |
|     | age]{. |           |         | uipage] |           |        |
|     | smallc |           |         | {.small |           |        |
|     | aps}** |           |         | caps}** |           |        |
+=====+========+===========+=========+=========+===========+========+
| >   | **[No. | **[No.    | **[No.  | **[No.  | **[No.    | **[No. |
|  ** | of]{.  | of]{.sma  | of]     | of]     | of]{.sma  | of]{.  |
| Air | smallc | llcaps}** | {.small | {.small | llcaps}** | smallc |
| por | aps}** |           | caps}** | caps}** |           | aps}** |
| t** |        | **[Cat I  |         |         | **[Cat I  |        |
|     | **[Cat | to Cat    | **[New  | **[Cat  | to Cat    | **[New |
|     | I      | II/III    | Cat     | I       | II/III    | Cat    |
|     | ILS]{. | Upgra     | II/III  | ILS]    | Upgra     | II/III |
|     | smallc | des]{.sma | ILS]    | {.small | des]{.sma | ILS]{. |
|     | aps}** | llcaps}** | {.small | caps}** | llcaps}** | smallc |
|     |        |           | caps}** |         |           | aps}** |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| ABQ | 1      | 3         | 0       | 1       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| ACK | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| AFW | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| ALB | 1      | 3         | 0       | 1       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| ANC | 1      | 2         | 0       | 1       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| ATL | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| AUS | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| AVL | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| BDL | 1      | 3         | 0       | 1       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| BFI | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| BGR | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| BHM | 2      | 3         | 0       | 2       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| BNA | 1      | 4         | 0       | 0       | 3         | 1      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| BOI | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| BOS | 0      | 5         | 0       | 0       | 5         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| BUF | 1      | 4         | 0       | 1       | 4         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| BUR | 2      | 2         | 0       | 1       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| BWI | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| CAE | 1      | 3         | 0       | 1       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| CHA | 1      | 1         | 0       | 1       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| CHS | 2      | 3         | 0       | 2       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| CLE | 3      | 5         | 0       | 3       | 5         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| CLT | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| CMH | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| COS | 1      | 3         | 0       | 1       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| CVG | 0      | 3         | 0       | 0       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| DAB | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| DAL | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| DAY | 1      | 4         | 0       | 1       | 4         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| DCA | 3      | 3         | 0       | 2       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| DEN | 0      | 6         | 0       | 0       | 6         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| DFW | 0      | 4         | 0       | 0       | 4         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| DLH | 2      | 3         | 0       | 1       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| DSM | 0      | 3         | 0       | 0       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| DTW | 2      | 4         | 1       | 2       | 2         | 3      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| DVT | 1      | 0         | 0       | 0       | 0         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| ELP | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| EUG | 3      | 3         | 0       | 2       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| EWR | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| EYW | 2      | 2         | 0       | 2       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| FAI | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| FAT | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| FLL | 1      | 4         | 2       | 1       | 4         | 2      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| FWA | 2      | 3         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 1      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| FXE | 1      | 1         | 0       | 1       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| GEG | 2      | 2         | 0       | 1       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| GRR | 2      | 6         | 0       | 0       | 4         | 2      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| GSO | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| GSP | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| HNL | 4      | 6         | 0       | 4       | 6         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| HOU | 1      | 4         | 0       | 1       | 4         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| HPN | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| HSV | 0      | 3         | 0       | 0       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| IAD | 0      | 5         | 0       | 0       | 5         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| IAH | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| ICT | 1      | 3         | 0       | 1       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| ILN | 0      | 3         | 0       | 0       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| IND | 0      | 3         | 0       | 0       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| ISP | 1      | 3         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 1      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| JAN | 0      | 1         | 2       | 0       | 1         | 2      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| JAX | 0      | 3         | 0       | 0       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| JFK | 0      | 4         | 0       | 0       | 4         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| JNU | 2      | 2         | 0       | 2       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| LAS | 2      | 3         | 0       | 1       | 2         | 1      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| LAX | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| LCK | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| LGA | 1      | 2         | 0       | 1       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| LGB | 2      | 4         | 0       | 2       | 4         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| LIT | 2      | 4         | 0       | 2       | 4         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| MCI | 0      | 3         | 0       | 0       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| MCO | 1      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| MDT | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| MDW | 3      | 6         | 0       | 3       | 6         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| MEM | 0      | 3         | 1       | 0       | 3         | 1      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| MHT | 1      | 4         | 0       | 1       | 4         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| MIA | 3      | 8         | 0       | 2       | 7         | 1      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| MKE | 2      | 1         | 0       | 2       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| MMU | 1      | 1         | 0       | 1       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| MSP | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| MSY | 1      | 3         | 0       | 1       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| OAK | 1      | 3         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 1      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| OKC | 2      | 5         | 0       | 2       | 5         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| OMA | 0      | 3         | 0       | 0       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| ONT | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| ORD | 0      | 7         | 0       | 0       | 7         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| ORF | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| PBI | 2      | 4         | 0       | 2       | 4         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| PDX | 0      | 1         | 2       | 0       | 1         | 2      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| PHL | 0      | 4         | 0       | 0       | 4         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| PHX | 0      | 5         | 0       | 0       | 5         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| PIE | 5      | 6         | 0       | 1       | 2         | 4      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| PIT | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| PVD | 1      | 3         | 0       | 1       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| RDU | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| RFD | 2      | 3         | 0       | 1       | 2         | 1      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| RIC | 2      | 4         | 0       | 2       | 4         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| RNO | 1      | 2         | 0       | 1       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| ROC | 1      | 3         | 0       | 1       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| RSW | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| SAN | 1      | 1         | 0       | 1       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| SAT | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| SDF | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| SEA | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| SFB | 2      | 4         | 0       | 2       | 4         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| SFO | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| SHV | 2      | 3         | 0       | 1       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| SJC | 4      | 6         | 0       | 3       | 5         | 1      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| SLC | 0      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| SMF | 0      | 3         | 0       | 0       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| SNA | 1      | 2         | 0       | 1       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| STL | 0      | 4         | 0       | 0       | 4         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| SWF | 1      | 2         | 0       | 1       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| SYR | 1      | 3         | 0       | 1       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| TEB | 2      | 3         | 0       | 2       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| TLH | 0      | 3         | 0       | 0       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| TPA | 1      | 1         | 2       | 1       | 1         | 2      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| TRI | 1      | 2         | 0       | 0       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| TUL | 1      | 3         | 0       | 1       | 3         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| TUS | 1      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 0         | 1      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| TYS | 0      | 1         | 0       | 0       | 1         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| VNY | 1      | 2         | 0       | 1       | 2         | 0      |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+
| **T | *      | **331**   | **10**  | **79**  | **314**   | **27** |
| ota | *104** |           |         |         |           |        |
| l** |        |           |         |         |           |        |
+-----+--------+-----------+---------+---------+-----------+--------+

