Report No. FAA-RD-75-66

VALIDATION OF MAXIMUM AIRPORT THROUGHPUT LEVELS

ESTIMATED BY THE DELCAP SIMULATION MODEL

Judith F. Gilsinn

JANUARY 1975

Documenf is available fo the public through the

National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, Virginia 22151

Prepared for

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Systems Research & Development Service

Washington, D.C. 20590
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of

the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.
NBS-114A (REV. 7-73)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. ]. PUBLIC ATION OR KKPORT NO.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET FAA-RD-75-66

2. Gov't Accession

No.

3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLF. AND SUBTITLE

Validation Of Maximum Airport Throughput Levels Estimated

By the DELCAP Simulation Model

5. Publication Date January 1975

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

Judith F. Gilsinn

8. PerformitiB O/Ban. Report No. NBS-IR 75-638

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C: 20234

10. Pro)ect/Task/work Unit No. ?050490

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and f.omplete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Systems Research and Development Service

Federal Aviation Administration

Washington, D.C. 20590

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

1 J C "A /"J 14. sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or lesa factual summary of moat aigfxHicant information. If document includes a significant

bibUo6faphy or literature survey, mention it here.)

This report documents exercises of the DELCAP airport terminal area

simulation model performed to validate the maximum throughput calculations

of that model. DELCAP was run for five different runway configurations,

with three or four appropriate operating policies chosen for each, and

for three different mixes of aircraft types. Throughput estimates from

DELCAP are found to be in general agreement with current values provided

by the FAA. One specific Instance of greater discrepancy is Identified,

and a remedy for it is proposed. Changes made in DELCAP since its

original documentation in 1971 are described in an appendix.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of tfie first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons)

Airport; airport capacity; airport simulation; models; model validation;

runway capacity; simulation.

18. AVAILABILITY SL] Unlimited

1 ! For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

[2] Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington. D.C. 20402. SD Cat. No. CI 3 Ofder From National Technical information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22\'>\

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

72

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

22. Price

$4.25

USCOMM-DC 29042-P74

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Description of DELCAP 2 1.2 Validating DELCAP 6

2. VALIDATION RUNS 7 2.1 General Description 7 2.2 Validation Output 7 2.2.1 Single Runway 7 2.2.2 Intersecting Runways 13

2.2.3 Close Parallels 20

1.1. h Close Parallels With an Intersecting Runway 21

2 . 3 Summary 26

3. COMPARISONS OF MODEL OUTPUT WITH AVAILABLE DATA 28

3.1 Summary 32

APPENDIX A: CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO DELCAP 34

A.l Description of Modifications 34

A. 2 Programming Details of the Modifications 38

APPENDIX B:NEW DELCAP PROGRAM LISTING 45

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Aircraft Characteristics for Validation Runs 8

2.2 Three Aircraft-Type Mixes Used 8

2.3 Configurations and Operating Policies for Validation Runs....

9

2.4 Single Runway Throughput (per Hour) 14

2.5 Hourly Throughput for Near Intersection (V) With

Interference 16

2.6 Hourly Throughput for Near Intersection (V) Without

Interference 17

2.7 Hourly Throughput for Far Intersection (X) With

Interference .18

2.8 Hourly Throughput for Far Intersection (X) Without

Interference 19

2.9 Hourly Throughput for Close Parallels 22

2.10 Hourly Throughput for Close Parallels Plus an Intersecting

Runway Without Interference 24

2.11 Hourly Throughput for Close Parallels Plus an Intersecting

Runway With Interference 25

3.1 Throughput for Several Configurations at Selected Airports.. 28

3.2 Sustainable Throughput Estimated by DELCAP 30

A.l Preprocessor Input Formats 39

A. 2 New and Changed Arrays in DELCAP 44
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 The Terminal Area as Seen by DELCAP 3

1.2 Flowchart of the DELCAP Simulation 5

2.1 Hourly Throughput for a Single Runway Handling Only

Takeoff s or Only Landings 12

2.2 Close Parallels with andlntersecting Runway 23

2.3 O'Hare Four-Runway Configuration 26

A.l Throughput Output for One Hour at ORD 35

A. 2 Hourly Throughput and Delay for a Single Runway for 20 Hours. 36
1. INTRODUCTION

Once a mathematical model has reached operational status,

there is a natural temptation to put It directly to practical use,

skipping over any substantial effort to verify that the model

does in fact do what it was designed to do. Such an omission,

however, courts disaster, since a model which has not been ex- ercised on a variety of data (and had its outputs compared with

what is actually observed in the situation being modeled) may

contain unsuspected anomalies likely to exhibit themselves at

embarassing moments or (even worse) to remain undetected. To

guard responsibly against this, it is necessary to subject the

model to a pre-use validation and preliminary sensitivity analysis.

Validation involves two types of analysis. The first is an independent examination of the design and construction of the model

to detect weaknesses, to anticipate problem areas, and to insure

an independent assessment of the appropriateness of the structure

and methods used. A second element of validity checking is the

comparison of model outputs with those actually observed in specific instances of the type of situation being modeled. Comparison

of model performance with that of other models which are wellbased and accepted, for cases to which both apply, could also be

part of this type of analysis. Absolute assurance of validity

for all possible future uses is, of course, impossible. Replication of reality for a few test cases can only insure that in these

particular examples, the model performs as it should, but if the

test cases were chosen carefully to be representative of the

spectrum of situations to which the model is expected to be applied, then increased confidence in model validity can be obtained.

Beyond the basic validity testing described above, some preliminary sensitivity analyses should be conducted—to identify

those parameters having most critical (most sensitive) effect on model outputs, and to ascertain the degree to which model outputs

can be expected to vary with input variations. Such sensitivity

analyses should also help to determine the limits beyond which application of the model is inappropriate.

The present report describes validation exercises and preliminary sensitivity analyses of the DELCAP airport simulation

model, documented in FAA Report Number FAA-RD 71-9.* Modifications to the DELCAP model have been made subsequent to the publication of that document in order to accommodate separation re- quirements for heavy aircraft not in effect when DELCAP was designed, to provide additional outputs requested by FAA's Air

*Judith Gilsinn, E. H. Short, W. A. Steele and D. Klavan, A Simulation Model for Estimating Airport Terminal Area Throughputs and

Delays , NBS Report 10592, May 1971.
Traffic Service for the current study, and to allow more flexible

sequencing of operations on runways handling both landings and takeoffs. These modifications are detailed in an Appendix to this report.

1.1 Description of DELCAP

DELCAP is a simulation model, written in the SIMSCRIPT com- puter language, of the airport terminal area including terminal airside operations and those ground operations occurring on the runway

surface. Its output consists of throughput and delay figures. Input includes traffic levels (or the explicit schedules of traffic,

or both), the mix and characteristics of aircraft types, the separation rules which apply, the airport runway configuration and runway

operating policies.

Figure 1.1 displays the terminal area as seen by the DELCAP

model. The aircraft denoted by capital letters are landings; those

designated by lower case letters are takeoff s. The landing and takeoff streams are lettered in the order of their entrance to the model.

(The particular configuration and operating policy shown—a pair of

intersecting runways, one handling only takeoff s, the other only

landings—is illustrative and should not be taken as a model restriction. Runway configuration is a model input ; as will be shown by

the exercises reported in Chapter 2 a wide variety of such con- figurations can be handled by DELCAP.)

It is convenient to describe DELCAP 's treatment of landing and

takeoff streams separately, since DELCAP is an event-oriented model

(time is incremented to the next "critical event," rather than stepped along at preset Intervals) and each critical event in an aircraft's path anticipates the next one along that path. Landings

enter the simulation at handoff to tower approach control (g in Figure

1.1). The next critical point along a landing path is the outer

marker. DELCAP requires that at least a preset mintiwm tlAe interval ensue between handoff and the landing's passage of the outer

marker. However, the presence of other aircraft in front of E in the

landing stream may necessitate that it be placed in a holding pattern

or that it fly a longer path to the outer marker, either of which would

require extra time. DELCAP does not model the actual route flown by E,

but this extra time requirement is imposed by the modeling device of

"trying up" the outer marker, i.e., prohibiting E from passing it, until

all those in front have done so.

Once the aircraft in front of the current one (say D in the figure)

has passed the outer marker. Its final approach can be scheduled.

2
FIGURE 1.1

The Terminal Area as Seen by DELGA.P
D must remain separated from C by the required amount (presently

3 miles if C is not a heavy aircraft, 4 miles if both C and D are heavies and 5 miles if C is a heavy but D is not) along the whole

final approach path. DELCAP employs the idealization of constant

final approach speeds (dependent on aircraft type), and so the

actual separation required between C and D when D crosses the outer

marker is either (if C is faster) the minimum required spacing

between these aircraft, or (if D is faster) a spacing such that

when C touches down D will be at the required minimum separation

distance from the end of the runway. A landing leaves the simulation when it turns off the runway.

Takeoffs enter the simulation about 15 minutes before scheduled

departure time. A minimum taxi time between gate and runway is

specified. Since in Figure 1.1, landing A has passed the runway

intersection, takeoff b can be cleared to start its roll, if takeoff a has sufficient separation from takeoff b^; this presently

is 2 minutes after a lifts off if a is a heavy and b is not, and

is a shorter, constant time interval—approximated as 30 seconds

after liftoff —for all other aircraft-type combinations.

Figure 1.2 is a flowchart of the simulation. The bottom box,

"choose next operation," represents the implementation of the run- way operating policy which determines the sequence of landings and

takeoffs on each runway. The two boxes referring to "maintain separation" are implemented in the model by "tying up" critical points

in the landing and takeoff paths: the point at which a takeoff starts

its roll, the outer marker, and the point at which a landing touches

down. A landing or takeoff can be scheduled to take place only at a time such that any tieup affecting its progress will no longer be in

force when it reaches the affected critical point.

The DELCAP model has been designed to provide output of two quantities,

namely, throughput (the number of operations handled by the facility

per time period) and delay . Application of DELCAP is envisaged under two

different sc-mrrios. The first is one in which a realistic demand

level is stipulated and DELCAP output yields resulting delays and

throughputs. In the second scenario, DELCAP is run with unrealistically high demand levels to estimate the airport's maximum throughput (capacity).

It is this second scenario under which the validity of DELCAP

is investigated here. Testing has been limited to this case because

Of course B cannot land as long as A is on the runway surface.

That is, in addition to the airborne separation requirements, run- way occupancy time also can affect the actual separation between B

and A. DELCAP includes the "tying up" effects of runway occupancy,

though in practice, it is usually the airborne separation which is

critical.

4
FIGURE 1.2

Flowchart of the DELGAP Simulation

HArroOFF

TO

TOWER

GALL IN ABOUT

15 MIN. BEFORE

DEPARTURE

FLY TO

OUTER

MARKER

SCHEDULE

THIS AIRCRAFT'S

FINAL APPROACH

IvlAINTAIN

SEPARATION OF

LATER LANDINGS

AND TAKEOFFS

LAND

(TURN OFF

RUNWAY)

TAXI FROM

GATE

SCHEDULE

THIS AIRCRAFT'S

DEPARTURE

MAINTAIN

SEPARATION OF

LATER LANDINGS

AND TAKEOFFS

TAKE OFF

(CLEAR TERMINAL

AREA)

^

IF LANDING

CHOOSE

NEXT

OPERATION

IF TAKEOFF ^

5
the main application which this validation effort supports operates in

the second scenario. That application is the computation of performance

standards , throughputs which are achievable under heavy traffic conditions,

for several of the nation's busiest airports operating under a variety

of possible configurations and operating policies. A second reason for

validating DELCAP only in its "capacity" mode is that the concept of

"delay" is somewhat vague and as a result delay figures are calculated

differently (even within the FAA) by different people in different

places. The definition used by DELCAP is the difference between (1)

thfe actual time between an aircraft's entrance into DELCAP and its

landing or takeoff, and (2) the minimum time needed to execute that

procedure were there no other aircraft in the system. This definition,

while both intuitively reasonable and clear, does not agree with many FAA

definitions of delay, since for instance an aircraft's flying a stretchedout path from the feeder fix to the outer marker would not contribute

to FAA-computed delay but would be considered delay by DELCAP. Lacking

comparable figures on observed delays, the main procedure for checking

DELCAP ' s delay outputs will have to be an independent detailed check

of model logic and delay computations. Such an effort is in progress;

meanwhile, we look forward to collection of delay data which are comparable.

- — - :^ 12, Validating DELCAP

The validation exercises employed to test DELCAP under the

second scenario above are described in detail in Chapter 2, and

their results are compared with values obtained from FAA's Air

Traffic Service in Chapter 3. These tests were designed in con- sultation with R. Scott of FAA's System Research and Development

Service and R. Woods and R. Tobiason of the Air Traffic Service,

to cover that set of configurations most representative of those

encountered at major U.S. terminals, including a single runway,

two intersecting runway configurations (differing in the placement of the intersection), a pair of close parallel runways, and

a pair of close parallels with a third runway crossing the pair.

Wide parallels were not included since they can be modeled as

two separate single runways. A variety of operating policies

were chosen to approximate those used under different traffic

situations: when landings balance takeoffs, when landings predominate, and when takeoffs predominate. This diversity also

allows comparison of results to evaluate the sensitivity of DELCAP

throughputs to operating policy. The exercises included different

mixes of aircraft types, focusing primarily on the fraction of

heavy aircraft in the mix since different, larger separations

are required behind heavies because of wake turbulence. Other

model inputs (such as aircraft characteristics or the length

of the final approach path) could also have been varied, but preHminary tests have led us to believe that the three factors men^loned~confIguration, operating policy, and aircraft-type mix—are

the ones most critically affecting differences in throughput at

major U.S. terminals.

6
2. VALIDATION RUNS

2 . 1 General Description

This chapter documents runs of the DELCAP model designed to

test the validity of its throughput calculations under a variety

of conditions. The characteristics attributed during these runs

to each of three aircraft types—heavy aircraft (over 300,000 lbs.

gross weight), small aircraft (most single- and two-engine craft),

and medium and larger craft (larger piston aircraft and most jets)

are described In Table 2.1. These values were obtained from data

collected by the Air Traffic Service at ORD.

