NBSIR 74-593^^)

A Concept for New Establishment

Criteria for Airport Surveillance

Radar

William F. Druckenbrod

C. Warren Hurley

Technical Analysis Division

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

October 1974

Prepared for Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Aviation System Plans

Washington, D. C.

NBSIR 74-593

A CONCEPT FOR NEW ESTABLISHMENT

CRITERIA FOR AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE

RADAR

Williain F. Druckenbrod

C. Warren Hurley

Technical Analysis Division

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

October 1974

Prepared for Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Aviation System Plans

Washington, D. C.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. Frederick B. Dent, Secretarv NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Richard W. Roberts. Director

A Concept For New

Establishment Criteria for ASR/ATCRBS/BDS

1. Purpose

The purpose of this study is to define the role of the Airport

Surveillance Radar, Air Traffic Radar Beacon System, Radar Bright Display

(ASR/ATCRBS/BDS), to ascertain the benefits it provides, to present a benefit/cost concept for new establishment criteria for ASR, and to identify

factors relevant to that concept.

2.0 Background

2.1 An ASR/ATCRBS/BDS is the hardware which upgrades a manual approach

control terminal facility to a radar approach control terminal facility.

It consists of an ASR, the primary airport surveillance radar which provides

aircraft target display information on the arrival and departure controllers

radar display scopes; an ATCRBS, a cooperative secondary radar system which

enhances or augments the reliability and facilitates identification of the

targets by interrogating transponder equipped aircraft; and a BDS, a remote

bright display radar scope located in the tower cab to provide the local

controller with an overview of the traffic situation. For convenience,

this system will hereinafter be referred to as ASR in this report.

2.2 The existing establishment criteria for ASR contained in FAA Airway

Planning Standard No. 1 (APS-1) are as follows:

2.2.1 Establishment . An FAA approach control tower which records 50,000

or more annual itinerant operations of which 10,000 or more are scheduled

air carrier operations (for three consecutive FAA annual counts) , is a candidate for ASR/ATCRBS/BDS.

2.3 In addition to the above establishment criteria, APS-1 also contains

criteria for decommissioning and improving an ASR. While these criteria

must be considered in any study of the establishment criteria, this

consideration is of secondary importance because any changes in them must

directly reflect changes that are ultimately made in the establishment criteria.

2.4 The need for reviewing and updating the FAA's present establishment

criteria for terminal facilities and services has been stimulated by a number of events. Prominent among these is the rapidly escalating costs

of establishing, operating, and maintaining FAA facilities and services.

In addition, there is the threat that these costs may eventually be borne

entirely by the direct aviation users of the facilities and services. As

a result the aviation users, particularly the general aviation segment, are
taking a much harder look at the justification of new terminal facilities

being established by the FAA. On the other hand, the air carrier segment

of the aviation community has expressed the feeling that every airport with

scheduled air service should have as a minimum, air traffic control service,

approach control service (radar at locations having 7500 or more annual ^ air carrier operations) , and an instrument landing system (ILS) . Consequently,

the different viewpoints of the general aviation and air carrier segments

of the aviation community must be recognized in the development of new or modified ASR establishment criteria.

2.5 A problem with the current ASR establishment criteria is that they are based on the volume of annual activity. The more critical, shorter term

operational requirements for terminal radar service are not reflected in the

criteria. For example, it is presently possible for a location with a less critical operational requirement to be provided terminal radar service

before another location with a more critical operational requirement because

the first generates a higher annual count.

3.0 Functions of the ASR

3.1 The establishment of an ASR at an FAA approach control tower provides

the controllers with a visual presentation of their traffic. It permits

the use of reduced separation standards and provides the controllers with the

capability of vectoring arrival and departure traffic which reduces the need

for holding and procedural approaches thereby increasing the utilization of the

terminal airspace and expediting the flow of traffic. Therefore, the primary

function of an ASR is to achieve a more efficient utilization of the terminal

airspace and thus expedite the flow of IFR traffic under actual instrument

conditions by providing radar approach and departure service.

3.2 Secondary functions provided by ASR include VFR radar advisory service

and radar navigation assistance. VFR radar advisory service consists of

advising VFR pilots of separation between a VFR aircraft and other observed

aircraft, advisories to identified aircraft when a situation appears to

constitute a potential traffic hazard, weather and chart information, and radar

navigation assistance to avoid areas of bird activity or other local obstructions.