# [Notes and References]{.smallcaps}

[^1]: See Appendix L for a listing of acronym used in this report.

[^2]: See Appendix A for the selection criteria, as well as a listing
    and map of these 121 airports.

[^3]: 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).

[^4]: 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)

[^5]: Prabhakar, Anand S. (1996). Economic Analysis of Local Area
    Augmentation System and Alternative Architectures (Rep. No.
    A560803). Massachusetts: Transportation Systems Center.

[^6]: No Author. (1997). Local Area Augmentation System Cost Savings
    Potential. Washington, DC: Air Transport Association.

[^7]: See Appendix F.

[^8]: LAAS Benefits Analysis - Executive Summary of the Navigation
    Capabilities Baseline, IBM Corporation, November 2003.

[^9]: LAAS Benefits Analysis - Executive Summary of the LAAS Incremental
    Capabilities, IBM Corporation, December 15, 2003.

[^10]: The National Economic Impact of Civil Aviation; DRI-WEFA, Inc.;
    July 2002; p.22.
    (http://www.gama.aero/dloads/DRI-WEFA_EconomicImpactStudy.pdf)

[^11]: After discussions with air cargo operators, a simple approach was
    developed in which the Box Value of Time is represented as a
    function of the fraction of time-sensitive cargo on each delayed
    aircraft that is at risk of arriving late. Delays less than 30
    minutes were considered to be inconsequential, and the fraction of
    "late" cargo increased from 0% at 30 minutes of delay to 100% at 1
    hour of delay. Multiplying this fraction by the average value of
    time-sensitive cargo onboard a typical flight (≈\$40k; derived from
    publicly available annual reports of relevant air cargo carriers)
    allows the calculation of the Box Value of Time associated with any
    length of delay.

[^12]: See Appendix R for a listing of these required ILS installations
    by airport.

[^13]: Radio Spectrum Plan (2003 Revision) ATO-W; p 53 "Until there is a
    meaningful de-commissioning of at least some VORs, it may be
    difficult to implement LAAS installations in this band beyond the
    present plan of 161 stations."