Five different runway configurations, thought to be representative of those most often encountered and described in greater detail

below, were Investigated: a single runway, two runways Intersecting so as to form a V, two runways intersecting to form an X, a set

of close parallels (3000 to 4300 feet apart) , and a set of close

parallels with a crossing runway. As noted above, configurations

involving wide parallels are not included in this analysis since

the DELCAP model treats wide parallels as two completely separate

runways, and as a result, the maximum throughput of a pair of wide

parallels is just the sum of those available from them Independently.

For each configuration, operating policies (displayed in Table

2.3) were chosen as most reasonable for each of three arrival/departure

mixes: arrivals balancing departures, departures dominant, and ar- rivals dominant. Each configuration and operating policy was investigated for three aircraft-type mixes, identified by the percentage

of heavy aircraft in the mix and described more fully in Table 2.2.

For each configuration, operating policy and aircraft-type mix,

the model was run to simulate 20 hours of traffic. The average hourly throughputs (averaged over the sample of 20 hours) of landings, takeoffs and all operations were recorded for each runway and totaled for

all runways to permit comparisons among policies, type mixes and con- figurations .

2.2 Validation Output

2.2.1 SINGLE RUNWAY * The single runway case has been studied extensively, and admits

*See for example FAA Report RD-69-47, Analysis of a Capacity Concept

for Runway and Final-Approach Path Airspace , NBS Report 10111,

November 1969, and Continued Analysis of a Capacity Concept for Runway and Final-Approach Path Airspace , NBS Report 10589, April 1971.

Similar formulas to those appearing below appear in these publications, but are derived here again for completeness.

7
TABLE 2.1

Aircraft Characteristics for Validation Runs

Type Type Speeds (Knots) Runway Occupancy (Sec)

Number Description Landing Liftoff Landing Takeoff

1 Heavy A/C 124 120 55 33

2. Small A/C 119 90 40 27

3 Category Ill's ^ 120 120 50 32

(Larger A/C)

TABLE 2.2

Three Aircraft-Type Nixes Used

Mix I - 5% Heavies

Type % in Mix

2 17%

'

3 78% ',

Mix II - 15% Heavies

Type % in Mix

1 .15%

2 15%

3 70%

Mix III - 50% Heavies '

. Type % in Mix

1 50%

2 - 9%

3 41%

8
COCCo

•H

4J

CO T3

•HrH

CO >

i-i IO

CO(U •HO

•H•HO

a^c

•H

4-1 CO

iH

0)

w &o

T3c

CO

CO

4-1 COM3

bO •Ho

-p

•HEO

<uu

rH

•Hu<o

-pa

-Hd

-p

(U

-PU

0)

to H<

5^ •H

CJ

rH 4J

iv pa

<D <

irv H

LTV

ao

•H> o

•H

+5

o3

to

•H

6^aoo

ta

(U > 03 •p A a 0)

(Q (f-t H O

^1 > a

EH <D

0) ca

.Q ?^U

fa (A O

1^

U

qj -H

ft gj

<u ft > cJ EH <U

0) p

!H

(U •p

CO o

-p

•V o

0)oaoo

-p

;iH

-poH

;ho

•\ 0)

rj -p oao

+^

<u < o

(0

if •pa

CJoco

CO H

fH

•Po

a)O

CO

-poo

<u p

u

•Po

(L> OoopH

<1> O

<uOao

a> -pu

-Po

•pdo

(0

CD

+>aCU oao

10 rH

Jh

^1

•Po

>^Po

too

[3 -p

pooo

^1 ft-P O H

ft «3:

CJ oO

(U -p oopGo

CO H

U

•Hu

<u ^ G +> OGO

03 H

GO

CO

ft)

Jh

<u ft

-poGO

<u p

OJ

H

(DGOGO

(0 H

CU Xi+3O

<U -pGO

<y

CO

^1 < o

'A 3o

-p

H "

Pi

O

O +3 G GO

WG

•H

CO <D CO ^ OOGo

CO

cy (u

-P

G

fH ^1 ft-p

GO

CQ rH

•iH

^1 <: ft <:

G 9
analytical expressions for capacity. Two such expressions, one for

a runway handling takeoffs only and the other for the same runway

handling landings only, are derived below. As will be seen, DELCAP

outputs for these single-runway situations conform closely (as they

should) to these theoretical formulas.

To calculate the expected value of the maximum throughput for

a single runway handling takeoffs only, under the assumption of a continuous stream of departures In which heavy aircraft appear ran- domly and constitute a known fraction of all takeoffs, let

N = number of takeoffs per hour,

p = fraction of takeoffs which are heavies,

r * runway occupancy time (hrs.) for heavies,

A " average time (hrs.) between takeoffs for non-heavies

<S = average time (hrs.) between takeoff of two heavies

(Note that separation rules require a non-heavy to

wait 2 minutes after a preceding heavy liftoff before

starting its roll.)

Then it follows that:

1' The time between takeoff of a heavy and that of a following non-heavy

Is r' = r + 2/60, the time between takeoffs of heavies is 6,

^nd the time between takeoff of non-heavies is A.

2. A fraction p of aircraft following a heavy are heavies;

(1 - p) are non-heavies.

3. The expected number of hourly takeoffs by heavies is pN;

for non-heavies it is (l-p)N.

Thus the following equation (between numbers of hours) holds:

PN[p6 + (l-p)(r')] + (l-p)NA=l

or

N = l/[p^6H-p(l-p)r' + (l-p)A]

For r = 33 seconds, A = 54 seconds, and 6 = 90 seconds for example,

the values in Table 2.1 yield .

N = 3600/[-64p^+99p-»-5A].

This is plotted as the upper curve in Figure 2.1. The two circled

points, at 20 and 30 percent heavies, give the results of actual

DELCAP runs and agree well with the corresponding values from the

preceding formula.

- 10 -

Similarly, to calculate the expected throughput for a single

runway handling landings only, under the further assumption that

landing speeds for all aircraft types are equal, let

N = number of landings per hour,

p = fraction of landings which are heavies,

s = the landing speed (in knots) for all aircraft types.

(Although landing speed does vary among aircraft

types, the figures in Table 2.1 indicate that using one value is not a great deviation from reality. More com- plicated formulas can be derived for the case in which

speed depends on aircraft type.)

Then it follows (cf. the separation criteria given on page 4) that:

1. Tlie time between the landings of two heavies is 4/s,

between a heavy and a following non-heavy is S/s, and

between a non-heavy and a following aircraft is 3/s.

2. A fraction p of the aircraft following a heavy are heavies,

a fraction (1 - p) are non-heavies.

3. The expected number of hourly landings by heavies is pN;

for non-heavies it is (1 - p)N.

Thus the following equation holds:

pN [ p(4/s) + (1 -p ) (5/s)] + (1 -p ) N (3/s) = 1 or N = s/(3 + 2p-p^).

For s = 125 knots, for example,

N = 125/(3 + 2p-p^),

which is plotted on the lower curve in Figure 2.1. The four

circled points, output from the DELCAP simulation, agree very well

with the expected throughputs.

Analytical expressions can be and have been derived for more

complicated operating policies involving dual operations (both

landings and takeoff s), but are much more complex since for some landing aircraft the minimum allowable spacing can be determined

*See for example, W. A. Horn, Extension of a Capacity Concept to

Dual-Use Runways and Multi-Runway Configurations , NBS Report 10593,

April 1971.

12
by the separation from a preceding landing, rather than the separation from a takeoff occuring between the two landings. In this case,

the takeoff is in some sense a "free" contribution to throughput

since it does not require an extra interruption In the flow.

As part of our validation analysis, three operating

policies for a dual use single runway were run using DELCAP. The

output from these runs is displayed in Table 2.4. For time periods

in which the numbers of arrivals and departures are approximately

equal, the operating policy chosen for the single runway seeks to

alternate landings and takeoffs. During departure-dominant periods,

landings are spaced far enough apart to allow two takeoffs between

each pair of landings. For arrlval-donlnant periods, takeoffs

are permitted only between every other palt «f l«iuiin|t8.

As can be seen by comparing Table 2.4 with Figure 2.1, dual

usage of the single runway decreases the takeoff throughput greatly

(by about a factor of two). The reason is that landings require more

time between operations and dual usage forces some takeoffs to wait

for landings. On the other hand, landing throughput is not as greatly

degraded by interspersing takeoffs among the landings. Alternation of

landings and takeoffs decreased landing throughput by at most 30% from

the pure landing operation, and increased total throughput by 40 - 60%.

This agrees well with operating experience: in the absence of stringent

takeof f-airspace restrictions, takeoffs are rarely the limiting

throughput factor. On the other hand, spacing between landings

is critical, and directions such as "maintain speed" sometimes have

to be given by controllers to arriving aircraft in order to ensure

that minimum spacing is attained.

Validation for the single-runway case was carried out because

it is often an important component of more complicated configurations. Wide parallels may be regarded as two single runways in

throughput calculations, for instance. Also, some airports may be

reduced to essentially the single-runway configuration during IFR

weather or outages. Still, the primary advantage of DELCAP lies

in its applicability to more complex runway situations for which,

analytic expressions are much morp difficult to obtain.

2.2.2 INTERSECTING RUNWAYS

Two different configurations consisting of a pair of intersecting runways were investigated: one with the intersection 2000 feet

from the ends of each of the runways (representing the near-intersection or "V" case) , the second with the intersection 4000 feet from

the ends of each runway (a configuration shaped like an "X").

13
<:HOH

\0

in in CO

WM>o ow

CM " in

<: CM < • HO in

CO

1—1 >< O rn w • <

J<

H

O in u

O CO

hJ CM

ud -J <r

x: <:

atH

dO in o H u

w X. C/l t-I H W

PQ

M

<: > H < O & w w oo C CN 3 H

in

(U

C^J

C

•H <: oo m CN

CO

CN

inm

CO

00

in

CN

in

CMas

CM

00

in

>3-

00

(NCO <Uno

IIH o w W w <

CO UR

H Pi Z < ID h-1 H H

ER.N

H

RA 1—1 ^ ^

DO

w D-i

Hu

Pm

W -J

W Pi

O

Q < Q PL.

W Z Pti H W [j-, < W O z 5 w

»-<

H us

5:

W •<

O PQ

H

Qw tn [JL, oz

<:>

CEj

O

t-i Cd, I—I <

14
During periods in which arrivals and departures are roughly

balanced, two different operating policies were chosen as reasonable:

the first of them alternates landings and takeoff s on both runways,

while the second reserves one runway for landings only and the other

just for takeoffs. (The second policy can result in lower capacity,

but is easier for the controller and probably more representative

of actual practice.) For departure-dominant periods, one of the

runways handles takeoffs only, with landings and takeoffs alternated on the other. Similarly, for arrival-dominant periods, one run- way is set aside for landings only, while landings and takeoffs

alternate on the other.

Each intersecting-runway configuration was run both with and

without the requirement that operations on one runway be separated from

those on the other. In the less restrictive case, the only Interaction imposed was that a landing's touchdown or a takeoffs startof-roll on one runway could not occur in the period between a landing or start-of-roll of an aircraft on the other runway and the

time that aircraft passed the intersection. In the other case,

in addition to the preceding prohibition, landings on one runway

had to be separated by the required 3, A or 5 miles from landings

on the other, and also by 2 miles from preceding takeoffs on the

other. Two separate tables are given for each of the V and X Intersection cases (see Tables 2.5 - 2.8), one including the second separation requirement (described as "with interference") and one without .

The interference requirement drastically reduces throughput

(by 25 - 45%), with the lower reduction occurring when takeoffs

are allowed on only one runway (i.e., the middle two operating policies

in the Tables). It is probably very unusual for landings to be allowed

on both runways of an intersecting pair. In fact, the landings

on one, takeoffs on the other" policy is the one most often employed in practice for an intersecting pair, if the runways are of com- parable length. When one is longer than the other^then segregation

by aircraft type, rather than by operation, is often employed, and

something approaching the policy of alternating operations might be

achieved. In this case segregation by type (and thus by

landing speed) would tend to decrease actual interlandlng separation (by reducing gaps due to a slow plane following a faster one)

resulting in slightly higher throughputs than those given In Tables

2.5 - 2.8. The maximum number of landings (which occurs for the

policy allowing landings on both runways with takeoffs interspersed

on one), with interference, is actually about the same as the number

of landings on the landings-only runway alone (under the same policy)

when there is no interference.

15
(U . oc0U

OJ IW

<U

4-1 c

•H

:2

COw

I—I ><w

x;o

enW

HOHOWH

<:oOW

CM

in

0^

in

in

in

c^

CNI

00

ON

\0 oOoc oo

in

CMoo

00O

CNI o

00

00

COCO

rH

•<f CO

-H ON

rH rH

CM CS

>3-

CM

m

00

\0

CM00OO

CM00o

CMoo

CO

00

CMo

—ICO

COo

5-? in

m

CNw

PQ< Co

•H

4-1 Om

CD

0)u

CO zo <w

DC

<;HOHo m

CM

in

CM

CO

in oo in

CM

CMCO

in

Csl oo

enm

eg oo

-3-

CM

CN

<1-

cs

CN

Cn| CN

ON COON

00

00 oeg

CMod o

CJN CN

v3-

-4- COom 3awo

in

Q oo CO

egCO

Oo in

CN in

CM od CMCM

CM

CN CM CO

V4o

3S

;i3

HOH <HOH

HOH

CM

HOH

U

I—I oo

II COw

CO

H-1 ED < H > WQ

UJH< X Z H 2 O w oa H

,-4 Z < o

II 00w < H

OS pL,

CA) CO

Uh oz O 1-1 w p I I >< iH ^

eg ^ o o < <

OS

H<zoQ

Ph

w

COo H

<:H I >^ I rH J eg Z

?-| o < <

OS o;

wH<

c/2 Z > o M Q

OS

W 3 OS

16
UC

0)u

<vu

0)Do

CO

(UO

14-1 3&

XIM3OO

to

tu

(—1 >ow

I—( ><w

I—I ><u

<:HOO<HOHOwHOHO

m 1—) 00 r- CO

O CM 00

<t CN oo CM CTs rH CN CO

m in

O <f CO <r in CO

m 00

.-H

Csl rH •<r o r-- rH CJ^ o rH iH

CN

O vO >£) CM o v£)

CNI in <r -J o- Csl CN CM

CNI f—1

CO o 1—1

rH

O rH iH vO tH

CN o CN CN o v£l rH vO

CN CNm

m CO CN CM CO CN

m

m in CO CN I—1

<r CO

O CN Csl

<r 00 vOO <r a\

m o m in o m CO in in o CO in as

rH

Csl CN o CN rH 00 o rH rH • • • • • « • « • • • * o rH o

CN CN in in in in CN 00 CN Csl

rH r-\ o rH rH <y> rH rH

r-i CN <f o v£) o m CO o CO CO CN CN CO Csl \0

fN CN in

CN rH o 00 00O rH • • • • • • • • • • • • CN CO 00 rH CO m as 00

in in 1—1 vO CO

O VD in rH CO in as

rH rH iH

00 o 00 o o o

CvJ o • • • • • • CO 00 I—1 d 00 00

CO 00 o CO CM CN CN

CN CN

m \£> o o O CTs ON iH

O rH

-H

O CNO

CO oo o 00 00

00 00

O CO CO CM CN CO CN vO

CN CN in

rJ

r-H CN < CN < rH (N rH CM

(-1 < < O b H H H o O H H

u

l-H owo

II COw

CO PtJ

IX,

Ho

pq2OwH<WH

II COU

rJ 5 < H

CO CO O M H rJ I >- I >^ rH ^

CN ^ >H o O

<: <

OS

w

CO

H<z O

TER

wH

H < W < 1 >H 1 J <N

KH

H o < < Q

a.