VFR radar advisory service is offered only when permitted by the controller's

workload. Radar navigation assistance is the provision of navigation assistance

to lost or disoriented pilots or in other emergency situations. There is

often a tendency to include many of the individual secondary functions of

ASR as primary functions; such as vectoring a VFR pilot in when he finds

himself caught on top of cloud cover, low on fuel, lost, or with equipment

malfunctioning. However, these services can only be provided by an ASR if one is present. If an ASR is not present, the pilot can still resort to other

FAA provided means of assistance such as DF and other emergency services offered

through FSS, ARTCC and tower facilities. The ASR can be classified as a limited means of offering navigation assistance to pilots in the immediate

area of the airport.

2
4 . 0 Discussion of Functions of ASR

4.1 Tlie primary function of an ASR becomes an operational requirement

at a manual approach control facility when the traffic situation

at the airport, under IFR conditions, is such that manual approach

separation standards and procedures result in significant delay to

the arriving and departing aircraft. This is the fundamental reason

for adding an airport surveillance radar capability to a manual approach

facility and should, therefore, be the dominant element in establishment

criteria for ASR. The problem is to define the level of delay which

is significant in the sense that its cost to the aviation users begins

to justify the high cost of the radar system. This involves consideration

of a number of factors, all of which vary from one airport to another.

4.2 The first consideration is the volume of traffic at the airport.

However, since the primary function of the ASR is to expedite arrival

and departure traffic under IFR conditions, the interest logically

focuses on the traffic situation during these conditions. Peak day,

busy hour, and average hour traffic activity data presently are available

for all FAA tower airports. Mowever, the peak day and busy hour data

are too gross for the purposes of this study, and the average hour

data are not operationally meaningful. Teclmically , the actual number

of operations that occur during each hour an airport is operating under

IFR conditions would be required to precisely compute the total

aircraft delay. These data are not currently published but are available

from existing flight strip information at all manual approach facilities.

However, to decipher the required information from these strips and

to compute the total delay for each hour an airport is operating

under IFR conditions would require a prohibitive amount of effort.

A review of actual hourly traffic at airports with a level of activity

at which ASR might be justified, indicated that a more practical approach

to the problem is to obtain approximations of the delay and the number

of hours during the year an ASR would be helpful in reducing the

delay. The review also indicated that traffic levels below 10 operations

per hour appear to be too low to justify an ASR unless unusual operational

considerations exist. An analysis was made of the data obtained from a limited field surveyl./ and of the data from the FAA computer program listing

the actual scheduled air carrier activity at the airports included in the

survey. It was found that a factor of 75% could be applied to the reported

number of operations during the most active hour of the week under IFR conditions

to obtain an approximation of the number of hours during the year an ASR

would be beneficial. In this report, a busy IFR hour is defined as an hour in

which the number of operations at a specific aii^port is equal to or exceeds

75?i of the number of operations during the most active IFR hour of the week.

The factor of 1S% should be further confirmed by field testing under IFR

operating conditions at airports within the range of interest.

4.3 The next factors to consider are: the number of times during the year

that the local busy IFR hour occurs, and the mix of aircraft types involved.

These data are necessary to determine the cost of delay during the busy IFR

hours of a year.

- See Section 5.5 and Appendix A of this report for details of this survey.

3
4.4 The principal user benefit provided by the primary function of the

ASR is reduction of delay. The value of the delay saved should be the

princii:)al factor in justifying the cost of the facility.

4.5 It is the opinion of the authors of this report that the VFR radar

advisory service and the navigation assistance service fimctions would never

either individually or in combination, by themselves, provide sufficient

Justification for tiie establisliment of an ASR. However, if an impact

analysis of the concept ])resented in this report indicates narpinal results,

the additional benefits provided by the secondary functions might be considered

to Justify the establishment of an ASR at an airport with unusual operational

requirements.

4.(1 It is not possible to consider the benefits of an ASR system

without some discussion of safety. While there is no doubt that a radar

approach control environment in which the controllers have a visual

presentation of their traffic should provide some safety advantages over

a manual approach environment, the FAA's concept has always been to design

its air traffic control techniques and procedures to provide equivalent

safety under all conditions of facility capabilities and control environments.

Time and resources allocated for this particular study did not permit an analysis of the safety aspects of radar versus manual approach environment,

but a brief review of a previous analysisl/ of this problem did not produce

any conclusive evidence that one environment is safer than the other. Of the

relatively few total accidents that occur within the NAS, usually only a very

small fraction of them can be directly related to a specific control environment.