[^14]: FAA Radio Spectrum Plan (2003 Revision) ATO-W; p 55 "Spectrum
    resources are expected to be available to implement some additional
    ILS systems in lower traffic density areas of CONUS. However, it
    would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to make further
    ILS frequency assignments in some high traffic density areas, such
    as the New York City area."

[^15]: See for example: Handbook of Airline Economics: Chapter 39
    Airline Irregular Operations, or

    Diversion Cost Calculations,
    <http://www.passur.com/pst/report_app_a.htm>, or

    FAA/APO -- Schedule Disruptions Version 2, pg 3 and Table 4, pg 11,
    [http://apo.faa.gov/arcc/Issue%20Papers/031215%20Schedule%20Disruptions.doc](http://apo.faa.gov/arcc/Issue Papers/031215 Schedule Disruptions.doc),
    or

    Airbus, Economic Impact -- Diversion Recovery Plan,
    [http://apo.faa.gov/arcc/030916%20Meeting/Handouts/6](http://apo.faa.gov/arcc/030916 Meeting/Handouts/6),
    or

    Zalman, Shavell A. (2000, April 15). The Effects of Schedule
    Disruptions on the Economics of Airline Operations. The MITRE
    Corporation, 1-11.

[^16]: a\) Beatty, R., Hsu, R., Berry, L, and Rome, J. (Dec. 1998)
    Preliminary Evaluation of Flight Delay Propagation Through an
    Airline Schedule; 2nd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar.

    b\) Rome, J, Rose, S, Lee, R, Cistone, J, Bell, G., Leber, W.
    (undated) Ripple Delay and Its Mitigation.

    c\) No Author, Nov 2003, Investment Analysis Benefit Guidelines:
    Quantifying Benefits from Projected Reductions in National Airspace
    System Equipment Outages; FAA ASD-430; Appendix A, p. A-3.

    d\) Welch, Andrews and Robinson, Aug 2001, Assessing Delay Benefits
    of the Final Approach Spacing Tool, MIT Lincoln Labs, and NASA Ames
    Research Center, presented at the AAIA Guidance, Navigation and
    Control Conference, Aug 2001.

[^17]: No Author. (2004, March). FAA Aerospace Forecast 2004-2015.
    Federal Aviation Administration, Chapter 1.
    http://www.api.faa.gov/foreca03/start.htm

[^18]: See Appendix K for details on data sources.

[^19]: Also, see Appendix G for a short list of sites outside of the 121
    studied airports that were identified by airline representatives as
    potentially important sites for LAAS benefits.

[^20]: No Author. (1992, October 29). Guidelines and Discount Rates for
    Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs. Office of Management and
    Budget

[^21]: See Appendix F.

[^22]: Hawkins, Joseph A. (1983, September). Establishment and
    Discontinuance Criteria for Precision Landing Systems. US Department
    of Transportation and The Federal Aviation Administration, 1-102.
    Retrieved May 18, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
    http://api.hq.faa.gov/precision%20landing%20systems/Precision%20Landing%20Systems.pdf

[^23]: Haro, Pablo; Mateo, Mariluz de; Andrada, Luis. (1998, October 7).
    Methodology and Quantification of Several EGNOS Operational
    Benefits. Ministry of Public Works and the Economy, 1-6. Retrieved
    May 18, 2004 from the World Wide Web.

    http://www.mfom.es/aviacioncivil/programas/egnos_html/cba.doc

[^24]: See for example: a) Pervan, Boris; Lawrence, David; Gromov,
    Konstantin. (1998, March 19). Flight Test Evaluation of a Prototype
    Local Area Augmentation System Architecture. Department of
    Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1-9. Retrieved May 18, 2004 from the
    World Wide Web:
    <http://waas.stanford.edu/~wwu/papers/gps/PDF/flight_eval_laas_bsp97.pdf>

    b\) Hammer, Jonathan. (2000). Case Study of Paired Approach
    Procedure to Closely Spaced Parallel Runways. The MITRE Corporation,
    223-252. Retrieved May 18, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.mitre.org/work/best_papers/best_papers_00/hammer_casestudy/hammer_casestudy.pdf

[^25]: http://www.transtats.bts.gov/

[^26]: http://www.faa.gov/ats/asc/capacity.html

[^27]: Hawkins, Joseph A. (1983). Establishment and Discontinuance
    Criteria for Precision Landing Systems (Rep. No. FAA-APO-83-10).
    Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.