U

u (Si Q

17
W

0)oM

0)c

•H

ISXOa

00OH

iH3O

wM><w

PC oin

COw

h-1 >

COw

^>5 in

CO CO \£> CM 00 00 00

CNl CN UO CO

O on CN w

GU

r—jCN CO

H

CO

00

CO f

) O rH rH

ro CO ^ o ro m w m C rH

rH CO

HM ro CO vO o O 1—1

rH CO

CnJ oo

rH CO

CO fO o 00 00 w

in •ri .—1

H

00 CO o

lO ,—1 Q

rH CO < fH CM rH

>—>

/-^

u

O

Mo

PL, ozMHwo

II COH >2 w

2:owH<H

II CO

UJ < H > ai,

PcJ (X,

pel

W

CO

CNco

CN

CNOo

CN

COo

COow

p I I r—( >-l CN >-l

>-l ^ >- ^ < o < o

-J00CO

CN

in

rH

(N

00

00

CN

,-1 <HOH

00Occcoo

CN

CNoo

CN

H<

COow<HI

00

CN

-3-

tH

CN

f-{ CN

in

rH

C~-J

OS 03

wH<

UJH

<;I CN

><<

t3

in

00m

00

i-sl 00

rH

CN

00

in

00b o

00o

CDO

00o

CNoooCN

CNrH

CNOd

CN

rHCNWH<

CO Z < X > o

tH

Q

QiW

COOz

00

in

CN

CN

CN

CM

00CN

Csl

•JCN

-J- H<I >-i CN Z >-i < o < I

00

CO

CNo

1^

ro

cn

CN

inHOH

18
<HOH

C/) w

(—1 (j-, < o w w X

<:H o

in

Q

(Uo

0)

.-J

l-l <HO c H 1—1

4-1

M 3o >< O

4-1

w

H <H

in

>< i-H co <; •H

4-) O

<u0)u <

00• 4-1

O c H

1—1

U4

-J

u

w

CO 1—1 < >< O o

<:H

in

a

Q

M3OM

jrH

>, iHU < 3O

OS

00O CN

(N CM iH 00

O 00 c O 1—<

I-H in in o <r m iH

d rH rH

1-1 1^

m C3^ ro

m 00

<f <r o o o in

O in in

lO in o vO <r >n

O c m

m

CM rsi in sj- CN rsi rsi

<T in On

O CN CN o vD 00

m ro

in in

O c r-\ iH • o inm o in

CN CNI in CO CO CN CNI ro CN

m

in oc <r in CN OO o ro rH

rsi CN in <r CX) ro

m

m CM

in in c in OO in in

O ro in 00

rH iH

CNJ <r 1^

O r-. <r o o O

CN ro

O ro i-( 00 o vD

CN in in

m in CN CM CN

m <JO in in o \0 v£) ro rH

vO CN c <j- sr o vO in rH

CN in ro CN CN CO CN

m in c in 1—1 sO o o

-J- in 00 00 CN 00 CN

O in in o en m in rH ro in

1—1

iH

<N

m in in o in o ro ro

O <f

<r

m o ro 00 in CD

CN in \D in CN 00 CN CM

CN in

O iH iH o <»•

O ro ro

<r o m

m o 00

CN in

m ro rvj ro rvj

1—I

»—

J

rH CN < i-H CN <: iH CN < iH CN H H H

H

OOO

H

HH

H ooo

•z

Pio w <> XHO

pqowHWH

.J

<:

enwH<wQ

onowHI zo

rJzo

OS :3

OS

w < « Z

13 tH H S

^§Ph W U OS

rJzo <H

<cI CN3

OS

WHz < X. > o M Q

OSw

Oi< 0-1 z

1-1 zo

19
When the interference requirement is in force, the simulated

throughput for the pure-landing/pure- takeof f policy is greater than

that achievable from alternating landings and takeoffs on both runways, lending quantitative support to the nolicv v^ost often used for

this configuration. The total number of landings is decreased by

about 25 percent but this is more than made up by a 30 percent in- crease in takeoffs. The "pure" policy results in many more takeoffs than landings (sometimes almost twice as many), and is thus not

as effective when the numbers of landings and takeoffs are approximately in balance.

The difference between 5 and 50 percent heavies in the aircraft

type mix leads to a decrease of 7 - 22% in total throughput, with the

larger differences generally occurring for the policy having only landings

on one runway and only takeoffs on the other. To explain this, note that

with landings spaced at 5 miles (as for a non-heavy aircraft following a heavy), a takeoff can occur between the two landings without affecting

either. The pure-landing/pure- takeof f policy does not exploit this, so that the full brunt of the increased separation is felt. Policies

employing dual-use runways are in a better position to utilize these

extra spaces

.

The location of the intersection, far rather than near, causes

a greater reduction in takeoff throughput than in landing throughput.

This is to be expected, since runway occupancy time is not a critical factor in interlanding spacing, but plays a much greater role in

constraining takeoffs. The intersection's location, however, has

much less effect than does operating policy.

In summary, the simulated behavior of a pair of intersecting

runways is very much as one would expect from logic and real-world

experience. The throughput levels produced by DELCAP may be higher

than those usually observed because two of the four operating policies

simulated allow landings on both runways, a situation atypical in

practice. The predicted throughputs for the pure-landing/puretakeoff strategy perhaps represent the most realistic estimates.

Since actual operating rules require aircraft to remain separated,

one would expect the throughputs calculated with interference to

be more like actual levels, except in those situations where one

of the two runways handles primarily smaller aircraft under VFR

rules (to which the IFR separations do not apply).

2.2.3 CLOSE PARALLELS

A parallel runway configuration was run under the restriction

that landings on one runway must be separated by 3, A or 5 miles

from landings on the other, and by 2 miles from preceding takeoffs

20
on the other. (This restriction presently applies to parallels

whose center lines are separated by 3000 - A300 feet.) The results are given in Table 2.9.

During periods when the numbers of arrivals and departures

are about the same, the operating policy of choice is to alternate

landings and takeoffs on both runways. When departures predominate,

one runway is reserved exclusively for them, while the other handles

only landings. For periods in which arrivals predominate, one run- way is restricted to landings only, while landings and takeoffs

alternate on the other.

Comparison with Table 2.6 shows that the performance of a pair of close parallel runways very closely resembles that of a

"V" intersection with interference, and many of the remarks made

for that earlier case also apply here. Since runway occupancy

time is not a critical factor in interlanding spacing and the re- quired separations between landings on the two runways are the same as for one runway, the maximum landing throughput is effectively the same for a set of parallels as for a single runway. For

this reason, the third configuration, which allows landings on both runways, has approximately the same throughput as a single

runway with two landings between each pair of takeoffs (see Table

2.4). Alternating landings and takeoffs on both runways yields

about a 16% improvement over the single runway, gained presumably

because runway occupancy time has no effect on the other runway's

operations. The greatest total throughput is attained by segregating the operation types, with only landings on one runway and only

takeoffs on the other, but this results in only half as many landings as takeoffs, and so such a high level of throughput could

not be sustained. The addition of the second of a close parallel

pair of runways thus buys some additional throughput, 16% for

periods when the numbers of arrivals and departures balance and

37% when departures dominate. During arrival-dominated periods,

however, only 9% increase in total throughput is observed.

2.2.4 CLOSE PARALLELS WITH AN INTERSECTING RUNWAY

The runway configuration for these runs is pictured in Figure

2.2. For time periods in which arrivals and departures are balanced,

the operating policy chosen reserves one of the parallel runways (1)

for takeoffs, the other parallel (2) for landings and alternates

landings and takeoffs on the crossing runway (3). For departuredominant periods one of the parallels (1) is reserved for takeoffs.

21
ino

<:o

ft, o

CM

u-1

<3-

00

CM

ON

COoo

CMOo

CO

CM

CM

CO

CM

0^CO

CM

CM

00

CO

iH

00

fO

00

iHoo

00

CO

00

CO

CMCO

ON

CMw

pq

<:H 3

bOoH

>\uO

33

C/2 <wwM><w

Ed

HOOW<<HOOW

CO

in

CMCO

CO

uo

CM

CO

CO

CO

CO

ro

eg

CO

ON

ONoo

-J- od

CMod

CM

CM

in

CMoo

CMin

CJN

CM

iH

00m

in

CMCOoo

so

CO

CO

in

NO

invo o

CMOoo

CNO

CModo

CM

CMmo

vo

^0

CO

vo

CO

HOH

HOH

53HOH

MJOoz

I—I Hwo

22
and landings and takeoff s are alternated on the other two runways.

For arrival-dominant periods one of the parallels (1) is reserved

for landings, and landings and takeoff s are alternated on the other

two. These last two policies are probably unrealistically com- plicated for a real control situation, but have been simulated to

show possible throughput advantages from dual operations.

FIGURE 2.2

Close Parallels with an Intersecting Runway

Tables 2.10 and 2.11 summarize the results of these runs. Separation requirements for aircraft on the two parallels are

those described in Section 2.2.3 for close parallels. For the runs reported in Table 2.10, no interference requirements were

put on the intersecting runway, so that takeoffs and landings on

it were restricted only by runway occupancy on the other runways.

This^ of course, does not represent the real requirement when all

runways are operated under IFR conditions, but may be more reflective of actual operating practice if the crossing ruyiway is used

primarily for smaller VFR aircraft. The runs reported in Table

2.11 had all interference restrictions in force.

Without the interference requirement in effect^the third run- way increases landing throughput by 50 to 79% and takeoff throughput by 13 to 33% over the levels reported in Table 2.9 for parallel

runways operated in the pure landing/pure takeoff mode.

This increase does not accrue when the interference requirement is

in force, since as noted earlier, on page 14 that requirement means

that maximum landing throughput is effectively that of a single runway.

23
< O

4->

—Iw

COu

PL,O

rH

l-l o3ooM

x;H>

>-i 3O

PC

w

I—< >oin

<:HQo

<:HoH

C/0 w> pL, < ow m

01 rH uc

0)

»-l <

(U

M-l

V-i <U Ud <d M HoH O COw

Ph •H >

<:

O

wW >

CO <

in

>—1

>X) o in CJN

O in

r—1CN 00 lO c <r as vD in Os rH

CO CTs ro <r rH iH CN CN

iH

CJ^C o C sO iH c O o in in

<r o 1-H in o CN

O CO <r

m CN

m ro (N CN rH tH CN c o O CN o in CJN in o —1

rH CN

O o CN CN CN CO

CN CN CN CN iH rH rH

CO ro CN 00 CO CJs in

.H rH CTs •H

m vD 00 o CSI <r -J- CN iH CN CO

rH

O 00 v£> C3N 00O

m 00

O o O CN

O in 0^ ro CN m CO <N CN 00 rH rH CN O 00 iH o vD ON un a> •<r o 1—1 o CN o O CN in r Csl CN C^I CN iH rH rH <r

ro CN <x> <r CN 00 CO in -<t CN O <-{ -H CO C^4 in rH 0^ C?N O a\

<r CN <T o <r <}

m rH CN

iH rH

m

O C3^ Csl rj <r 00 in o CN CJ^

OOO iH

m >H CN o <r in

<t CN vO <r Csi CN CO iH rH CN o CM CT> fN o in 00 ro CN ro o rH O CN o iH CN <r in

CN CN CN -<r rH rH rH -J-

>-i

m < iH CN <: rH OM CO < H H H O o O H H H

h-t o

cuoz

(HHo

II COw

OS Oh 2 u

wH< O tH OlJ W Q W

tiS S H ^ < J<I >H O-J >-l CO

I—I i-J >H g >H 2 >-, < o < o <: HI

CO<T

13

Pi OS

CO

H

W <

pjH<Z

a:PJH<I >-c CN CO Z >-i >-i < o < <

CO

P-. P-O

Ui<HI

PC

PJH<

c/^ Z J H

<: s: > o

CIS PJ

DS

C/2 OJI wH<

PSuHI ,H >H CN CO

>H ^ >-l >H < a < <

OS 3 CD

24
wM><wXoin <OHOw<. T *H

4jr I Q)

COH

niw

4-J W

CO r—i

rHo . M-i

_

01 CO o <

rH r; 1—-* M

rrl ^1 <<

,_l (Tl <u £-( o

CN c H

<u 1—1 W w ^ o W

i-H < CJ •H > H < OW o . :r: CO < c m 3

03

w3OH < O o <r 00 I—1 c 00 iH 00 in

<r <r CN r-H <r cn

O CN 00 00

CM r-H CN CN CN CN r-\ ,—1 o O -<r <r vO in in o o a> CT> <r o rH in iH rH o ON 00

