# Presentation: 379413

## Anchorage Terminal Area Airspace Revision Project

**Anchorage Terminal Radar **
**Approach Control**
**Bill Chord**
**Air Traffic Manager**

**Anchorage Air Route **
**Traffic Control Center**
**Steve Creamer**
**Air Traffic Manager**

## Introductions

- Federal Aviation Administration
- Alaskan Region Air Traffic Division
- Anchorage TRACON (A11)
- Anchorage Tower (ANC)
- Anchorage Center (ZAN)
- Flight Standards (FSDO)
- National Air Traffic Controller’s Association
- ZAN/A11/ANC
- Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (AIA)
- Users and interested persons present

## Project Goals

- Increase safety
- Maximize efficiency
- Include user input in final product
- Minimize environmental impacts

## Description

- Begin a process for changes to Anchorage area airspace and procedures to safely and effectively manage air traffic growth during this decade
- Three to Five year project term

**Project Lead:**

- Curt Faulk, Plans and Procedures Specialist, Anchorage Approach Control
- (907) 271-2710 phone (907) 271-2960 FAX curt.faulk@faa.gov

## Project Process	

- Identify current problems from aspect of all users and airspace managers
- Begin public participation early in process (Jan 2001)
- Establish workgroup participants and schedule first workgroup meeting
- e-mail or fax participant names & contact info to Curt Faulk
- Draft procedures to implement by spring 2002

## Current State

- Airspace and Procedures revision implemented on May 8, 2000
- Purpose and Need
- Sector saturation problems (led to frequent airborne holding)
- Controller intervention to ensure initial separation
- Large number of inherent traffic conflicts in airspace design
- Change needed prior to Summer 2000
- Airspace and Procedures work by end Feb 2000
- (controller training, video maps, etc.)
- User-generated changes were implemented 10/05/00

## Anchorage Approach Control Operations Statistics

| Calendar Year | Total Operations | Increase Value |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1996 | 297,341 | N/A |
| 1997 | 324,321 | 9.0% |
| 1998 | 325,556 | <1% |
| 1999 | 326,197 | <1% |
| 2000* | 238,234* | 6.8%* |

*** Includes operations through Sep 2000.****  **
**Total Increase for period:  16.4%**

## Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Statistics

| Fiscal Year | Total Landings | Increase Value | (Jets) | Increase Value |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1996 | 82,096 | N/A | 47,374 | N/A |
| 1997 | 90,119 | 9.8% | 51,871 | 9.5% |
| 1998 | 94,524 | 4.9% | 58,677 | 13.1 |
| 1999 | 87,686 | (7.2%) | 58,252 | (<1%) |
| 2000 | 93,541 | 6.7% | 61,395 | 5.4%* |

**Total landings increase for period: 14%  Jet aircraft increase:  30%**
**Cargo Landings increased 10.4% Aug 1999 to Aug 2000**
**AIA Marketing personnel forecast minimum 5% annual operations growth**

## Ratio of Heavy and B-757 aircraft in traffic mix

- 62% of air carrier operations in the Anchorage Terminal Area are heavy or B-757 aircraft

## Anchorage Area Airspace Study

- A baseline study (1997 data) of traffic density in the Anchorage Terminal Area
- Delay analysis factoring future demand levels (25% and 50% increase in aircraft operations)
**Conclusion: a****s air traffic activity increases in the Anchorage Area, **_**delays will increase dramatically**_**, especially beyond the 25% activity level**
**As of November 2000, we have already seen an air traffic activity increase of 10% from the baseline study**

## Overview of Spring 2000 Changes

- Identified problems requiring attention
- Minimal use of procedural separation
- Non-specific Standard Operating Procedures
- “Brain Bytes” or “BBs”
- Runway Configuration problems
- ANC Runway 14 and EDF Runway 5 interaction
- Gate Swapping
- Lack of  Traffic Management initiatives
- Unplanned airborne holding occurred several times each week during summer 1999 and was caused by approach control sector saturation
- Unplanned Route Changes
- Extensive “Static” restrictions

## Overview of Spring 2000 Changes

- Solutions
- Configure arrival/departure gates for maximum operational efficiency, flexibility and safety
- Increase use of procedural separation
- Create more specific Standard Operating Procedures
- Mandate use of prescribed routes and procedures
- Reduce BBs

## Overview of Spring 2000 Changes

- Specifics (overhead presentation)

## Future Concepts

- Anchorage “four-post” gate airspace configuration
- Creates more flexibility for departure routings
- Allows for fix-balancing traffic flow
- Creates one airspace structure that is runway configuration independent
- Design effective SIDs (DPs) and STARs
- Ground-based navaid procedures
- RNAV procedures
- More effectively manage enroute to terminal transition for props and jets  (TMU)

## USAF Presentation

**Lt Col Mike Loughlin**
**“****Dexter”**
**Chief**
**3rd Wing Standards and Evaluation Division**

## Overview

- Introduction
- Elmendorf Specific Problems
- Collision Potential
- Wake Turbulence
- Intermediate Step-down fix
- Training Issues
- Terminal Procedures (TERPS)
- Traffic Increases
- Possible Solutions
- Path to Success