[^28]: Prabhakar, Anand S. (1996). Economic Analysis of Local Area
    Augmentation System and Alternative Architectures (Rep. No.
    A560803). Massachusetts: Transportation Systems Center.

[^29]: FAA Aviation Policy and Plans; Airway Planning Standard Number
    One Terminal Air Navigation Facilities and Air Traffic Control
    Services: http://apo.faa.gov/7031/7031.pdf

[^30]: NCDC data provided by ASD-400.

[^31]: For FedEx's Memphis hub and UPS's Louisville hub, the entire 24
    hour time period was used since they have continual traffic
    throughout the night.

[^32]: The period from 9/11/01 through 12/31/01 was omitted. Disruptions
    due to labor strikes were also omitted.

[^33]: For a discussion of the impact of severe weather on airline
    operations, see for example, Zalman, Shavell A. (2000, April 15).
    The Effects of Schedule Disruptions on the Economics of Airline
    Operations. The MITRE Corporation, 1-11. Retrieved May 18, 2004 from
    the World Wide Web:
    http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_00/shavell_effects/shavell_effects.pdf

[^34]: For details see FAA Advisory Circulars 120-29A, 120-28D; FAA
    Order 8400.10

[^35]: See Appendix E for a description of how total demand is
    estimated.

[^36]: Capacity data was made available to IBM by the FAA's ASD-400

[^37]: See Appendix E for a description of how a "typical" day's traffic
    is estimated

[^38]: See Appendix E for a description of the Single Airport Delay
    Model.

[^39]: See Appendix C.

[^40]: Boeing (RNP Capability of the FMC-Equipped 737, Generation 3,
    Figure 6.1-1)

[^41]: Becher, T.; Formosa, J. (2000, June 16). RNAV Near-Term Terminal
    Procedures Development. Center for Advanced Aviation System
    Development, 1-11. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.mitrecaasd.org/library/presentations/becher.pdf

[^42]: Hoitomt, Debra; Dareing, Stephen; Tang, Baoxing. (No Date Given).
    Traffic Management and Airline Operations. United Airlines Research
    Center, 1-3. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
    http://icat-server.mit.edu/\~fcarr/ACC2002/Abstracts/UAL_Hoitomt.pdf

[^43]: Knorr, David. (2000, June 16). The Operational Assessment of Free
    Flight Phase 1 ATM Capabilities. Free Flight Phase 1 Program Office,
    1-9. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.mitrecaasd.org/library/presentations/blucher.pdf

[^44]: See for example: a) Testimony before the Aviation Subcommittee of
    the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, (1999,
    October 14).
    http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/hearing/10-14-99/chew.html

    b\) No Author. (1998, November 18). All-Airline Meeting. CNS/ATM
    Focused Team (C/AFT), 1-24. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from the World
    Wide Web:
    http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/reference/meetings/98_11_18/01_atspfg.pdf

    c\) Pepper, Joshua W.; Mills, Kristine R.; Wojcik, Leonard A. (2003,
    June 27). Predictability and Uncertainty in Air Traffic Flow
    Management. Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD),
    1-10. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
    <http://www.mitrecaasd.org/library/presentations/atm2003/atm2003_paper45.pdf>

    d\) this benefit has also been strongly substantiated in IBM's
    interviews with airline representatives.

[^45]: No Author. (2003, September 11). FAA Flight Plan 2004-2008.
    Federal Aviation Administration, 31. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from
    World Wide Web:
    http://www.faa.gov/apo/strategicplan/FAA_Flight_Plan.pdf

[^46]: (25 Feb, 2004) IBM LAAS Benefits Analysis -- Preliminary
    Findings.

[^47]: No Author. (No Date Given). Section 6. Holding Aircraft. Federal
    Aviation Administration. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from the World Wide
    Web: http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/ATC/Chp4/atc0406.html

[^48]: Interview with a major carrier produced the estimate of 2 minutes
    to taxi 1500 ft

[^49]: No Author. (No Date Given). Section 3. Wake Turbulence. Federal
    Aviation Administration. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from the World Wide
    Web: http://www2.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0703.html

[^50]: Odoni, Amedeo R., Rousseau, Jean-Marc, and Wilson, Nigel (1994).
    Models in Urban and Air Transportation. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science
    Publishers.

[^51]: See Appendix E for a description of how a "typical" day's traffic
    is estimated.

[^52]: See Appendix C.