The number of such accidents is far too small to develop valid accident

statistics comparing one control environment with another. This tends to

lend support to the validity of the FAA's concept that all control environments

can be made equally safe by proper control techniques and operating procedures.

(Vi this basis, the authors of this report feel that safety, per se, should

not be a relevant factor in establishment criteria for ASR.

4.5 In summary, the function and benefit related factors at a specific

airport that are relevant to establishment criteria for the ASR system are

as follows: ,

4.6.1 No. of operations during a busy IFR hr.

4.6.2 No. of times a year that a busy IFR hr. occurs.

4.6.3 The difference in delay generated during a busy IFR hour between

a radar and a non- radar approach control environment.

4.6.4 The categories of aircraft and number of passengers delayed and the

cost of that delay.

'1.h.S A quantifinble measurement of the benefits derived from the secondary

runctio-n^ o!" u\v AhK.

-Special Study, ASR Program Effectiveness and Establsihnent Criteria,

l-AA, SRDS, August, 1973.

4
5 . 0 Approach to Criteria Development

5.1 The proposed benefit/cost concept for new establishment criteria for

ASR is represented by the following formula:

C^(^ + Vp + >, 1, where:

^AC

^ T'otal operating cost of all aircraft which would be saved by

converting from a manual approach control facility to a radar

approach facility. These costs may be estimated by using the

operating cost per hour data shown in Table 5.1.

Vp = Total value of the passengers' and occupants' time in the

above aircraft. The data shown in Table 5.1, in the columns,

Number of Passengers, and Value of Passengers' Time are used

for computing these values.

B„ = Value of secondary benefits provided by ASR. (Time did not permit

the development of this factor. [See paragraph 7.1.1).

AOC^gj^ = The Annual Operating Cost of an ASR/ATCRBS/BDS which is

.

' $663,000. This figure was derived from current ASR cost data

provided by FAA/AFS as shown in Appendix A.

Table 5.1 shows the factors that have been used in other FAA analyses

for aircraft operating costs, passenger and occupant load factors, and the

value of passengers' and occupants' time.

5
TABLE 5.1

E^ACTORS USED FOR ESTIMATING DELAY COST

USER

CATEC^ORY

AIRCRAFT

OPERATING

COST/UR

$

NUMBER OF

PASSENGERS

OR

OCCUPANTS

VALUE

PASSENGERS

Tim

$/HOUR

TOTAL AIRCRAFT DELAY

COST/HR

$

AC 800 36 15 1340

AT 250 10 15 400

GA^^ 100 2.5 21.75 143.50

^•^LOC

50 - 2 15 80

800 20 15 1100

^"^1F,D

250 10 15 400

MTL^^, 100 2.5 15 137.50

NOTE

Because of the small difference between the total delay cost/hr for

GAyy and MIL^^^, a cost of $140/hr was used for both categories for plotting

the curve in Fig. 6.1.

6
5.2 An analysis was made of the traffic characteristics and the present ASR

establishment criteria at 20 randomly selected FAA tower airports with total

annual operations in the range of 50,000 to 250,000, These airports and

their activity during FY73 are shown in Table 5.2. Of the 20 FAA towers on these airports, 5 are VFR, 9 are manual approach control and 6 are radar

approach control.

5.3 Figures 5.1,5.2, and 5.3 show the distribution of traffic by user

category at the 20 airports.

5.3.1 Figure 5.1 indicates that at all but 8 of the airports, itinerant

operations were in the range of 50 to 60% of total operations. The

airport with the highest percent of itinerant operations to total operations

has a WR tower and approximately 100,000 annual total operations. The airport

with the lowest percentage of itinerant to total operations has a manual

approach control tower and approximately 226,000 total operations. All 20

airports have air carrier operations, which, except for three airports, are in

the range of about 4 to 16% of the total operations. The airport with the

highest percentage (about 281) of air carrier operations has a VFR tower

and about 125,000 annual total operations. Air taxi operations constitute

about 6 percent or less of the total traffic at all but 2 of the 20 airports.

The airport with the highest percentage (approximately 12%) of air taxi

operations has a manual approach control tower and approximately 104,000 annual

total operations.