## Elmendorf Specific Problems

- Safety and Deconfliction with civil VFR traffic
- Collision potential
- Wake turbulence issues
- Intermediate step-down fixes for instrument procedures
- Training Issues
- Training = $$$ for us, that is our mission
- Harder to get instrument approaches
- Current IFR procedures don’t meet TERPS
- Traffic is increasing, patching current system will not solve our problems

## Collision Potential

- Inadequate separation in FAR 93
- 300 feet built in separation
- Altimeters +/- 75 feet = 150 feet
- Fighter 1 degree off is +/- 150 feet in 1.5 seconds
- Boundaries defined by “that looks about right”
- Mid-channel point
- There is no margin built in for pilot error which does and will happen

## Wake Turbulence

- Facts
- Greatest strength heavy-clean-slow
- Sinks 400-500 feet per minute
- Levels off 800-900 below flight path
- Avoidance
- Fly at or above large aircraft flight path
- FAR 93 puts civil aviation in heart of envelope
- We are lucky nothing has happened

## Intermediate Step-Down Fix

- 900 feet restriction at 4.2 DME for FAR 93
- Makes non-precision a precision approach
- Forces pilot to dive to make VDP for final
- Sets IFR pilot up for failure in bad weather
- Set up for VFR convenience vice safety or obstacle clearance

## Training Issues

- Military has been denied instrument approaches
- Local approaches keep our crews Mission Ready for combat
- No approach = wasted sortie and $$$
- Roughly $7000 per fighter and $15,000 per heavy
- Means mission must be completed again
- We spend $$$ like civilian carriers, different mission
- The problem will only get worse in the future

## TERPS Issues

- Current IFR recovery and approach procedures built around 20 year structure
- DESKA recovery doesn’t meet TERPS
- HI ILS TACAN 05 double dead reckoning
- Elimination of dead reckoning preferred
- Conflicts inside Elmendorf 20NM final with Anchorage need to be worked

## Traffic Increases

- Civil and General Aviation traffic increasing
- Since 1980 Elmendorf traffic up 100%
- 1 1⁄2 fighter squadrons to 3
- Small C-130 squadron to E-3 and large C-130 squadron
- Become a major military airlift hub
- IFR traffic conflicts, delays, and vectors are becoming common place
- We are still working in the same airspace structure from 20 years ago

## Possible Solutions

- Change guidance in FAR 93 to meet safety and traffic concerns
- Ensure proper altitude separation
- Don’t work IFR procedure around VFR convenience
- Relook all arrivals and departures to simplify and deconflict
- Decrease probability of pilot error
- Decrease amount of active ATC control required
- Reduce built in conflicts at choke points
- Commercial, general, and military aviation work directly with ATC to built a structure for growth

## Path to Success

- Start with a clean slate in constructing an Anchorage Bowl airspace structure for civil, commercial, and military aviation
- Structure we have now is not the solution
- Build backwards from final approaches
- Emphasis on safety, separation, and simplicity
- Departures worked around arrivals
- Routing and altitudes to simplify arrivals
- Balance the needs of all aviators

## VFR Aircraft Operations

- Segregation of IFR/VFR traffic
- Develop new VFR arrival/departure/overflight routes and chart VFR practice areas
- 14 CFR Part 71 (aka FAR 93)
- Is there a need for FAR 93 in the ANC and LHD segment?
- North shoreline of Knik Arm traffic vs. Runway 32 departures/Runway 14 arrivals
- EDF Runway 23 departures vs. LHD/MRI arrivals/departures
- Campbell Airstrip and vicinity transiting VFR aircraft and ANC Runway 6 departures/Runway 24 arrivals
- Is there a need to reclassify airspace?

## VFR/IFR interaction

- Overhead presentation

## Open Forum

- Current (Summer 2000) configuration
- Future Concepts discussion

## Timelines

**First open workgroup meeting proposed date?**
**Open Public Meeting Jan 2001**
**Working concept draft to present to this group by mid-March 2001**
**Final draft of workgroup recommendations circulated by end June 2001**
**Environmental review and public comment period**
**Implement new procedures before spring 2002**
**FAA/User workgroup meet end of summer 2002 to review and evaluate procedure effectiveness**

## Wrap-up

- Forward your representatives contact information to Curt Faulk by November 20, 2000 if possible
- First workgroup meeting date?
- Public Meeting sometime in January 2001 (date TBA)
- Other Comments

## 		Bill Chord			         John Craft
Air Traffic Manager		Assistant Air Traffic Manager		

**Air Traffic Manager****	****	****Assistant Air Traffic Manager****	****	**
**	**
**	**

**Anchorage Terminal Radar Approach Control**
**(907) 271-2700****	****	****(907) 271-2960 FAX**

## Project Lead

**FOR MORE INFO...**

**Project Web Site:**
**www.alaska.faa.gov/ame**

**Curt Faulk**
**Plans and Procedures Specialist**
**Anchorage Terminal Radar Approach Control**
**(907) 271-2700****	**** (503) 214-8038 FAX**
**curt.faulk@faa.gov**