CN r-i CN iH i-H I-H o <r <T 00 o vC in rH o ON in o r—1 m o rH .H ro CN <3s 00 o t—t

I—1

rH CN iH

CO o O -H r-- r-^ in 00

O

in <r <r <r vO

m cn <r (» 00 CN

t—(

CM vD CN CN CN r- rH r-(

m o O 1—(

oo oo 00 o <t <r 00

in o CN vD ,—j

ON On 00

CN r-l ro CN rH ,—(

rH o O O 00 CO in <3- o CN o ,—1 ,H ro ON ON CO

1—1

.—1

CN tH tH CN fH ro o O 1—1

rH <r <r <r OO

m 0^ 0^ rH in in o to in rH in 00 00

CN ,—1 CN

m CN CN 00 ,—1

r-\ r-H in

O o in -<r 00 c <i <r C3N vO o CN 00 o CN CN in o C3N 00

CN r—I

ro tH 1—1 in rH o o in in O <t en <i <r CN O O rsi CN in m 0^ CJN 1—t

I-H CN rH .H CN ro

rJ<HOH <HOH

h4<HOH >U

I—I

rJO

pL, OzMH<

1x1 o w

Si

PJ

CO

H

p- o <

pl. Z o M

pa

WH < < hJ H rJ <C 1 i-H 1 >H CN >H 1 ro ^ ^-1 >H 2; >-( 2: < o < o <

13

a; 3

pj

CO

H

w < 3 IH

PJH<Z

PiPJH

cnPH

PhO

PJt < I I rH >-i CN ro

>. S >i J>H < O < <

13

CSS OS

PJH<

rJ

M < s > o M Q

PJ

C/3 O

PJH< p w z H I I rH >H CN ro

>-l ^ >-l >H < o < <

Pi

;i3 :z) OS OS

25
The three different operating policies chosen differ by 17 to

34% in landing throughput, but by a factor of almost 3 in takeoff

throughput, again demonstrating that meeting takeoff demand is less

difficult and less critical than meeting landing demand, a fact

well-recognized by controllers. This is shown even more dramatically by the observation that the first and second policies displayed

in Table 2.10 differ only in that the first one restricts runway

2 to landings only (rather than dual use) , but the landing throughput is almost the same in the two cases.

2.3 Summary

The preceding section described output from applications of

the DELCAP model to a variety of common runway configurations,

demonstrating the model's versatility and its ability to represent

those airport facilities for which further computerized throughput analysis is desired. DELCAP has also been run on the Chicago

O'Hare (ORD) configuration depicted in Figure 2.3. In addition,

the model is capable of handling even more complex configurations

than this, with many more runways and more complicated interactions

among them.

FIGURE 2.3 ^ .

, ; 0' Hare Four-Runway Configuration

27R

In the analyses reported above, the model was also exercised

under different aircraft-type mixes and different arrival/departure

ratios to demonstrate its ability to model these variations successfully.

Changing the fraction of heavy aircraft from 5 to 50 percent decreases

landing throughput (per runway per hour) by from 0 to 16% with an average

decrease of about 9%, representing from 0 to 8 landings per runway and

averaging about 3. Hourly takeoff throughput per runway is decreased

more severely - from 0 to 28%, averaging 12% and representing a decrease

of from 0 to 19 takeoffs (averaging 7).

26
As noted above, operating policy has almost as great an effect on throughput as does runway configuration. The Influence of policy, a critical factor in actual operations, is probably somewhat exaggerated

by the simulation when used to estimate maximum throughputs. In the

simulation, operating policy is rigidly imposed. Whereas in a real

situation a controller might run overflow takeoffs on a runway normally

handling landings only, or divert a landing to a runway generally

reserved for takeoffs, the simulation does not have this flexibility.

In practice, the controller's extra leeway should allow him to exceed

the capacity levels predicted by the model and therefore should allow

for contingencies unforseen by model assumptions, such as more serious

bunching of arrivals and departures, or gaps caused by pilot decisions

over which the ATC system has little control. The comparative rigidity

of the DELCAP model's handling of operating policy should not seriously

affect its usefulness as a tool in establishing performance measures,

if care is taken in its application to ensure the most appropriate

policy is chosen for simulation.

The DELCAP simulation as norw constituted assumes interlanding

spacings of exactly 3, 4 or 5 miles as well as fixed and constant

runway occupancy times, assumptions which are unrealistic. However,

since real separations and runway occupancies may be either less or greater than the nominal values, it is unclear in which direction

or to what extent these assumptions bias the resultant throughput

values. In fact, it is not at all clear that much additional accuracy in throughput calculations would be gained from (the very

easy- to-implement step of) representing these factors in a stochastic

manner, particularly since results are averaged over a period of

20 hours.

Throughputs calculated by DELCAP vary with operating policy,

configuration and mix in the expected direction and agree quite well

in magnitude with observed levels. (A more complete description of this

follows in the next section.) There are, however, a number of instances

in which model outputs are higher than those actually attained at most

installations. These involved the simulation of operating policies

more complex in their control requirements than the policies in present

use, so that empirical data with which to compare these outputs are lacking. For example, it would be unusual for a pair of intersecting

or close parallel runways to be operated for any prolonged time with

landings on both, unless one runway handled primarily smaller aircraft

making visual approaches. This also holds true for the "parallels

with crossing runway" configuration; most airports with such a configuration

would use the parallels for landings and takeoffs (on separate runways)

of larger aircraft, with the crossing runway allocated to lighter aircraft

as required. The DELCAP throughputs reported above, therefore, in part

require demand levels and controller capabilities which are unlikely

to be sustained over long periods. More practical capacity levels are associated with those policies which reserve main runways for pure

operations and shorter crossing runways for mixed operations of lighter

aircraf t

.

27
3. COMPARISONS OF MODEL OUTPUT WITH AVAILABLE DATA

Table 3.1 reports IFR throughput figures for a variety of run- way configurations at several airports, as computed by a theoretical

procedure novr under development by the FAA Air Traffic Service,

as estimated by staff at the facility, and finally, as found using

a version of the theoretical procedure devised by the FAA to

account for local variations. The figures vary from facility to

facility for the same configuration because of differences in

aircraft- type mix and in other special characteristics such as air space restrictions (at JFK, for example). Differences between

the theoretical and the modified standard values range from 4 to

19% and average 11%, so that one can regard as acceptable

similar differences between these values and those produced by

the model. ^ TABLE 3.1

Throughput for Several Configurations at Selected Airports

Configuration . tj Theoretical Facility Modified

Class Estimates Standard

Wide Parallels v^S

. JFK IFR-Pure* Ik 70 71

. MIA - Mixed 106 75 100

. AIL - Mixed llA " 91 98

. ORD - Mixed . ^/ 104 90 92

Close Parallels

. JFK IFR -Pure - • 60 50 52

. PHL - Pure 68 52 57

A R/W's

2 Pure Approach i '/f; 2 Pure Dept. • ; 152 135 137

ORD . - ^x-v-'

A "pure" operation is one handling only takeoff s or only landings.

Parallels operated in a pure policy have one runway for only landings

and a second only for takeoff s. "Mixed" operations refers to a policy

allowing both landings and takeoffs.

28
In comparing the figures in Table 3.1 with DELCAP outputs, we

have modified the latter to take into account the fact that takeoff capacity is rarely restricted and that the numbers in Table 3.1

are those sustainable over an extended period of time during which

the total numbers of arrivals and departures are approximately

equal. Whenever simulated takeoff s substantially outnumber landings, the maximum total throughput as calculated by DELCAP does

not correspond to such a sugtainable situation, and a better approximation to realistic total throughput is twice the calculated

landing throughput. Table 3.2 reports throughputs thus obtained

from DELCAP for configurations similar to those in Table 3.1.

(Most of these numbers are taken directly from tables in the

previous chapter.) Throughput for the wide parallels with pure

operations , is calculated by adding the throughput for a single

runway with only landings, to that for a single runway with only

takeoffs.* Throughput for wide parallels used in mixed operations,

is calculated as twice the landing throughput for a single runway

serving alternating landings and takeoffs. Throughput for the

ORD 4-parallels case pictured in Figure 2.3, is estimated as twice the landing throughput for a near- intersection ("V") configuration

plus twice the landing throughput for a far intersection pair of

parallels (both paiis without interference).

Differences in throughput among airports depend in part on the

aircraft type mix. The mix at JFK contains approximately 43% heavies,

while that at the other airports is much lower. (At ORD for instance,

there are about 16 percent heavies.) For most of the airports of

concern here, small aircraft account for a relatively small proportion

of traffic (except for PHL where they account for about 40 percent).

Therefore, for most airports the throughput figures are more like those

reported for 5 and 15 percent heavies.

In the case of wide parallels and pure operations, values in the

two tables agree quite well. Whereas the theoretical value of 74

operations per hour agrees exactly with the DELCAP value for 15

percent heavies, the value of 65 from DELCAP for 50 percent heavies is

more appropriate since JFK has over 40 percent heavies. Linear

interpolation (of 40% between 15 and 50%) yields about 68, slightly

lower than the final figure of 71 (surprisingly, since one would

normally expect the model, requiring perfect controllability, to

estimate higher than actual values), but still within 5 or 6 percent

of the modified performance standard.

The numbers in Table 3.2 for this case are obtained from runs not

reported in Chapter 2.

29
u>

13

(U

4-1 CO P

CO w11

f-uc

bl CO 3O W

h-J

H

<:

OJ rH

Pi

cd 4J

CO3

CO

CO

<1 o HO 00 H

COW!—1 > Ow • w H O Q

IS c

LOo

CNin

CN

CN

rsi

CN

CM < CN CN H • • • • C/0 CO ON CN o in <3- CO rH rH

<: CN CN

m

HO

O in 00

H c^

O

WM>< C a^ o w W

CO < in

m <r

O

H iH

in

O CO CM < O

CO

m CN

1—1

<: 00O CN

H

CO CN in

rH in

iH <

P.

If) <HOHO oo

CO

00

CN

in

rH

00

in ooCN

<:

00

00

CO

m

in

CN CO

C/3 CO 1-1 CO CO i-) w W o w w hJ M hJ hJ H hJ

w < Pi

P-i tJ

Ph P-i o P-I Ph M

h-1 Q

W

Q

wMM

M

H p"

Q

QXO Pi o M M M

O o p-l Ph CN
In the case of wide parallels under mixed operations, DELCAP

maximum throughput values vary from 105 for 50% heavies to 113

for 5% heavies, agreeing very well with the lOA to llA theoretical

values for the three airports using this operating policy. The

most applicable DELCAP values are for the 5 to 15% heavies for these

three airports, meaning that DELCAP estimates are 5 to 7 operations

high for MIA (Miami International) and ORD (Chicago O'Hare International),

and one operation low for ATL (Atlanta), but still within 5 to 6%

of the theoretical values determined by the FAA.

The throughputs calculated by DELCAP agree surprisingly well

with those of the modified standard for close parallels, with the

DELCAP values ranging from 55 to 50 and the standards between

57 and 52. DELCAP values are somewhat lower than the theoretical

ones. Most serious for DELCAP 's use is that the throughput rates

(obtained by doubling landing rates) for close parallels are lower

than those obtained for a single runway alternating operations. This occurs because DELCAP presently simulates "operating policies" only

as defined for individual runways, without coordination; operations

on the two runways are treated separately, with only their interferences

being modeled. Since the minimum separation time between takeoff

s

is less than that between landings (for the speeds in Table 2.1),

DELCAP allows about 80 percent more takeoff s than landings. These

extra takeoff s lower the number of landings, since the interference

rules require landings to be separated by 2 miles from takeoffs on

the other runway. This can be remedied by modifying DELCAP to allow

for an operating policy which applies to a pair of runways together.

Such a policy would more closely mirror actual operating practice,

which tends to follow a landing on one parallel or intersecting runway

with a takeoff on the other. With such a policy in effect, throughput

for a set of close parallels under pure operations could be expected

to be slightly more than the 52 to 56 operations/hr . available from a single runway alternating operations, and thus would more closely

approximate the theoretical estimates of Table 3.1.

Throughput calculated by DELCAP for the 4-runway ORD case lies

between the modified standard and the theoretical value in Table 3.2.

Note that the DELCAP throughputs used for this analysis are those

without interference. (If values from runs with interference were

used, the DELCAP estimates would be considerably lower. As in the

case of the close parallels above, the landing throughput predicted

by DELCAP for intersecting runways with Interference is degraded

because of the extra takeoffs generated when the model independently

schedules operations on the two runways.) Discussions with FAA

personnel familiar with the ORD operation indicate that the two sets

of parallels are treated almost as two independent sets of intersecting

runways. For the pure operating policy, takeoffs are cleared once a

lan(»ing passes the intersection and occur in such a way that the two

31
mile departure/arrival separation does not limit operations. In this

operating situation the "without Interference" policy more closely

describes the actual situation and Is therefore Indeed the more

appropriate policy choice for comparison purposes.

3.1 Summary

On the whole, the throughput levels calculated by DELCAP agree

quite well with accepted values for several common configurations,

with one identified exception, concerning the model's Independent

scheduling of traffic on two close parallel or Intersecting runways

with Interference rules in effect. Since landing capacity Is so much

smaller than takeoff capacity, such scheduling results in almost twice

as many takeoff s as landings. The interference rules require landings

to be separated by two miles from preceding takeoffs on the other

runway, and so the extra takeoffs force landings to be separated by

more than the minimum spacing. The remedy suggested above is that of

modifying DELCAP to permit the specification of an operating policy

for a pair of runways, in much the same manner that policies are now specified for each runway singly. This would allow the alternation

of landings on one runway with takeoffs on the other. An additional

benefit would be the ability, for many configurations, to specify

ratio of landings to takeoffs, since as long as input traffic levels

are high enough to insure no gaps in either landings or takeoffs,

the operating policy completely determines the sequence of operations

performed. Such a procedure would lessen the necessity observed

above for makeshift calculation of total throughput as twice the number

of landings, but rather would provide a balanced output directly.