[^53]: Estimated to be 30 departures per hour, based on theoretical
    models and comparison to similar runways at other airports.

[^54]: Critical area holds were identified using taxiway diagrams for
    the airports studied.

[^55]: See Appendix C.

[^56]: Egan, Paul. (2001, February 27). New radar would speed airport
    traffic. The Detroit News. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from the World
    Wide Web: http://www.detnews.com/2001/metro/0102/27/d01-193153.htm

[^57]: Houck, Sharon; Barrows, Andrew; Parkinson, Bradford; Enge, Per;
    Powell, J. David. (1999). Flight Testing WAAS for Use in Closely
    Spaced Parallel Approaches. Department of Aeronautics and
    Astronautics, Stanford University, 1-12. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from
    the World Wide Web:
    http://waas.stanford.edu/\~wwu/papers/gps/PDF/sharonparallel.pdf

[^58]: Houck, Sharon; Powell, J. David. (2001). Assessment of the
    Probability of a Midair Collision during an Ultra Closely Spaced
    Parallel Approach. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
    Stanford University, 1-11. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from the World
    Wide Web:
    http://waas.stanford.edu/\~wwu/sharon/briefs/gncpaper01.pdf

[^59]: Houck, Sharon. (2001, April). Multi Aircraft Dynamics, Navigation
    and Operation. The Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and
    the Committee on Graduate Studies of Stanford University, 1-141.
    Retrieved May 19, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
    http://waas.stanford.edu/\~wwu/sharon/briefs/sharonthesis01.pdf

[^60]: Ashford, Rose. (1998, December 24). Closely Spaced Parallel
    Approaches. NASA Ames Research Center. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from
    the World Wide Web: http://www.asc.nasa.gov/tap/cspa/cspa.html

[^61]: Elliott Dawn M. and Perry R. Brad. (2000, August14-17). NASA
    Research for Instrument Approaches to Closely Spaced Parallel
    Runways. NASA, 1-8. Retrieved June 2, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
    http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/2000/aiaa/NASA-aiaa-2000-4358.pdf

[^62]: Ashford, Rose. (2002, September 11). Closely-Spaced Parallel
    Approaches. NASA, 1-21. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from the World Wide
    Web:
    http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/ihi/personnel/ashford/CSPA20D.pdf

[^63]: Eurocontrol. (2003, May 2). GBAS Roadmap. EUROCONTROL, 1-6.
    Retrieved May 19, 2004 from the World Wide Web:

    http://www.eurocontrol.fr/projects/sbas/Library/gwg7/GWG-7_IP1_GNSS.4WP.yy2_v1.0.pdf

[^64]: Eurocontrol, "Benefit Estimation of GBAS for Simultaneous
    Independent Operations for Closely Spaced Parallel Runways in ECAC"

[^65]: Eurocontrol, Executive Summaries of ECAC Precision Approach and
    Landing Task Force (EPAL) Activities in Close Relation to GBAS,
    Joint EPAL/GWG meeting, February 3, 2004.

[^66]: Shank, E. M.; Hollister, K. M. (1994). Precision Runway Monitor.
    Lincoln Laboratory Journal,

    Vol. 7, No. 2.

[^67]: Haines, Dr. A. L.; Swedish, W. J. (1981). Requirements for
    Independent and Dependent Parallel Instrument Approaches at Reduced
    Runway Spacing (Rep. No. MTR-81W15). Virginia: The MITRE
    Corporation.

[^68]: Bone, R.; Olmos, O.; Mundra, A. (2001). Paired Approach: A
    Closely Spaced Parallel Runway Approach Concept (Rep. No.
    MP-01W0000046). Virginia: The MITRE Corporation.

[^69]: Higgins, M. K. (1994). Evidence for Parallel Approach Blunders in
    the National Airspace System Incident Monitoring System (NAIMS).
    (Rep. No. MP-94W000076). Virginia: The MITRE Corporation.