5.3.2 Figure 5.2 shows that at all but one airport, total general aviation

operations constitute greater than 50% of the total operations. At 5 airports

where total general aviation operations are more than 90% of the total operations,

one has a radar approach control tower, 2 have manual approach control

towers, and 2 have VFR towers. At most of the 20 airports, general aviation

itinerant operations are in the range of 25 to 50% of total operations with

general aviation local operations in the same range. At 3 airports where

general aviation itinerant operations represent about 60% of the total activity,

one has a manual approach control tower, one has a radar approach tower, and

one has a VFR tower. One airport where general aviation local operations are

in excess of 60% of the total operations has a manual approach control tower.

5.3.3 Figure 5.3 shows that at 7 of the 20 airports, military operations

generate about 14 to 30% of the total operations. At those 7 airports,

there are 2 radar approach control towers, 4 manual approach control towers,

and one VFR tower. At those same 7 airports, military local operations range

from 10 to 22% of the total operations.

5.4 The above analysis indicates the wide range of different traffic

characteristics at the 20 randomly selected airports. It also gives an indication of how the current ASR establishment criteria are being

implemented. Only 2 of the 6 airports with radar approach control towers

meet the current establishment criteria of 50,000 or more annual itinerant

operations, of which 10,000 or more are scheduled air carrier operations.

The 2 airports meeting these criteria have but 50,629 and 59,796 itinerant

7
00 o vO

Ci LT) o o

LO

i-H I-H

oo o «* LT) f- (Nl to I—

'3- oo to

00 to r- to (Nl (Nl

(Nl

18,0

(Nl to

14,4 to

to

(Nl

12,6

(Nl (Nl

10,6 to

22,0 o

lO LT) vD 00 00 CO o vO to IN. r-t to en I—

to 1—1 1—1 to

(-^ LT) o

OO r-- (N) (3^ (NJ CTl to rH 00 LO o o o to 00 C7i a\ (Nl to to LO (NJ to vO to rsi to (NJ "* LO o

00 (Nl to rH 1—

a> vO l-t I-H

l-t vO

to

00

(NJ to

00

to "3- o

to

00LO vO

LO

(NJ \0

o

(NJ

oto 00o IN.

00o

o LO (NJ LO o o 00 to

LO I-H oo o to

.—

CO LO to •* 1—

00 o (NJ LO rj (NJ LO

(Nl (Nl 1^ I—

LO (Nl

i-l 1—I O I—

(Nl

00

to

(Nl

00

(Nl (Nl

(Nl

(NJ 00 1^

0\

(NJ vO00

(Nl

o

o

I—

«* (Nl 1—

to 1—

«* 00 vD to o LO •<3- \o

1—

(Nl CO o CO to IN. f—

to 00 o o o OO

to

I—

(Nl IN. (Nl 1—

•>3- to to

00

In

'a- o

(NJ

(NO OO

00 LO

00

LO

iHLO

IN.

IN. to rN

vD

1^OO

(31 LO LO

(Nl Csl (Nl LO

(NJ LO LO\0 to

LO to IN. 1—1 (?» vO to to 00 (NJ CM o O VO LO o o to (Nl 00

1—

to (NJ o (NJ IN.

(Nl vO (Nl I—

to 1—

to

cn

I

CO LO «^ (n: to LO

(NJ to (NJ vO o LO

IN. O•» cn o o

00 LO LO vO to (Nl 00 vO 1-1 (Nl

(NJ

(NJ o00

c.

LO

fN

1—1 o

to00

•H c3 < H

CTl o (NJ \D o o to 00

to LO 00 oo LO 00 to 00

to CO rH (NJ to 1—1 1—1 (Nl 1—1 (Nl l~^ to oI—

LO r~ 1—

LO

LO00

to

LO

LO

fNoo

00

PNoLO

to

to

to

(Nl (Nl r-l 00 m 00 00 IN. LO LO o 1—

o cn o to to 00 (NJ to CO 1^

to o VO I—

00 00 to

(N! 00 CJi IN. LO cn

00 o (NJ to 1—

VO iO

(Nl LO to 1—1 CM

1—

lO

<

o

U -r-t < ^

CO u

< I

(NJ

LT. OJ .5

P~- IN

to o 1—

tN

1—

(NJ CM

to

LO

1—

oto

(NJ

(Nl to

to

1—1 LO

to

00vO

1—1

vO

cr% cn

LO

1—

to

to

1—

LO O

tO vO

to

to

toOi(Nl LO

rH

vO

vO

(NJ to

CO

to

to

fH

I—

1—1 LOto

VO en LO vO LO oo 1-1

1—1 00

1—1 o1—

CT^ 1-1 CT^ (Nl

1—1 1—

tn

tN

tN.