Besides identifying the need for the modification noted above,

and for great care in defining the actual operating policies on which "observed" data are based, the exercises reported in the previous

chapter have demonstrated the versatility of DELCAP and the general

agreement of its throughput calculations with a set independently

arrived at, thus increasing confidence in the model's validity.

The exercises described above have incorporated some preliminary

investigation of model throughput sensitivity to aircraft

mix and to runway operating policy. Throughput decreases, from 10

to 33 percent (averaging about 16)^ as the percentage of heavy aircraft

in the mix increases from 5 to 50 percent. Of much greater effect on throughput are two other factors: runway operating policy, and the

interference requirements. The latter is determined by ATC rules, but

only applies to IFR traffic. If some crossing runways are used primarily

by VFR aircraft, or many aircraft are able to turn off before an intersection, then throughput obtained from DELCAP runs without Interference rules in effect would more closely represent the actual situation.

32
As has been noted above, care must be taken in defining the operating

policy. Throughput for wide parallels with alternating operations on both runways is 113, while that for wide parallels handling pure operations

is 78. Depending on the actual sequencing of operations on the two

runways, almost any value between these two extremes can be obtained.

Therefore it is necessary to be very careful in defining the operating

policy to insure that the DELCAP runs model the particular situation

desired, and it is perhaps most desirable to try a variety of policies

if there is any question as to which is most applicable.

The DELCAP simulation as now consituted assumes interlanding

spacings of exactly 3, 4 or 5 miles as well as fixed and constant runway

occupancy times, assumptions which are unrealistic. However, the

validation indicates that not much additional accuracy in throughput

calculations would be gained from (the very easy-to-implement step of)

representing these factors in a stochastic manner.

33
APPENDIX A

CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO DELCAP

During the course of the validation effort reported In this

document, modifications were made to the DELCAP model in four areas:

output, separation criteria, operating policy, and random number

generator. None of the changes required extensive recodlng, a feature which was one of the major factors in deciding which of a number of plausible changes should be Implemented. A second factor

was the benefit expected to accrue and the priority of need for that

change. A further description of the changes is given below, and

is followed by a more detailed description of the alterations in the

actual computer coding of the preprocessor and simulation.

A . 1 Description of Modifications

DELCAP is expected to operate under two scenarios: one to compute

airport maximum throughput ( capacity ) and the second to compute delay

resulting from a particular demand profile. Since delay output would

be meaningless under the first scenario, the user now has the option

of supressing delay output for runs under this scenario. Current

output formats have been modified so that the number of characters

per line is less than 72, permitting output to fit on most terminals.

Output now consists of actual throughputs and average delay per

aircraft for each hour, separately for landings, takeoff s and total

operations, separately by runway. Summary statistics at the end of

a run provide for each runway — separately for landings, takeoff

s

and total operations — the total throughput for the run, average

hourly throughput and average total hourly delay. Illustrative

maximum throughput output, for one hour of simulated time at the ORD

configuration depicted in Figure 2.3, is given in Figure A.l. Figure

A. 2 displays both throughput and delay figures for a single runway

for 20 hours of operation. In addition to throughput and delay

information, DELCAP prints the final random number seed for use

in subsequent runs. (See below for a more complete description of

the random number generation process.)

With the advent of heavy aircraft (greater than 300,000 lbs.

gross weight) wake turbulence problems have led to the imposition of

separation rules requiring 5 mile separation for all non-heavy aircraft landing following a heavy, and 4 mile separation ,for a heavy

following a heavy. All other aircraft combinations must be separated

by 3 miles. Any non-heavy taking off behind a heavy must wait for

two minutes after the heavy lifts off. Other takeoff separations are

34
FIGURE A.l

Throughput Output for One Hour at ORD

HOURLY THROUGHPUT

HOUR RUNWAY LANOINGS TAKfOTpS TOTAL

17 I 29 0 ?9

^ ^ 0 39 19

33 0 33

SUMMARY REPORT FOR THIS RUN

TOTAL THROUGHPUT

RUNWAY OPERATIONS PEPEORMFn

LAN0IN6S TAKEOFFS TOTAL

» 29 0 29

? 0 39 39

3 0 35 3'; * 33 0 33

TOTAL A2 7M I 3A

AVERAGE HOURLY THROUGHPUT

RUNWAY OPERATIONS PERFORMED

LAND I N6S TAKFOFFS TOTAL

1 29, 0. 29.

? 0. 39, 39.

3 0, 3S. 3S.

^ 33, 0. 33.

TOTAL 62, 71. 1 36.

35
FIGURE A.

2

Hourly Throughput and Delay for a Single Runway for 20 Hours

HOURLY THROUGHPUT HOURLY nrLAY*PFR AIRCRAFT

HOUR RUNWAY LANDINGS TAKEOFFS TOTAL LANDINGS T AKFOFFS ALL n I* 1*

\ 7 1 7 ?'i M . 1 3 . A

(J \1 '9

1 2 7 1 2 . A 3.0 2.9

1 '

'M ' '7'

ft 1 7 0 • n 2.3 1 . A

Ln 1 R'-- I 1 \ 9 n • A ^ • ^ J.I

7 1

s A i -

' 7 \ 1 . 7 J . 1 o 1 1 >* - e 1 ^ 1-0 1 . o 1I .. Ao 9 1 7 7 I i1 . 1 7 . n 14 . 7

1 n 11 t1 Ao t 1 J 7 t . if . ~

I I I 2A 3.7 *».A H . 1

I ? I 1 0 1 A 0.1 3.0 2.0

1 "S 1 . 5. ^ A - 1 1 0.3 3 . 2.3

1

'\ I 70 n . 7 2.1 1 . /.

1

f-. 1 R

"

1 7 0. 3 2. A I . M

1 A 1 II 7S 0 . 3 . 0 2 . 1

1 7 1 If 23 1 .0 M . 7 2 . 8

1 I V,;:' . - 9 'v;:;' 2 2 0.9 M.fl 2.5

1 9 I 1 9 2 7 1 .9 3.R 2.S

?n I 1 R fl 2 S 2.M 3.fl 2 . 9

2 1 1 II 0 • Q 2. A 1 22 1 1 3 0. 2. A 1 .6

FINAL RANDOM NUMRER SFED 200n22<!»2n72S

* Delay is measured in minutes.

36
FIGURE A. 2 (CONTINUED)

Summary of Throughput and Delay for the Single Runway of Figure A.

2

SUMMARY REPORT FOR THIS RUN

TOTAL THROUGHPUT

RUNI^AY OPERATIONS PFPFORMFD

LANDINGS TAKFOrrs TOTAL

I ?n? 197 3

TOTAL 202 197 399

AVFPAGF HOURLY THROUr,MPUT

RUNWAY OPERATIONS PETORMfro

LANDINGS TAKFOFFS TOTAL

J 10,1 19,9

TOTAL in, I 9,fl 19,9

AVFRAr,F HOURLY DELAY

RUNWAY DELAY (MINUTES ) LANDINGS TAKEOFES TOTAL

I I'^.O 3fl.7 S?.7

TOTAL m,0 3fl.7 S7.7

37
approximated in DELCAP by requiring that the second aircraft wait

30 seconds after the first lifts off. This eliminates all references

to whether aircraft diverge or not and all necessity for treating

departure paths. Other landing and takeoff separations may be input

if it is so desired, but the revised DELCAP allows separation to depend

only on the types of aircraft involved.

Early test runs of DELCAP indicated that the random number generator

available in the SIMSCRIPT system did not produce a sequence of

numbers which were statistically "random" to a satisfactory degree.

This has been remedied with the inclusion of a random number generator

obtained from the NBS Statistical Engineering Laboratory. This generator

requires a starting value (referred to as the "seed"), which is modified

each time a random number is calculated. The final seed is printed out

by DELCAP and can be used to start other runs. The sequence of random

numbers produced depends entirely on the seed, so that runs can be

replicated by using the same seed and on the other hand different

traffic samples can be obtained by using different seeds. The seed is

input and output as a 12 digit octal number.

The initial version of DELCAP allowed 4 different operating policies

landings only, takeoff s only, mixed operations where landings take

precedence, and mixed operations in which landings and takeoffs alternate

To allow a more flexible sequencing procedure DELCAP was modified to

allow the user to input the desired operation sequence. The user may

provide any sequence of operations (of length up to 10) and this sequence

will be repeated for the duration of the run.

A. 2 Programming Details of the Modifications

The input stream to the preprocessor has been changed, and the

complete new version appears in Table A.l. Only changes from the

previously documented version* will be noted below.

1. INPUT is now dimensioned by 8 rather than 6, the two additional

items being a switch to indicate whether a run is designed to

output throughput only (INPUT(7)=0) or both throughput and delay

(INPUT(7)=1) , and the random number seed as a twelve digit

octal number INPUT (8)

.

2. Separations SEPLL, SEPTT and pEP2 now depend on the leading and

following aircraft types. This changes the input FORMATS and

standard values which are the ones described above (3,4 and 5

miles for landings, 30 seconds or 2 minutes plus the runway

occupancy time for takeoffs).

*Judith Gilsinn, E.H. Short, W.A. Steele and D. Klavan, A Simulation

Model for Estimating Airport Terminal Area Throughputs and Delays , NBS Report 10592, May 1971.

38
Card

hfo.

TABLE A.

1

P reprocessor Input Formats

Colimn

Nos. Variable

No. Decimal

Places Format

1-7 TBEG - begiming of

siimilation

8 - 14 TEND - end of similation

1 - 18 INPUT (1 - 6) , 3 columns

per element

19 print indicator

(O=throughput

,

l=both delay and

throughput)

20-31 random number seed

F7.2

F7.2

6A3

II

012

GROUP I

one per

type

#types 1

//types + 2

1-3 nunfcer of type ( < 10) 0

4-6 = 0 if type has O^IE 0

> 0 if type does not have

DME

7-13 aver, landing speed (knots) 2

14 - 20 aver, takeoff speed (knots) 2

21 - 27 aver, runway occupancy 2

time - landing -(seconds)

28-34 aver, runway occupancy 2

time - takeoff - (seconds)

end-of-file

1-7 aver, turn-off speed, 2 all types

13

13

F7.2

F7.2

F7.2

F7.2

F7.2

39
Card

No.

Column

Nos. Variable

No. Decimal

Places

FORTRAN

Format

GROUP II

1 6 per

type

same

decimal fraction of take- 4

off mix, of each type

dec. frac. of landing mix 4

of each type

12F6.4

12F6.4

GROUP III

1. 2

3, 4

6 per number of planes taking

hour off per hour

same # planes landing per

hour

12F6.1

12F6.1

GROUP IV

2 through

NTYP.<NTYP

10

1 - 7

5-14

7 per

type

pair

distance to departure/

arrival fix

required separation . between an arrival and

a departure

required separation

between landing

aircraf t _

F7.2

F7.2

10F7.2

40
Card

No.

Column

Nos. Variable

No. Decimal

Places

FORTRAN

Format

(SUSP V

one per

runway

#rw +1

one per

runway

with 0PER>4 2 per

operat.

one per

runway

one per

intersection

1-2 nuirber of runways

(1 - 9)

3-6 heading of runway

7-8 left/right designation

9-12 "operation code: 1- takeoff

s

only, 2 -landings only,

3- both, alternating

4 - both, landings preferred

13 - 19 distance to outer marker

Cnaut. miles)

end-of-file

1-2 number of operations

in sequence

operation sequence

(1= takeoff ; 2= landing)

.

7 per time, in minutes, for i type each type to fly from

handoff to outer marker

1-2 first runway number (

3-4 second runway number 0

5-12 distance from end of 0

first to intersection

(feet)

13 - 20 distance from end of se- 0

cond to intersection

(feet)

end-of-file

12

14

A2

14

F7.2

12

12

10F7.2

12

12

F8.0

F8.0

41
Card Colurai No. Decimal FORTRAN

No. Nos. Variable Places Format

one per

interference

GROUP VI

one per

type

1-2 first nriway

3-4 second ronway

5-6 interference code:

1 - sinrultaneous

dep/arr and dep/dep

are permitted, given

divergence, but arr/arr

is prohibited, 2 - all

similtaneous operations

prohibited.

end-of-file

6 per decimal fraction of all

runway takeoffs of type which use

each run^'ay, followed by

decimal fraction of

all landings of type which

use each runway

12

12

12

12F6.4

42
3. For each runway with OPER > 4, the user must specify the sequence

of operations for that runway.

4. All references to departure paths have been deleted.

5. The preprocessor has also been modified to agree with the new version of DELCAP, so that there are now 55 arrays and the new variables are correctly initialized in proper order.

New variables and arrays appearing in the DELCAP simulation are described in Table A. 2, together with their array numbers and

dimensions.

Two FORTRAN subroutines are used by DELCAP in obtaining random

numbers, RANDOM and RNG. RNG is called by event routines BEGIN and

GEN and functions PTYPE and PRWAY. RANDOM is called by RNG. The

calling sequence for RNG is (**INITR,*R,1,0) , where INITR is the random

number seed, R is the random number drawn, 1 is the number of random

numbers to be drawn at each call and 0 indicates that R is to be

drawn from a uniform distribution. Note that variables with no asterisks are input to the subrwutine only, variables with one asterisk are output only, and those with two asterisks are both

input and output.

Other modifications to the DELCAP simulation include changes to

LAND and TOFF to accommodate the new separation procedures, changes

to NXTOP, LAND and TOFF to effect the more flexible sequencing policy,

and changes to CHOUR and PRINT to accumulate and print the new output

versions.