[^70]: Monaco, Nadine. (2003, September). New Performance-based
    Navigation Standards Encourage Increased Flexibility and Safety in
    the Skies. Federal Aviation Administration. Retrieved June 2, 2004
    from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.mitre.org/news/digest/aviation/09_03/a_nrp.html

[^71]: Mundra, Anand, D., Cooper, Wayne W., Levy, Benjamin S., Lunsford,
    Clark R., Smith, Arthur P., Tittsworth, Jeffrey A. and Lang, Steven.
    (2003, June 23-27). A Phased Approach to Increase Airport Capacity
    Through Safe Reduction of Existing Wake Turbulence Constraints. The
    MITRE Corporation. Retrieved June 2, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
    http://atm2003.eurocontrol.fr/slides/airport/6_85_Cooper.ppt

[^72]: Houck, Sharon; Barrows, Andrew; Parkinson, Bradford; Enge, Per;
    Powell, J. David. (1999). Flight Testing WAAS for Use in Closely
    Spaced Parallel Approaches. Department of Aeronautics and
    Astronautics, Stanford University, 1-12. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from
    the World Wide Web:
    http://waas.stanford.edu/\~wwu/papers/gps/PDF/sharonparallel.pdf

[^73]: Salvano, D. (2003, August 12). ADS-B within the Safe Flight 21
    Program. Federal Aviation Administration. Retrieved June 2, 2004
    from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.faa.gov/And/AND500/docmgr/docs/T0276.ppt

[^74]: No Author. (No Date Given). 2002 Aviation Capacity Enhancement
    Plan. Federal Aviation Administration. Retrieved June 2, 2004 from
    the World Wide Web: http://www.faa.gov/ats/asc/02ACE.html

[^75]: FAA (2001) Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2001

[^76]: Capacities for JAN were unavailable. Values from RDU were
    substituted based on similarities in the runway layouts and
    centerline separations.

[^77]: See for example, www.eurocontrol.fr/projects/sbas/
    Library/gwg7/GWG_7_WP05_GBAS-Datalink.pdf

[^78]: Emergency Disaster Management Inc. 25, March, 2001. "Runway
    overruns/sliding off"
    (http://www.emergency-management.net/runway_acc.htm)

[^79]: BBC New. 29, October, 2002. "Plane overruns airport taxiway".
    (<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2373727.stm>)

[^80]: Aviation Safety Network, Accident Description. 25-Jan-2002. ANC
    Incident Description for China Airlines Airbus A340.
    (<http://aviation-safety.net/database/2002/020125-0.htm>)

[^81]: AOPA Online. 3-Sept, 2002. "Runway Incursion Analysis, ORD,
    Boeing 737 (B737), Unknown Ground Vehicle"
    (http://www.aopa.org/asf/incursions.html)

[^82]: Number derived from the following FAA website
    (<http://www.api.faa.gov/strategic/docs/sup-sys-40-arpaccessgoal.html>).

[^83]: [FAA Navigation & Landing Transition Strategy
    Report](http://www1.faa.gov/asd/briefings/NavReport8-02.pdf)
    (http://www1.faa.gov/asd/briefings/NavReport8-02.pdf).

[^84]: 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.

[^85]: 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.

[^86]: Nordwall B D, U.S. Changing to One Type of Instrument Approach,
    Aviation Week and Space Technology, July 8th, 2002 pg 45-46.

[^87]: FAA. (2002). The National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center.
    (https://extranet.nasdac.faa.gov)

[^88]: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.

[^89]: NTSB accident briefs can be obtained at the NTSB's web site
    (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp).

[^90]: 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).

[^91]: FAA Flight Plan 2004-2008, p34;
    (http://www2.faa.gov/apo/strategicplan/FAA_Flight_Plan.pdf).

[^92]: ICASC -- Local Area Augmentation System,
    (http://avnwww.jccbi.gov/icasc/gnss_laas.html).

[^93]: 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/).

[^94]: AIN Online. (2002). Europeans Embrace MLS with a vengeance.
    (http://www.ainonline.com/issues/04_01/Apr_2001_europeanmlspg75.html).

[^95]: Estimated using FAA/APO FSDS (http://www.apo.data.faa.gov).

[^96]: FAA's Office of Environment and Energy Noise Division;
    (http://www.aee.faa.gov/noise/Aircraft_Noise.htm).

[^97]: 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>).

[^98]: 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.

[^99]: Chicago Department of Aviation. (1996). ORD Noise Mitigation
    Program. (http://www.flychicago.com/cnrc/cnrc.shtm).

[^100]: Boeing Airport Noise Regulations; DEN;
    (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/denver.html).

[^101]: Boeing Airport Noise Regulations; BOS;
    (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/logan.html).