CT)

LO

r-l r)-

iH

00

vO

to

to

t-~- 1—

1—1

tovO

vO

rH

1—

1—1 CT>

(Nl LO

vO

vO

CTl

r.-

1—1 to

to

to

1—1

to

toO

(NJ 00

to

00

(NJ Oto

eT>

(NJ vO

fNI OO1—

CM

(Nl

(Nl LO

(Nl 1—1 vOvO

vOO

1—

to -O

1^ 00 VO

vO

LO CT^ LO

vO 00 to

LO

to

(Nl

l-t

vO

LO OLO oLO vO

r-i Vi +J (L)

IN. LO

to

to O LO

vO 'S- 00 o

00

vD

to

(NJ to

LOo

vO

(Nl o

o(Nl

CT^ LO

vO

00

to CTl 00

to

LO o

o

to

<7l VO o

lO

00 to

(Nl vO

LO

CT^ (Nl 1*

VO

to

CT» vO

tN 00 oCT)

CT^ tO

(Nl

1^o

0000too

vO

<

B

a.

<

in /—

a. ^—

v^ d

CO « u u

a c u C3 o V) if •H

CO -t-l c o" XI u t-l u

^- c a & <D CQ •-3 CO cull CO

CI*LI

(->

rt

ou

c

>

CO a:I

c

I—

a

V ' (AG

1—1

CO* 1—1 u.

CO 1—

CJ

co" c 1—

o CO •iH u CO

CO p.

tf) c

Pe Au 6

55

a;

CQ

O

3

cr

(33

I—

t—

CO o Qi a.

UJ

V ' >-' o co' o •I-l 0) ex bO 1—

•H oT

1—1 •H

Ul o • H 1—

>- w

>-

V '

CO

8
a re

00 o

00 K1 rs) LO

'a- 00

cn CI vO

vO o LO O 00

00 o CTi

i-H CD CO

00

(NJ

LO

00

rsi LO

ro

LO bO O fO ^ 00

I—I (Nl

00

LO

'3- r- to LO

.—

(

00

oo 00 LO

oto to

to Oto

00

too"3-

LO Oi to LO LO LO r—

I

o rsi \0 1—

<

cn

rs) to

(Nl o

o

C

C

ou

t-- 1—

(

LO

,648 O

rH 1—

1

1—

(

o ,088 00

rH

<3- 00to o fsj LO

fN) o00

rsi

rsi 00

rs)

LO

(SI

|-~. oo1—1 oLO

to LO iH 1—1 rg rH 1—1 1—1 rsi to to rs) rH

rsi

to to o

LO to

to rH rsi SO (S) 00 00

LO LO O sD rH (S) rH rsi to

rH LO fS)

(SJ LO 00

to vO

rH

vO

CTi

<3- to

rsj to

,476 LO ooo

i<r

rv>

1—1 to

too

toorH

<S1 to

CM

CTi 00

LOorH o rs) rH

SO

rH

<S1

r^

toLO O

Orsi (S) • 00vO

00

00 rH rsi rj rH rH rH rH «SJ (S)

I—

I

>I—

(

<

o

rsi LO

too

'3- o

LO

\0

00

CTl (SI

(SI vO

CTl rH to

t-^ r-- Tj- rH LO to

rsg o LO

00

1* o

00oo

LO

LO

to

rH to to LO (sg 1^ CTi

to

t~s.

<»