A revised listing including the changes reported in this Appendix

appears below as Appendix B. Further inquiries and requests for

computer card decks of the DELCAP simulation and preprocessor should

be directed to:

Judith F. Gilsinn

Room A428, Administration Building

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

(Telephone: AC 301-921-3431)

43
TABLE A.

2

Array

Number

Array

Name

New and Changed Arrays In DELCAP

Dimensions Description

18

32

51

52

53

23

25

CAP

SEPLL

SEPTT

TDRW

HDRW

TNRW

HNRW

SQOP

LAST

type X type

type X type

runway X

operation

runway X

operation

runway X

operation

runway X

operation

runway X

index

runway

indicates whether to print only

throughput (CAP»0) or both

throughput and delay (CAP^l)

interlanding separation

intertakeoff separation

total delay accumulated for the run

hourly delay

total number of operations for

the run

hourly operation counts

operation sequence for each

runway with OPER > 5

index of next operation in sequence

for runways with OPER > 5

55 INITR random number seed

4A
APPENDIX B

NEW DELCAP PROGRAM LISTING

45
M GFN "4

M 7 ! 1 0 F *N N HP ^? 2 I ?R * F N LAND ^4 IT VP F TOFF M MC A P 0 I N P T M I F M FT I ijP'^ T T ypp ! I 'iOPFP I I

•f

M P P I MT '4 - . - N ni. (\

Y

M

F 7nnM ! F

T FLT 4 r

T I MF RfJPT 1 I * T T I Flip 4 9FI vnw F

•»• ^i

F N|

D S ? T TM I 1 F I I * N r MOI'P T T M A X 7 F 1 1 V 1 A M n ! F 1 7VT0FF I F + - 1 1P0TL I F + ) MPOTT \ F T M I » c,VT A 5f I n F 1 60 AF I X 0 F » 7SFPLL 7 F 1 nSFPTL n F ! PC AL IN 1 F ' 7CICT VPF ? F 7 1 r P*" Y T 7 F 7 7CPWY(. 2 F ^ 3S00P 7 I • 7 HMF X T 1 I 7=iL AST 1 T f 7 6 D I M T 7 F

•• 77F0 7 I f 7RL 0 7 I 7 9P P T 7 I 30TPT 7 T

+• 3 1 TOM I M 1 F 7SFPTT 7 F TIN » RP 1 I M M 0 F P 1 I •»SN| a NO I I 3<SNT0FF 1 I ^70FL T 1 F TflOFL L 1 F > 9 T P F r. r T POM T I I MOFOMT I » 1 * T SDMT T I M 1 L "^MT ? 1 I * T P THT I 3 ! « 7F THT 1 1 I * T STMT T M I

"4 3L THT I 1 I f T PFPT I I MMFTPT I 1 I T SFPT I M 1 *4SLf PT ? 1 T + M ATFWO n F + M 7L Mqn 7 F

•• t»

n

T MOilP 0 \

••

M 9SFP 7 7 r * S D r, F M M 1 !

•f c, I TOP* 7 F

c, 7Hn9* 7 F S 3 T M P ^ 7 I

•f c,

H

H

M P W 7 T f S f M T T P 0 I 2 F PT YPE I PR WAY I FREERF

OMT 1 1 THT I 1 ERT I 1RTMAX

L RTMAX L RTMAX L

A6
n F r, I N (!)

F X r N (?)

fl FM OOGENOUS

GFN

^l X TOP

I A NO

Torr

FT I IIP r HOiiP , PRINT

F M 0 q FNO r vFNiT L T ST

47
F X n r, F M n 1

1 S F V F M T R F r, T M no TO ? , FOR F A C M 0 I fRTATF GFN

STOPF I IN OP ( ''iFN ) STORF GFM IN GFMM (

M

CALL PfJG(»«lMTTP,»R,|,H

LFT T = TlME-LA^^Bn(I,IH0ll9)»AL0r, (l.-R>

CAIISF r,FM AT T

I LOOP

CRF ATF f"Nn<;

fADSF «^MDS AT TFMO ' y, CRFftTFCHOIlR . -V/ v; ;

^ TAMSF CHOIIP AT TIMTtl, '

.

I F r A p r, T n ,

r, o T o 7

.

' R I T F O M T A P r A TOP MAT (•!•, ^70, •HOURLY TH^OUr, HPUT»

|/» HOUR RUNWAY»,«;e^,«LANDIMGS TAKFOFFS TOTAL*/)

P F T 1 1 p NJ 7 WR I T»" ON T A PF 6

FORMAT ( M •

, S 7" , • MOMRL Y T H R 0 1) r,H P II T • ,

«; 9 , • H 0 U R L Y DELAY PFR AIRCRAFT*

l/t HOUR Rl)NtWAY»,S«^,*LANni^lGS TAKFOFFS T0TAL*,S5,

?»LAMniNr,S TAKFOFFS A|L*/>

RFTURN

FMO RFGIM

48
ENnOGPNOU'^ EVFMT r,FN

C ASSIGNS ATTKTBMTFS TO THFM,

r nP(riFM) IS 1- TAKFOFF , OR ?-LAMDlNG

sTnpFnP(r,c-N)TNi

C GF^i SCHFnMI ES ITSrir TO OCrtJR AGAIW AFTFR A T I MF INTERVAL

C OFPfMOINir, OMTMr RATFOFOPFRaTION,

CALL^Mf, (••INfTP,»P,!,n»

CAUSF r,FN AT T I M F - L A R 0 ( I , T H 0 1 1 R ) • A L 0 6 ( 1 . - R ) fPFATF FLT

LFTlT = PTYf^E(I)

STOPF!TIMTYPF(FLT)

LFT K-sPPWA Y ( I , I T ) r,n TO ( 1 , ? ) , I C TI^MFLT) IS TMP TIMF A FLIGHT ?s AVAILABLF TO BEGIN FINAL

C D^SCFNT (rnp lANOINGS) Op TO PFGIN TAXIING TO RUNWAY(FOP TAKEOFF)

r CALIM 1"=; A TIMT LAG PJTPODKCFO IN TAKF0FF5, CORRESPONDING TO

C FLYOM - THT TTMT ^ lA^IOING TAKTS TO FLY FROM

r HANnOFFTOTWFOUTFPMAPKER.

I LETTlM(FL"^) = TIMr+r*LIN(l«:)

GO TO 3 ? LFT TUi(riT)=TIMF*FLYnM(|T,K)

3 IF0(t<',I)IS^JOTFMPTY,G0T0M

CRFATFfJXTop

LFT R>%A Y ( WXTOP ) CAIISF NXTOP AT TIM(>^LT)

r Q(K,n - IS TMT OilFMF OF PLANFS '(WAITING TO TAKE0FF(I»1),

r OP LA '4 0(1^7) n^^ P|i^l'*AY f,

'* F I L r r L T I r 0 ( < , I)

PFTilPrj

F N r> G F M

49
C FrGFM GFMfATFS FxPLICIT DFPAPTUPES AMD ARRIVALS

SAVF FVFMT CAPD

fRF ATF FL T

• PF An [ ,

K- , I T \

• r 0 R M A T ( 3 ! ? ) S TOPF IT I r T YPF ( FLT

)

r, 0 T n ( t , 7 ) , ?

I LFT TrN(FLT)3TIMF+CALIN(K)

no TO 1

' ? LFT TIM(FlT).TIMF*FLYOMflT,K)

3 IF Q(«^,M ISNOTFMPTY.G'^TOM

r PF A T F N X T np '

- LFTPWAY(MXTOP)»K

CA'ISF MXTOP AT TIN (FLT)

V r II F F(T IM OCK.I) • ; ; PF T I IP N , 'v'x u , , FMH ... V ,

50
r ij r T I 0 M P T Y P r ( f ) PTYPF ry^no<^F_<^ AN AIPCPAFT TYpr poP TACH FLIGHT ACCORDING

CTvpr - THF niMllLATIVE PISTRIPUTION OF A/C TYPES IN THE M CALL RMG(«»IMlTR,«R»tin)

no TO I , FOR EACH TYP J IFPirCTYpr(I,j),f;0TO7

L '^OP

LFT PTYPE«J

R F T U P FMOPTYPF

51
FIJMC T I DM PP'fl) A Y ( 1 , M ) r ppwflY rMonsE*^ a punway tor fach fli^'iHT according to

C CRWYI - THT ri)M()LATTVF niSTRI^HTION OF PRWYL(SEE PRFPROCESSOR),OR

C rP'(VYT -SA'^FA'=^CRW>'L^nPTAKrorFS,

r A L L M r, ( • • I M I T P , • R , I , 0 ) no TO , FHR TAfH Pif J

, , TO (I,?),! ./j'-

I I r p LF CRi'i'YT ( M , J ) , V,n Tn *4 ' ^

'

r;o TO . •

. 7 r r P Lf^ CP'^YL ( , J ) , r,0 TO *4

y I OOP :

; M I F T P P w A Y = J

p P" T IIP ' FNO PP:« A Y /

52
C MXTOP DFCir^ES WHfrH nPFOATION wfiL SCHEOULEO NEXT

C ON FACH RUNWAY,

c;TnRFfWAY(tjXTOP) IMK

nF"=;TROY NXTOP

C TF NFXT MF 0, THE MFXT OPEf^AT|0^| HA«; ALREADY BFFN DEClnFD UPON.

IF "JFXTCK) NF O, PFTUR^J

c; joop oPF P ( K ) I "I J T'^J'"iF3, GOrni

LFT I =

J

r fr PI)N|'«/AY iJA*>'PLFS ONLY OM£ OPro/VTION, FIND NEXT FLIGHT

C "lATTING ifjTHrQyrnrANnsrHFnuiFIT,

FIH'^ ^TRST, rnP TACM ^lT IN 0(K,I),IF NONE, RETURN

<;TOPr CLT Pi F L^T TrF^FE" ( , I ,F )

r, n TO '( r TF RUNWAY MANOLfS POTH 0 P E " A T I 0 f| «; IN ALTFRNATION, LOOK FOR

r NFYT «^l.ir,MT «<A!TlNr, TO PpRFORM thF ALTERNATE OPERATION,

I IF I. A?T(K) GT N«^QOP(t<), LF^ LftST(K)»I

LFTM=IA«;T(K')

LFT I=SOnP(K,II)

r IF lAMOPK, r jAt^F PorfFOFNCF, ALWAYS rOM«;iDFR THE

C LA^T oppf^ATiOM TO HAVE PFEN A TAKEOFF,

IF I rn 4, LET l=?

LET T=- 1

.

I F T T F L A r, = n LFTTT = P99Qv<5,

FP'P Flf'ST, roR rACM FLT pi Q ( >^ , M , I F NONE, GO TO 2 c^Toof- r|T p' r

I F T I FL A - I LET TsrREr^ik-.f.F)

IF TIN(F) IS T, r, O TO u

I FT T T = T

L F T M = I 7 LF T I = I

4- 1 IFTGT2,L''TI = | r IF ^|n ELK, MT 4V4Ila«I-«^ »in<^, STAPCH THF OTHER QUEUE.

Fpin riPc;T, FOP FAfM FIT JM r)(tf,i),TF NONE, GO TO 3 <;TnoFFIT Pjr

LFT I F L ft G =

1

IFTTxFPFFPp-.I.F)

IFTpj(F)lST,r, OTOM

3 IF IFLAG FO r-

, pprnPN

r IF ^'O FLIGHT TMTPF ryTHFP, rHOf>«;F THF FLIGHT AtHlCH

r '^'III. PP'AV'»PARL'^FARLIFST.

IFTLTTT.GnTOM

L r T T = T T

I. F T I = n

53
^4 , L F T MF X T { K- 1 = T

^ fPFATFTnrr

«;TnPF K IM R'^AYfTOFf")

CAMSF TOFF T PF TUPN : .' 6 rPFATF LAMn

r A u «; F L A M n A T T RFTllPM - FMn My TOP .,, ..

' •

54
FllMcTIn^t rRFf^fK.i.PLT) , rPFFR rALCiiL*TF«^ THF FIPST Tp^F AT (WHICH FLIGHT FLT CAN PERFORM

nPFRATlON T OM Pl.dWAY K WITHOUT VIOLATING SEPARATION RDLESe

niMFMSIOrj TR(?S)

LFT JsT

LFT TsT I MF

IFTIN(FLT)r,TT, IFTT = TIN(FLT)

LFT MsTYPF (FLT)

LFT rPFFR«T

TFIFQ?, GOTfTM

IF FPTirK) IS FMPTY, RFTUR^

FPTMK) IS THF SET OF »TIEt'PS» EOR THF END OF THE RUNWAY K.

A TiFUP IS A TTMF IMTEOVAL OUPfNG WHICH NO TAKEOFF HAY OCCUPY

THF Ffin OF THF PlJNWAY HltF TO I ig T F P F E R F N f E FROM OTHER AIRCRAFT,

LET TFM=TnMlN(K)

TDMIM IS A Tl^^F LAG PJTPOOncEn INTO THE SCHEDULE OF A TAKEOFF

COPPFSPONO ! Nf^ TO THE TIME IT TAiTES A LANDING TO FLY FROM THE

OIJTFR MAPKf^R TO T O I If H 0 0 1** N , IT MAY BF LOOSELY THOUGHT OF AS

T A X M N G T I M E , DO TO -^.FOP FftTM TiriJP IM FPTMK)

LFT TTsTMA V ( T I Flip ) -TFM

THT FNO OF THF TIFUP, l.F. THf TIME *HEN THE END OF THF RUNWAY

BFro^«ES FPFF, IS OISPLACFD BACKWaPOS TO GIVE THE TIME WHEN

THF TAKEOFF MAY RFGIM TAXI,

IF TT L'^ T , r,n TO ^ LET J*J*I

LETTP(J)=TT

( OOP

r,n TO I 7 IF OMTI(K) IS TMPTY, GO TO

OMTI IS THF Srr OF TIEUP5 FOR THF OUTER MARKER,

00 TO S, FOR FArn TIFUP IN OMTMK)

LET TT = TMA*{TlFl|n)

?F TT LS T , GH Tn S

LET J r J

I

LET TR ( J ) =T T LOOP

IF THTMK) IS EMPTY, GO TO I?