[^102]: U.S. GAO, Aviation and the Environment, FAA's Role in Major
    Noise Programs (http://www.transource.org/Shared_files/gaonoise.pdf)

[^103]: 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)

[^104]: 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)

[^105]: 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)

[^106]: 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)

[^107]: 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)

[^108]: 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)

[^109]: Airport Report Express, Apr 29, 1998: Illinois Airports Receive
    AIP Grants
    (http://www.airportnet.org/depts/publications/express/1998HTM/4-29-98.htm)

[^110]: Airport Report Express, Apr 29, 1998: Illinois Airports Receive
    AIP Grants
    (http://www.airportnet.org/depts/publications/express/1998HTM/4-29-98.htm)

[^111]: 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)

[^112]: Denver Must Pay County Four Million for Airport Noise
    (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/oct-30.html)

[^113]: Florida Landowners Must Prove Decreased Property Value in
    Airport Noise Suit (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/apr-3.html)

[^114]: Lawyers Hired to Fight Noise at Newark International Airport
    (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/mar-20a.html)

[^115]: Court Lets City Go to Trial on Noise Impact Issue
    (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/feb-24.html)

[^116]: Memphis Airport Authority Votes to Settle Class-Action Noise
    Lawsuit (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/june27.html)

[^117]: Minnesota City Sues Airport Commission Over Shifting Jet Noise
    to Their Community

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

[^118]: More Schools to Be Insulated As a Result of Lawsuit over
    Aircraft Noise in Chicago
    (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/nov-6.html)

[^119]: School to Sue for Soundproofing from Airport Noise
    (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/dec-10.html)

[^120]: Connecticut Residents Threaten to Sue State If Airport Noise
    Isn\'t Reduced (http://www.netvista.net/\~hpb/news/oct-2.html)

[^121]: Boeing Airport Noise Regulations;
    (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/usa_list.html)

[^122]: 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).

[^123]: 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).

[^124]: MassPort, Logan Airport. (2004.) Airport Programs,
    Environmental.
    (http://www.massport.com/logan/airpo_noise_gloss.html).

[^125]: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport. Community
    and Environment.
    (http://www.cvgairport.com/airport/enviro/noise.shtml).

[^126]: Satellite Navigation Product Teams. Airport Benefit: Noise
    Abatement Areas/Environmentally-Sensitive Areas.
    (http://gps.faa.gov/Programs/waas/airports-text.htm).

[^127]: 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).

[^128]: 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/).

[^129]: EAA News. (2004). ADIZ added for New York city area; other
    airspace restrictions announced include theme parks.
    (http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/030318_adiz.html).

[^130]: EAA News. (2004). ADIZ added for New York city area; other
    airspace restrictions announced include theme parks.
    (http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/030318_adiz.html).

[^131]: AOPA. (2004). Presidential movement TFRs.
    (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html#4/7295).

[^132]: 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).

[^133]: 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).

[^134]: 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).

[^135]: AivNav. (http://www.airnav.com)

[^136]: 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.

[^137]: 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).

[^138]: Satellite Operational Implementation Team. (2002, August 5).
    LAAS Concept of Operations; "Each LAAS ground facility has a very
    high frequency data broadcast (VDB) coverage volume that extends
    from surface line of sight to 10,000ft above ground level (AGL) at a
    radial distance out to 23 nm from the VDB antenna site."

[^139]: National Flight Data Center, FAA ATA-110;
    http://www.faa.gov/ats/ata/ata100/110/index.html

[^140]: See Appendix I, assumptions 3 and 4.

[^141]: GRA Incorporated Aviation Specialist Group Inc., and Database
    Products. (2004, May 28). Economic Values for FAA Investment and
    Regulatory Decisions, A Guide. Final Report prepared for FAA Office
    of Aviation Policy and Plans. Retrieved May 28, 2004 from the World
    Wide Web: http://apo.faa.gov/arcc/Research.htm.

[^142]: Treatment of Values of Passenger Time in Economic Analysis, U.S.
    Department of Transportation, FAA-APO-03-1, March 2003. Retrieved
    May 28, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
    http://apo.faa.gov/arcc/Research.htm.

[^143]: GRA Incorporated Aviation Specialist Group Inc., and Database
    Products. (2004, May 28). Economic Values for FAA Investment and
    Regulatory Decisions, A Guide. Final Report prepared for FAA Office
    of Aviation Policy and Plans. Retrieved May 28, 2004 from the World
    Wide Web: http://apo.faa.gov/arcc/Research.htm.