LO

(sg

CTi (sg to Oto

LO

CT> to

ts- rs) O rH 00 o (SI rH rH Ol CTI LO

•rt o rsi

(3^ rsi ^ O rH LO

LO rj- fsg O rH

00 O

CD

'O

to

00 1—

1

o vO o to LO rsi to CTi

1—1 rH

o

1—

I

o

to

fs- 00

00 o 00 o 1—1 LO

rg 00 i-n 00 00

rH o1—1

CTi

to

(SI o SO CTi CSl

CTi to 1—

1

00 CT> to

r-- SO o rH rH rg

o1—1 to

00 LO (Ji LO

LO LO o o OO rH

00 LO LO LO

rs) eg

LO

CTi SO OCs) LO to

1—

1

o (Ti o rH

rg rH

r~s ooo

to

to

rg

fsj LO

to

CTi (SI

rH o o vO 00 (SI

(Ji 00 oo

r-H LO o O to rH

rH

rH to rg

o o O^ to

00 rH a\

CTi o

to rH

to

CTi LO

to

to 1* rH

LO LO (SI rH on CT^ LO LO to

,248 rH

CTi

CTiM

,703 ,429 ,167 oo CO

vO

rg

CTi

too

06T

1—1 SO

rH

rH

CTs

CT\ so 00 (SI 00rH o (7i 00 00rH

torHOO

LO so rs. <» to sD

00 sO sO CTi o (Ji to to sC

(SI O 00 (sg o rg rH vO rsi

CTi rsi O to

00 rg oo rg (SI to to (sg O CTi rH to rg rH

,587 ,872 ,983 ,579 00

rH

LO o

LO (SI

(Ji SO

vO

to

LO

to

r~s to

rH

(SI -•H o 00

(sg 00

(SI oto

CTi rH vO LO

*\ so

(SI

CT^ rH

< re u

>s

(U

CO

Cu

10c

•iHQ.

re a,

/ s <COCO

s ' to

Ca

re* u re

^-

re o

4-1 c re

(U CQ

re

+-> (J«

CO

I 3 I E

ou

o>

re

(L)

5

I1—

1

CO i

2: /—

\

a. CO s / o

s<

/ rH

re re' rH

u. u.

re' :i G C

C "oo 5

6 re lb t/; c re c

^^e <u Au 6 Ba

/—

s

cu

CO

I—

(

J=' /—

s

s ' O

s /

toi Pa

IT. M c£ c C o

rH 3 •rH

1—1 LO O u

AS

re

9
FIGURE 5.1

AIRPORT ACTIVITY FY 197^

O

s

O o

o

Symbols -

O Radar Approach

Cont rol

VFR Control

Tower

.t Manual .Approach

Control Tower

O

6 A

n

o

oo

A ^ , ° D

A

A

A

G_ A

A

o

o

100 150 ' 200 250

Total Aircraft Operations ( Thousands )

10 .
FIGITRI- 5.2

90 -

BO -

70

60 A

50

40

60

50 4

40

30 4

20

60

50

40 -

30 -

20

5D

AIRPORT ACTIVITY FY 19*73

A

AO

o

O A

o

O

A

^ o

AG"-.

Symbol s- ^ Radar Approach

Control ° VFR Control

Tower

^ Manual Approach

Control Tower

100 150 200 250

Total Aircraft Operatidns (thousands )

11
FIGURI: 5.3

AIRPORT ACTIVITY FY 1973

Symbol sO Radar Approach

Control

U VFR Control

Tower

Manual Approach

Control

O D

A O

O

n—Q.

0 , ^ 100 . 4 50 , 200 250

Total Aircraft Operations ( Thousands )

12
operations with 12,614 and 11,315 scheduled air carrier operations

respectively. Six of the 14 airports without radar control towers meet the

present ASR establishment criteria. Three of these 6 airports have manual

approach control and the remaining 3 have VFR control towers. The annual

itinerant operations for the airports without ASR range from 50,872 to over

123,000. The annual air carrier operations for these airports range from

5,168 to over 35,000.

5.4.1 Also of interest, is the distribution in the total annual instrument

operations which also reflect the need for ASR. The instrument operations

for 5 of the 6 airports with radar approach towers range from 28,966 to

46,247 while the instrument operations for the remaining 14 airports without

ASR vary from 7,949 to over 64,000. Another contrast of direct interest to

ASR is found in the instrument approaches which range from 3641 to 5751 for

the airports with ASR and from 65 to over 8,000 for the airports without ASR.

Nforeover, when the air taxi operations are added to the air carrier operations,

the implementation and deficiencies of the present ASR establishment criteria

become more apparent. The sums of these two categories of operations range

from 9,900 to over 18,500 for the 6 airports with ASR and from 9,175 to over

40,000 for the remaining 14 airports without ASR.

5.5 Additional data, not available from currently reported FAA activity

statistics, were required to pursue the establishment criteria concept being

investigated in this report. A survey form was designed to obtain estimates

of the current activities under typical hourly conditions at an airport. The

main objectives of the survey were; first, to obtain data concerning those

operating conditions of an airport directly related to the primary function

of an ASR; and, second, to determine the characteristics of heavy and normal

activity patterns not reflected by the reported "busy hour", "peak day",

"average hour", data. In the interest of time, a limited survey was made

at 10 of the 20 airports previously listed.