LET TEMsOOM { r ) / VL ANO ( M

)

THTT IS THF SFT OF TIFdPS rOR THF THPESHOLD OF THE RUNWAY,

on TO 9, FOR FATH TIFUP IN THTMK)

THPFSHOI D TiFUPS APE DISPLACED RACKWAROS TO GIVE THE TIME THAT

THF lANDING MAY PASS THE OUTEP MARKER,

LET T T = Tma X ( T I Flip ) -TFM

IFTTLST,GDT09

LET Jsji-I

LFT TR(,))rTT

1 n 0 p

55
r? IF J n, rfthpn

LrTrPFrp=TP(i)

IF J FO 1 , RF TIJPM

r FPFFP SFT FOMAI TO THE FND OF THF LATEST TIEUP, WHEN THERE IS

r Mn tOMr,FR ANY fNTFRFFPFNCE.

no TO 71, FOP J.)=(I)(J)

IF TP{)J) ''.T rOFFP, LFT FRTER-tpjJJ)

7 I L O-^P

R F T 1 1 p N

:- FMn FPFFP

56
C LA^»0 rprATrs all THF •tiFuPS* ''MICH

r PFS'MTFRn'''AKiAF''CPAFTLAMrif»'r, , STOPF P*AY(LAMn) IN < IF Q(<,?) TS "IHT FMPTY, GO TO Q

lli'PTTFnt.iTAPFA.TIMF,^

FORMAT ( AT T I MF • , M 3 . 7 , ? , 2 , • L AND I NT, QUFUE FOR R U N W A Y •

, I 3 . S 2 ,

I MS r MRT Y » ) STOP

9

C FIMP THF LA^niMr, TO PF •SCHFOt'iro* AND STORF ITS ATTRIBUTES.

REMOVF FIPST FLT FPOM Q ( (c , 7 ) STOPF FLT IN FL

LTT M = T YPF f FL ) LF T V = Vl AMf^ ( M ) lFTT = FPf"FP(K,7,FL)

LET Tn = T40nM(l>')/V

r Tir UP THPFSHOLn TO LAMniNf, AIPTRAFT FROM TOUCHDOKKN TIME UNTIL

r AFTER PUN WAY OrcUPAMCY TIME HAS FLAPSFD,

rPFATFTTFliP

L r T T M I N ( T T E U P ) = T 0

IF-^ TMAy(TU:HP)sTn*PnTL('^)

FILFTIFUPIMTHTMtf)

CRFATFrTI'iP

STnPF y PWAY(FTTUP)

STOPF 7 IN PT ( FT I UP ) fADSF FTIUP AT TMAXfTI^lip)

C TI*^ (IP f^MO OF P'iN.VAV TO OEPARTING AlRfRAFT FROM TOUCHDO'(»N UNTIL

r A^TFP PiiM*/>Y n^r(IPA^•rY TIMF" HAS FLAP*^Fn.

CPFATFTIFI'P

LET TMiM(TlF"P)=:Tn

LFTTMA»(TTE"P)=Tn*«'nTL(M)

FIIF TIF UP IMrPTMf)

FRF A TF FT I MP

tjTOOF tr IM PWAY(FTTIIP)

c^TnPF-^IMPTfFTIliP)

fA'lSF FTIUP AT TMAXfTIFlIP)

C FIMn THE FOLLOW! Mr, PLAMr iN THT LANOING QUEUE

C AfJD «;T0RE ITS ATTPIPUTEc;,

riMn FIRST, FOP EAFM FLT 0 ( t< , 7 ) , T E NONE, GO TO 11

STOPF FLT Ifj F LET MM = T YPt^ ( E ) LETSsV/LAMf^jMH)

r FRFATF A TIE UP "CHICM WILL MAINTAIN PPOPFR RAOAR SEPARATION

C nFT•VFF^| AR^IVTUG AIRTRAFT,

r PF A TF T I F'lp

57
I r r, r V , G T o 7 n

r yr tht iam'^i^"". spffo or in'' pi^mt pftng •SCHEDUI. FD* IS '"iREATER

C THAN THAT '^F TMF rniLn'MMG PL* Mr, Jir up THE OUTER MARKER FROM

C THT TIMF TMF ric?<;T PLANF PAS«;F<; THF OMTFR MARKER UNTIL

C Tf^^ TIMF IT TAKF*; TMF SFrO^'O TO FLY THE SEPARATION DISTANCE

C HAS FL APSrn

.

LFT TMirj(TIFl"^)=T

(FT TMAX(TIE"p)rT + SFPLL(M,MM)/«;

FILF TIFUP IM OMTI(K')

CRFATF FT 1 lip ' /l 'I -v STOPF y I p *- A V ( r T I IIP » sTOPr I ! fi p T ( r T I IIP ) /

,^ ^

^ / .

'

: : CAIISF FTJIIP AT TMAX(TIFI)P) ^ r,n Tn i i C IF THr lA-'I'^IMr, SPEFH OF THF FOLLO^lNfi PLANE IS GREATER, TIE UP

C THi^ THPF5H0Ln fpom TOIJCHno^'M OF THF FIRST UNTIL THE TiMF IT TAKES

C THF SrrONjD T-^ riY THF «;FPAf?ATTOM DISTANCE HAS ELAPSED.

70 I FT TM 1 M ( T I FHP » = TO

LFT TMAX(TfFMP)=Tn*SFPLL(M,MH)/S - FHF TIFUP IM TMTl(K)

CRPATFrTIMp

S T O P F K" I M P A Y ( F T f 1) P ) STOPF ">

I M PT ( F T f IIP ) CAIISF FT I UP AT TMAX(TIFMP)

II I F 0 P F P ( K ) L T 1 ,

r, 0 T 0 ?

C CRFATF A TIFUP "VMICH Will ^AIMTAIN PPDPFR SEPARATION BETWEEN

C TMfS LAMHI'IG AMO A TAKEOFF ON THE SAMF RUNWAY.

CRFATF T I Flip

I F

T T M A V ( T T E 1 1 P ) s T n TFnMF(M)r, TCtGOTOI

C . IF THF LAMPING HAS MO PISTANCF wp/jquRING EQUIPMENT, TIE UP THE

C FMH nr PUM'/VAY TO oFPAPTOPFS FPOM THE TIME THE LANDING PASSES THE

C n/AFIXi|r. TIlTOllCHnO'WN,

IFT T^IM(TTFUP)=T*(OnM(K)-nAFM)/V

f:0 TO I O 1 C IF THF LANOIMr, MAS DHE, F 1 HO ThF TAKFOFF SPEED OF THF

C OFPAPTUPE AUO roMPnTF TMF TIEUP NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN SEPARATION.

I FT UP FIPST, FOP PACH FLT TM 0(r,M, IF NONE, GO TO 2

STOPFFLTIMF

LFTMM.TYPF(r)

(FT S= VTnrr ( MM

)

I. FT TMiM(TTF'IP)rT+(nOM(ic)_(5FPTL*.S»V»«7/S»R0TT(MM) ) )/V

Ml riLF TIFUP |rj fptI(k')

CRFATF FT I I'P STOPF K IM Pl*AY(FTTUP)

STORE IIMPT(FTniP) . CADSF FT I IIP AT TMAX( TIFUP)

7 IF MPTfK') t:0 O, r, O TO IP

58
r r'Ot' rwrATF TTr'lPS Of! OTHEK RIJ^•^«AYS, IF «;iJCH I N T F K F E" R T N C F EXISTS,

no rn p.fop j=(I)(Mpt(K'))

rPFATF TIFMP

r K-KISTHFRUMVAVAFFFCTrn,

L FT l''<=PPT f K , J ) C !T TMF TYPF OF TfFUP TO RF rPFATFH,

C TIFIIP TYPF'^ 1» A MO 6 APPLY TO LAMHINf^S,

(FT IT = TPT(k:,J)

no TO (^,M,6,^,'.,S),IT

r CPFATF A TIE"P TO MAINTAIN ! N T F P - A P » I V A L SEPARATION.

riMO FIPST, FOP FACH FLT IM Of^K,?), IF NONE, GO TO 6

STOPF FLT IN F LFT MMsT YPF ( F ) L F T S 3 V I A N n ( M M ) ir S ("if V, TO '^7=. LFTTMlN(TTFnP)=T

IFTTMfly(TIF'»P)=T*':FPLL»M,MM)/S

LFT J,)=!

GO TO 7 T?S LFT TM I M ( T T F ) =Tn

|FTTMAX(TTF'"P)=Tn + SFPLL(M,MM)/<;

LFT J Is?

GO TO 7 r CPFATF A TIEDP TO MAINTAIN OFP/ARP SFPAPATION,

M L^^T TMAX(TTE'"P)=Tn

IFOMFfMjGxn, GOTOM^S

LFT TM I M ( T 1 EllP ) *T > ( noM ( ) -n AF I X ) /V

Gn TO <4C,Q

M7Ci FIMO FIPST , FOP FAfH FLT IN O^ric,!), IF NONE GO TO 6

^TOOF FLT IN f" !FTMM=TYPf(r)

I FT S = VTnFF ( MM

)

LFT TMjM(TIFi'P)=T>(00M((f')-(SFPTL .=;«V«»?/5»R0TT(MM) ) )/V

4tiO LFT JJ=1

r, 0 TO 7 C TIF UP THF FMO OF AN I N T F R S F F T | N 6 RUNWAY TO TAKFOFFS AND LANDINGS

C DM TIL AFTFP TMF LANOING pASSF*^ TMF INTFRSECTION.

^ ITT TMIM (TlFlfP) rTO

LFT A=(VTAXI-V)/POTl(M)

L«^T TFMs,c,»A*f0TMM)««7*V»P0Tl(M)

C If THF LAfniMG VILI NOT PEACH THE INTERSECTION,

r TIFDPiirjTlLTHFlANnitlGTt'RNSnFF,

IFTFMlF^iMTff'.rii'j.GOTntil

LFTR = V*«7*2.»'V»()TNT(K,Ktr)

IFT TI)P = Tf^*(-V + SOPT(RM/A

GO TO c, 7

59
SI LFT TUP«TD*ROTL ( M ) 57 LFT TMAX (TTFMP»»TUP

FILFTlFUPIMTHTidflf)

CPFATE FTItlP

STORF KK IN RWAY(FTIUP)

STOPF 7 IN PT ( FT T HP ) CAUSF FTltJP AT TMAX(TIFllP)

CRFATF TIFHP

LFT TM I N ( T I FtiP ) «Tn

L FT TM A X ( T I Flip ) =TIIP

I FT J J= 3 GO TO 7 6 DFSTRO Y T 1 FIJP / GO TO q

7 r,n TO ( 70 I , 70 7 , 703 ) , J J

'''

^- 701 FIIF TIFIIP IN OMTT(KK)

GO TO 705

70? FILF TIFUP IN T H T 1 ( K r ) '\' ^'

r,0 TO 705

7 0 3 FILF T I r ij p IN r P T I ( If K" ) \

'

. 705 CRFATF FTIMP

STORF iCf I ^' RW/AYfFTIUP)

STORF J J IN PT(FTIUP) V ^ CAUSF FTIUP AT TMAXJTIFoP)

P LOOP

10 CRFATF NXTOP ' ^ ^ STORF K- IN RWAYJNXTOP)

I FT NF X T ( K ) rO - ^ CAUSF NXTOP AT T OTFM IS THF OFLAY FNCOUNTEPFD OY THIS LANDING,

LFT0TFM-(T-TIN(FL)»«6r>.

T F T 0 L 5 T P F r, , G 0 T 0 5 0

CRFATF PR I NT

STORF OATA TO PF RFCOROFD AT TOUCHDOWN,

STORF OTEH IN nLAY(PPINT)

STOPF K IN Ri* A Y f PR I NT ) . ^ STORF?INOP(PRINT)

CAUSF PRINT AT TO

"^O DESTROY FLT CALLED FL

I FT L AST ( K ) =L AST ( r )

I

DESTROY LAND

RETURN ^ > , ^

•

.

END LAND

60
F M 0 G r M n U S F V F M T T 0 F r TOFF COFATFS THF TIFUPS RESiiLTfMG FPOM /k N AIRCRAFT TAKING OFF,

(jynPF P>*A Y ( Torr ) I N tf PFSTPOY TO^F

IFQ(Kr,l)rSFMPTY, GOTOJA

FIMn TAKFOFF TO Rf SCHFDHLFO AWH STOPF TTS ATTRIBUTES.

PFMOVFFIRSTFLTFROMQIIf,!)

T 0 R F F L T 1 ^J I. LFT M = TYPF(FI ) LFT V=VTOFF(M)

LFT TsFRFF" ( 1^

, 1 ,FL ) LFT TOsT^TDM T M ( K- ) TfF IIP THF RUNWAY TO TAtfFOFFS AMD LANDINGS FOK DURATION OF THE

RUNWAY OCCI'PAMCY TI^F,

fPTATF TIF'IP

LFT TMIN(TIFHP)=Tn

LFT TM A X ( T I EMP ) =Tn*PnTT ( M ) FILF TIF UP IN THTMIC)

CRFATF FTpip

«;topf k in pway(ftiiip)

store ? i n pt ( ft i up ) cause ftjiid at tmax(tifup)

fPF A TF T 1 Flip

LFTTMIN(TIF""')=Tn

LFT TMA f ( T I EUP ) =Tn*POTT ( M

)

FILF T I Flip IN FPT I ( r ) CPF ATE FT I MP

STOPFtr IMP<vAY(rTIMP)

«;T0PF'^1NPT(FTTUP)

CAUSE FTIUP AT TMAXfTIFUP)

riMO FTP5T, FOP EACH FLT IN QftC.i), IF NONE, GO TO 2 STOPF FLT IN F LET MM-TYPf ( F ) TIF IIP THF ENO OF TMF RMMWAY TO THF NEXT TAKEOFF LONG ENOUGH

TO MAINTAIN I KTFR-nFPAPTURF SEPARATION. THIS DEPENDS ON THE

TYPFS OF THE T'WO AIRCRAFT,

CREATE TIEUP

LET TMlM(TItUP>aTr

IFT TMA X ( T I Flip ) sTO + SFPTT ( M , MM ) FILrTIFUPINFRTMf)

CRF a TF FT I UP

STORE If I ft R//AY(FTIUP)

STORF 3 IM pT(FTHlP)

CAUSE rTIUP AT Tm^xcTIEUP)

IF OPFRCK") LT 3, GO TO c FINP FIPST, FOR EACH FLT IN Q ( K , ? ) , IF NONE, GO TO 5

STOPF FLT IN F LET SaVLAfJO(TYPF(F))

61
CRFATF A TTFUP TO MAINTAIN DFP/ARP SFPA^ATION.

CRFATF TIEUP

IFT THIN(TIEUP)sTr)

IF nME(TYPF{F)) FQ 0, GO TO 3

LFT TMAX(TIEUP)»T0+(SEPTL*.S»S»«2/V»R0TT(M))/S

GO TO M LET TM A X ( T I EUP ) «TD*n AF I X/S

FILE T T FUP IN T H T I ( < J rRFATF FTIIIP

<;T0RF K in RWAYfFTIUP)

STOPF 7 I N PT ( F T I DP ) rAII<;F FTIUP AT TMAX(TIFilP)

rr MPT(f) EQ 'I, GO TO I«i CRFATF TiFtiPS OF OTMFR PUN*AYS AS RFQIIIRED.