[^144]: DOT TranStats ASQP Glossary: "Arrival delay equals the
    difference of the actual arrival time minus the scheduled arrival
    time. A flight is considered on-time when it arrives less than 15
    minutes after its published arrival time."
    http://transtats.bts.gov/Glossary.asp?index=A

[^145]: See for example: Press, Flannery, Teukolsky, Vetterling,
    Numerical Recipes, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986; or,
    <http://www.ualberta.ca/~cdeutsch/images/Lec04-MonteCarlo.pdf>.; or,
    Rubinstein, Simulation and the Monte Carlo Method, Wiley
    Interscience, 1981.

[^146]: With replacement, the sampling may result in random numbers
    being selected more than once within the same trial. In other words,
    randomly selecting a particular quarter hour to add a flight to does
    not eliminate that quarter hour from being selected again. Thus,
    more than one flight may be added to any one quarter hour interval.
    See, for example:
    http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2002/0402/dept/d045802.htm.

[^147]: NCDC data provided by ASD-400.

[^148]: Visual weather is considered when visibility is equal or above
    3miles and ceiling is equal or above 1000ft. Visibility and/or
    ceilings below these limits are considered IMC conditions.

[^149]: ASD-400: Airport Survey and Future Capacity files

[^150]: FAA Office of System Capacity:
    http://www.faa.gov/ats/asc/capacity.html

[^151]: See for example,
    http://www.landrum-brown.com/MasterPlans/PVD/facility-req-chapter3/images/exh%20III-1-9.pdf

[^152]: A minimum runway length requirement of 4,200 feet, based on the
    minimum length required for a precision approach runway, is also
    included.

[^153]: D10: McDonellDouglas DC-10; B757: Boeing 757; B737: Boeing 737;
    M80: McDonellDouglas MD80; CRJ: Canadair Regional Jet; BE1:
    Beechcraft 1900; CNA: Cessna Light Aircraft; PAG: Piper Light
    Aircraft

[^154]: Exceptions to this are discussed in the Benefits for Closely
    Spaced Parallel Approaches section.

[^155]: FAA Aviation Policy, Planning and Environment; Establishment and
    Discontinuance Criteria for Precision Landing Systems:
    http://api.hq.faa.gov/precision%20landing%20systems/Precision%20Landing%20Systems.pdf

[^156]: FAA Aviation Policy and Plans; Airway Planning Standard Number
    One Terminal Air Navigation Facilities and Air Traffic Control
    Services: http://apo.faa.gov/7031/7031.pdf

[^157]: FAA Office of System Capacity:
    http://www.faa.gov/ats/asc/publications/CAPACITY/CMH.pdf

[^158]: Beatty, R., Hsu, R., Berry, L, and Rome, J. (Dec. 1998)
    Preliminary Evaluation of Flight Delay Propagation Through an
    Airline Schedule; 2nd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar.

[^159]: Welch, Andrews and Robinson, Aug 2001, Assessing Delay Benefits
    of the Final Approach Spacing Tool, MIT Lincoln Labs, and NASA Ames
    Research Center, presented at the AAIA Guidance, Navigation and
    Control Conference, Aug 2001.

[^160]: No Author, Nov 2003, Investment Analysis Benefit Guidelines:
    Quantifying Benefits from Projected Reductions in National Airspace
    System Equipment Outages; FAA ASD-430; Appendix A, p. A-3.

[^161]: Rome, J, Rose, S, Lee, R, Cistone, J, Bell, G., Leber, W.
    (undated) Ripple Delay and Its Mitigation.

[^162]: See for example, <http://www.faa.gov/asd/ia-or/NASPAC.htm>, and
    <http://www.tc.faa.gov/acb300/330_naspac.asp>

[^163]: http://www.apo.data.faa.gov

[^164]: This restriction to delays greater than 15 minutes follows the
    FAA's definition of delay. For example, from
    [http://www.apo.data.faa.gov](http://www.apo.data.faa.gov/), "ASQP
    Delayed Flight" is defined as "ASQP reported flight that arrive 15
    minutes or more after the OAG schedule arrival time." and "Delayed
    Gate Arrival" is defined as "Delayed gate arrivals are arriving
    flights delayed 15 minutes or more when compared to scheduled or
    flight plan."

[^165]: See particularly; Beatty, R., Hsu, R., Berry, L, and Rome, J.
    (Dec. 1998) Preliminary Evaluation of Flight Delay Propagation
    Through an Airline Schedule; 2nd USA/Europe Air Traffic Management
    R&D Seminar.

[^166]: No Author, Nov 2003, Investment Analysis Benefit Guidelines:
    Quantifying Benefits from Projected Reductions in National Airspace
    System Equipment Outages; FAA ASD-430; Appendix A, p. A-3.