The survey form which was designed and used in obtaining estimates from

the ten tower chiefs is shown in Figure 5.4. Table 5.3 lists these airports

with a summary of the relevant data regarding the primary function of the

ASR. The forms were completed by telephone conversations with those tower

chiefs having the data readily available. The balance of the forms were

forwarded by mail.

The factor of 751 of the operations during the "Most Active Hour of

a Week" ws-s used to obtair^ an S-pproxiiTiciLioTi t^c ni^.ber of opcrs-uioriS

during the busy IFR hour. The tower chiefs submitted their estimate of the

total number of times that the busy hour occurred during the year. Copies of

the completed forms from the 10 airports are included in Appendix B. Because

of the hasty manner in which the survey was conducted and the possibility of

misunderstandings by the tower chiefs involved, a more comprehensive effort to

verify these data is suggested.

13
FIGURE 5.4

Survey Form Sample

Airport :

_

Location:

Category of

Operation

Number of Operations During -j the Most Active Hour of a Week

Mumber of Operations on A

^ Normal Traffic Activity Day

Under VFR

Conditions

Under IFR

Conditions

Under VFR

Conditions

Under IFR

Conditions

Itinerant

Local

Total

(A)

Instrument (B)

Please estimate the respective number of operations per hour during heavy traffic

activity day(s) under VFR and IFR weather conditions. The estimates should reflect

typical heavy traffic activity and not necessarily the "busy hour" or "peak day" of

the year.

Please estimate the respective number of daily operations during a normal traffic

activity day under VFR and IFR weather conditions. The estimates should reflect a normal or average activity day and not the heavy or light activity days.

Estimate the number of hours per year, the total operations^ shown

in blocks A and B above, equal or exceed 75% of the count s~noted:

75% of A . Hours per year total operations equal or exceed this value under

VFR conditions : hours

75% of B . Hours per year total operations equal or exceed this value under

IFR conditions : Hours

Please give a brief description of the pattern of heavy traffic (hours

of day, days of week, months of year, etc.) if a pattern can be

determined.

Estimate of number of days per year total operations equal or exceeds (see note)

days

.

Additional comments;

Note: The number inserted in this space represents 75% of

the "Peak Day" traffic reported for FY 1973.

14
Table 5.5

IFR Operations

(Results of Survey Conducted June, 1974)

Airport Name

Location

No. of Operations

Most Active

Hour of Week , / IFR ConditionsNo. of Times

Per Year^ the

Busy IFR-/ Type of 3

/

Hour Occurs FacilityMonterey Peninsula (MRY)

Nfonterey, Ca.

Palm Springs Mmicipal

Palm Springs, Ca.

21

14

Grand Junction-Walker Field (GJT) 5 Grand Junction, Co.

Tweed-New Haven (TWD) 15

New Haven, Conn.

Pensacola Regional -Hagler (PNS) 45

Pensacola, Fa.

Bangor Int'l. (BGR) 30

Bangor, Me.

Flint-Bishop (FNT) 60

Flint, Mich.

Youngstown Municipal (YNG) 29

Youngstown, Ohio

Harrisburg Int'l. (MDT) 13

Middletown, Pa.

Yakima Municipal (YKM) 12

Yakima, Wa.

1196

600

560

104

25

900

52

416

108

RAC

VFR

MAC

VFR

RAC

MAC

RAC

RAC

MAC

MAC

—'^See survey form - Figure 5.4

2/ - The busy IFR Hour is defined as an hour at a specific airport in which the total IFR

instrument operations equals or exceeds 75% of the most active IFR hour of a week.

3/— MAC - Manual Approach Control

RAC - Radar Approach Control

VFR - VFR Tower

15
5.5.1 An analysis o£ the data obtained in the survey indicates a wide

range in the relevant parameters of the need for an ASR at the 10 airports.

The number of operations during the most active hour of the week, under IFR

conditions, vary from a low of 5 at GJT to a high of 60 at FNT. The number

of times per year that the busy IFR hour occurs ranges from a low of 9 at

TWD to a high of 1196 at MRY. However, in the proposed establishment criteria

concept, neither of these two parameters by themselves are significant, but

the proper combination of the two determine the candidacy of a location for ASR.