DC TO IM.FOR J=(M(NPT(IC))

CRFATE TlFiip

H- K - R 1 1 M »^ A Y A F F F C T F n

I.F T «-)<:» PPT ( K , J »

. - IT - TYPF OF TIF UP

OMLY TYPFS 3, c,, a NO A APPLY TO TAKFOFFS,

IFT f T = TPT ( K , J ) GO T0(|?,I7,A,«,fl,n),IT

fPFATE A TIEUP TO MAINTAIN PROPFR PFP/ARR SEPARATION.

FINO FfRST,FOP FACH FLT IN 0 ( r r , 2 ) , IF NONE, CO TO 12

STOPF FLT I N F LET MM=TYPF|Fj

LFT SsVLAND(MM)

LET TM I N ( T T EliP ) =T[) . : '

L E T J J = ? IF nME(TYPF(F)) ro 0, GO T^ 7 LET TM A X ( T T EDP ) =Tn-»- ( SEPTL* . S«S • • ? /V»POTT ( M ) ) /S

G 0 T n I 3

I F T T A » ( T I F I • P ) = T O D A F I X / S

r,o TO I 3 EI MO FIRST, FOP FAfH FLT IN QrKK.l), IF MQNE, GO TO 12

STORFFI. TINE

LET MM-TYPF ( r ) rPTATF A TIFllP Tn MAirJTAlN PROPFR INTFR-DEPARTURE SEPARATION.

I ET TM I M ( T I EUP ) xTO

IF THF r?l)fJ>^AYS A^r OEPFMDEMT, USE TWF SAME SEPARATION AS FOR ONE

RUM'JWAY, I.E. THO*^E IN TmE SEPTT ARRAY,

LET TM A X ( T I t MP ) sTO^SFPT T ( M , MM

»

TP THF PUM'^AYS aLLOV^ SIMULTANEOUS OEPARTURES WHEN THEY DIVERGE.

USE THr c;[rp/^PATIOMS IN THE SEP? ARPAY,

IF IT EO S,LFT TMAX (TIFUP)bTD*SFP?(M,MM)

LET JJa3

ro TO I 3 TIf I'P. THF ENO OF AM I N T F R S F C T t N f, RUNWAY TO ALL OPERATIONS UNTIL

TMFTAt^'^OFFPASSFSTMF IMTfRSt^rTION,

62
|0 LFTTMI^J(TTE••P)=T^

LFT A =V/RnTT ( M

)

LFT TFM= , S» A •POTT ( M ) • • ? V •POTT ( M

)

C IF THE TAtCf^OFF I AlPROPME RFEnPF RFACHING THE INTERSECTION

C TIF UP ONLY UNTIL AIPROPNE.

IF TEM LF n I NT ( K , (CK ) , GO TO "^1 LET R = V«^7*2.^A«niNT(K:,«<t<)

LFT TUPsTD* ( -V + <;QPT ( R ) ) /A

r,o TO «;?

=^ I LET TUPsTO + ROTT ( M ) 57 LF'T TMAX(TIEUP)=T||P

FILF TIFUP IN THTM<K)

CRFATF FTPip

STOPF Ktf !M Pvv A Y ( F T I UP ) «?TORF ? IN PT(FTIUP»

CAUSFFTIUPATTMAX(TIFIIP)

CRFATF TIEUp

LFT TMIff(TIEUP) =Tn

LFT TMAX ( T I EUP ) =TUP

LFT J J = 3

r, O TO 13

17 DESTROY TIFuP

no TO !

M

13 r,0 TO(IM,|3!,137),JJ

13 1 FILF T I FUP I N THT I ( K tf ) GO TO 135

!32 FILT TIEUP IN rpTM^K)

I 3S CRF A TF ET I up

STORE <y I*" P*AY(FTIUP)

STOPF JJ IN PT(FTIUP)

CAUSE rTlllP AT TMAX(TIFUP)

I M LOOP

IS CREATE MXTOP

STORE K IN RWAYfNXTOP)

LE T NF X T ( K ) =n CAUSE NXTOP AT T c oTFM - The dfl«v incurrtd py this tajceoef

IFT nTFM*(TD-TnMIM(K)-TIN(FL))»60.

IE TH IS T^EG^GO TO SO

CREATE PRINT

C STnpF nATA TO ^f PECORDED *T THE TIME THE TAKEOEF TURNS

C ON TO THE PUNVAY,

STORE DTEM IN nLAY(PPINT)

5T0RE»flNRWAY(PRINT)

STOPFIINOP(PPINT)

CAUSE PRINT AT TO

SO DESTROY FL^ C>LL»^n FL

LET I AST (K ) »LAST ( K )

t

RET IIP ^J lA WRITEOrjTAPFA.TIME.K

FORMAT (• AT T I MF • ,07 . M ,S2 ,

• T Atf FOFF QUEUE EOR R UN W A Y •

, I 3 , S 2

1 • I S FMPT Y ) STOP

FND TOFF

63
rMPOGFMOUS rVFNT FTIIIP

r FTIUP PFMOVES TIFIIPS FPOM THFIP SFTS AND DESTROYS THEM WHEN

C «;iMiiLATFD TIMF "ASSFS THF '^ND-LlMlT OF THE TIEUP.

<; TOPF PW A Y ( f T I UP ) I N K ,

. STnPF PT(FTIIIP) !M J : : HFSTPOY FT r UP

r,OTO(in,?n,-in),j

in PFMnvF fip«;t tifup from omymk")

r;o TO MH . 71 PFMOVF FIPST TIFtJP FROM THTI(lf)

r,o TO *40 30 "FMOVF FIRST TIFUP FROM FRTI(K)

MO OFSTROY T I TUP

PFTURN : FNO FT I lip .

64
FMnor^PNOUSEvrMTrHniiP

LFT IHnUR=IHnilP*|

IF IHnuR r,T NH, LET IH01IP«|

LFT TaT I MF+ I . IF T LF TFMD, C41JSF CHOMR AT T DOTOI.FORFACHOI

5T0RF GFNN I I ) T KJ GFN

CAMCFL GFN

CAl. LRNT, (••IMITR,«R,!,0)

CAUSF r,FU AT TTMF-LAMBr>( I , !HOilP)»ALnr,( ! .-R)

I LOOP

TF TIMf: LF Tt^FT, , RFTiJRN

LFT I I = I HOURI

no TO M, FOR TATH R"* K LFT N0P<; = HNRW ( K , I ) HNRW ( 1^ , ? ) r)0Tni?,F0P FACHOI

LFT TNP*(K,I )aTMR<»(t«:,I )*HNP*(K,! ) I? LOOP

tFCAPGjn, r,OTOII

IF K- GT I , GO TO ?0

WPITF ON TAPF A,, I I , K , HNRW ( K- , 7 ) ,HNRW ( K , I ) , NOPS

FORMAT «IM,1A,S«»,3I9)

GO TO ?7

?n WRITF ON TAPF A» K , HNRW ( r , 7 ) , HMPI* ( K , 1 ) , NOPS

FORMAT ( SM , I 6 ,SM , 3 I P

)

GO TO 77

II LFT TOFLsO.

DO TO 7 , FOR F ACH 0 I LFT TDRW((K,I)sTnR«)»(K',n*HDP»l'(»C.I)

LFT TnFL = TnEL*HOR«(ti',i)

? LOOP

IFT nisMNPlVOf,!)

IF R| GT n,, GO TO

IFT 0 I a 0

.

GO TO A S LFT DI«HOR*'(K,|)/Pi

^ LFTp7aHNPW(K,?)

IFB?GTC.,G0T0 7

I FT 07 = 0,

GO TO fl 7 LFT 0?»Mnpw ( K , 7 WO?

« LFT P3sM0PS

IF 83 GT 0., GO TO <> LFT 0 3=0.

GO TO 10

9 LTT 03=T0FL /P3

65
i n ! r K- r, T 1 , r, o T o 7 I /'RJTE orj TApr A, fl,<,MNRiW(t<', 7), HNP^WJK, I), NOPS, 02,01,03

TO 7 7 71 WRITF ON TAPF 6, K » HN R W ( K , ? ) , H N R W ( K , I ) , N 0 P S , 0 2 , D I , D

3

FORMAT (SM,I6,SM,3I«»,S3,307,|)

?? nOT0-^,rORFACH0I

irTHnRW(K,i)=n.

LTT HNR'V { C , I

) sO

3 . LOOP .

.

:

4 I. OOP .

'''^ ' -T;; RF TURN r, FND CHOUR . ^^!. .V;;^;^^

66
FN'^OGFMnuSEVrNTPRINT

PRI^^T RrC^Rnc; Hata on FACW nTr,HT AT THF TIME IT ACTUALLY

ynurHE'? DOAN OR TuRMS OM TP TMF RUNWAY, AS THE CASE MAY BE.

ST0Rr9WAYfPRINT)INK

STORE nLAY(P''INT) IN D 5T0PF0P(PPIMT) iNf

OFSTROY PR I NT

LET HOR*^ ( K , 1 ) sHPR * ( r , n 40

LFTHNPWO^.nrWMP^cif,!)*!

NTOFF AND ML*MO ARE THE TOTAL MliM^FP OF TAKE0EF5 AND LANDINGS

DUPING TH I <^ HniJR , DELT AND DELI ArnjMDLATF TOTAL DELAY ON TAKEOEES AND

LANDINGS BY HOUR.

GOT0(in,?n),T

LF T NTOFF ( I HOUR ) xNTOFF ( 1 HO'IR ) t L'^T DEL T ( I HOUR ) =DFL T ( I HHiiR ) D

RETURN

LET NLAND( IH01JR)=NLAND( IHODR)*!

L>^T DELL(IHOi)R).DELL(IH0UR)*D

RETDPN

F M D P R I N T

67
FMnn(;FNinijs fvfmt fnds

WR I TF OM T APF A , I N I TR

F0f7M/iT ( • 0 • / / • HF I N AL RAWHOH NUMRfR SPED .012)

WRITF nM TAPF A FORMAT (MSUMMARY PFPORT FOR THIS RUN*//)

WRITF0HTAPF6

FORMAT (SE^, 'TOTAL THRO UrnHPttT*//

1 , » PDNW A Y , Sfl ,

• OPFR AT I ONS P F P F 0 R M F 0 • / S | 9 ,

• L A ND I N GS TAKEOFFS*,

2 '=;'4

, • TOT Al • / ) LFT ML ANOsH

;^LFT MTnFF=" " ' 'V-/.

DO TO I, rOR rATH RW K- LFT MLANDsMLftNn*TNRW(K,?) ' \ LFTMT0FFsMTnFF4.TNRW(K,l)

LFT M 0PS = TMRW(K,?)4-TMRW(K,1)

WRITF ON TApr A, K , T M R W ( K , 7 ) , T w R W ( K , | ) , N 0 P

S

FORMAT (Sin»II,SM,31IO)

LOOP -.^ , ,^ LFT MOPSsMLAMO-fMTOFF . ' WRITF OM TAPF A, ML A NO , MJOFF , MOPS c :: FOPMAT (S9, 'TOTAL ,'^110///)

WRITF OM TAPF f, FORMAT (SS,»AVFRAGF HOURLY THROUGHPUT*//

1 Sfl , •PUMWAY* ,Sfl, 'OPFRATTONS PFPFORMFO • /S I 9

, • L AND I NGS TAKEOFFS',

? 5 '4 , • T 0 T A L / ) LET THPaTFND-TPEG T''

LFT TLAN0«O,

LFT T TOFF «0.

DO TO 7, FOR FACH PW K LFT T I = TNRW ( < , I ) LFT TTOFF«TTOFF*T

1

I FT T I =T 1 /THP

LFT T ?=:TNR«v ( K" , 2 ) L F T T L A N D = T L A M D T 7 LET T73T?/THP

LET T = T M R * r K , I ) T M P W ( , ? ) LET TsT/THP , WRITF ON TAPF A, , T ? , T t , T FORMAT (SI'^,II,SM,30'^.n

LOOP : LFT T= ( TL A^'O + TTOFF ) /THR

LET TL AND=TLAMO/THR

LET TTOFFsTTAFF/THR .'Z. \

WRITE ON TAPE A, TL AND , TTOFF ,

T

FORMAT f59,»TOTAL*,SI,3nfl,!///)

68
WPTTFONTApr^

roPMAT (SS,»AvFPAr,r hoijoly nriAV*//

I <;«,•9ll^JVVAY,«;||,•nFLAY (MlNiiTrS)»/«;i9, 'LANDINGS TAKE0FFS»,5M,

7 • TCT AL / ) LFT OLANOcn,

iFTornrrsn,

no TO 1, rnp FACH P* tc LFT T 1 = TOP* (

t*" , t ) LFT DTOFFsHTOFF+T

h

LFT T|=T|/ThP

LFTT? = TnPi''(>f,?)«''

LFT DLANn = r^LAV'n*T7

LFT T ?mT2/THP

LFT TsTOPW ( K , ! ) TnPW « K , ?

)

LFT T=T/THP

V.'PlTFnNTAPF/,,v,T7,Tl,T

rnpMAT(5ir,I!,*^M,3 0P.i)

3 LOOP

LFT T=(^LA^'D^>TOFF)/THP

LFT nLAND=nLAMO/THP

LFT PTOFF =n T OTF /THP

/'PITF OM TAPF A, DL AMD .niOFF , T FOPMAT (S9, 'TOTAL • ,S1 , 3nfl. I ///)

q STOP

FMO FMOS

US( OMM-NBS-DC

69