5.6 The DELCAP simulation model— was used to obtain estimates of delay

with and without ASR available. Since the primary benefit from ASR is

obtained under IFR conditions, IFR separation rules are used. It was

assumed that ASR would permit minimum spacing (in this case 3 miles 2/ since

heavy aircraft would not use this category of airports) to be maintained at

high levels of traffic, while without ASR various manual procedures would

result in average spacings of 7.5, 10, and 15 miles at the same traffic levels.

It was further assumed that the airports in question would be operating as a single runway configuration when IFR conditions prevailed.

Two aircraft types, whose pertinent flight characteristics are given

below, are used in the simulation runs.

Aircraft Description

SPEEDS (KNOTS) RUNWAY OCCUPANCY (SECONDS)

TYPE LANDING LIFTOFF LANDING TAXEOFF

G/A 90 90 35 25

A/C 125 120 34 32

Four ratios of these two aircraft types were run; 10% G/A - 90% A/C,

201 G/A - 80% A/C, 40% G/A - 60% A/C, and 80% G/A - 20% A/C. Five traffic

activity levels were simulated; 10,15,20,25, and 30 operations per hour.

The distribution of the number of arriving aircraft is assumed to be Poisson.

In each case, it is assumed that half of the operations are landings and half

are takeoffs.

— Judith Gils inn, E.H. Short, W.A. Steele, and D. Klavan, A Simulation Model

for Estimating Airport Terminal Area Throughputs and Delays, National Bureau

of Standards Report Number 10592, Washington, D.C. 20234, May 1971.

21— Nautical miles in this report are expressed as miles

.

16
Delay is calculated for each aircraft, takeoff and landing, as the

difference of the flight time actually required from that which would have

occurred had no other aircraft been present. The calculations of the

delays in landings plus the dalays in takeoffs are shown in Table 5.4. The

values listed in Table 5.4 are the average of the results obtained from

twenty simulation runs utilizing different strings of random numbers for

generating the arrivals. Figures 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8 are plots of the

total delay per hour of operations of aircraft landing and taking off for

each of the four mixes of aircraft for airports operating in four different

approach environments; i.e., 3, 7.5, 10, and 15 mile separation of aircraft.

Figures 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4, which are used in the application of the criteria

described in the next section of this report, are plots of the differences,

or time saved per hour by operating in an ASR environment using a three mile

separation from the time required using 7.5, 10 and 15 mile separations.

Plots of the time saved for the four mixes of aircraft are shown for each of the

three separation distances.

The plots shown in Figures 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8, and Figures 6.2, 6.3,

and 6.4 terminate at the "ultimate capacity" values shown in Table 5.4. These

capacity values were calculated as twice the landing capacity with no takeoffs

present. The term "ultimate" is used to infer that the actual capacity is likely

to be somewhat less.

The ultimate capacities listed in Table 5.4 were calculated as shown

in the following example. At the 10 mile separation, the average time

between the touch down of one aircraft and the touch down of a following

G/A aircraft is;

10 miles = 0.11 hours,

90 knots

and, the average time between the touch down of one aircraft and the touch

down of a following A/C aircraft is;

10 miles r> no u = 0.08 hours.

125 knots

At the 20% G/A traffic mix, the probability of the landing aircraft being

G/A is 0.20, and the probability of the landing aircraft being A/C is 0.80.

17
Total Minutes of Aircraft Delay Per Hour of Operation

Operations

per Hour 101 G/A 20% G/A 40% G/A 80% G/A

10

15

20

25

30

5 Mile Separation

8.7 10.6 11.6

15.7 22.3 31.6

32.5 41.5 52.7

56.7 68.1 86.2

83.8 95.1 111.8

18.8

34.1

54.4

79.0

102.8

7.5 Mile Separation

10 14.7

15 30.0

20 81.5

25 283.6

30 744.0

Ultimate Capacity (32)

(opers./hr.)

16.9

39.8

106.3

472.2

1,549

(31)

21.2

49.1

185.3

1061.2

2,620

(30)

29.9

68.2

194.8

1,701

0/C

(26)

10 21.9

15 48.6

20 299.1

Ultimate Capacity (24)

(opers . /hr .

)

10 Mile Separation

/. 28.1 33.5

51.5 82.6

444.4 889.4

(23) (22)

43.2

119.9

0/C

(19)

15 Mile Separation

10 57.0 65.3 79.4 129.5

15 153.8 171.1 0/C 0/C

Ultimate Capacity (16) ' (15) (14) (12)

(opers./hr.)

0/C = over capacity

Table 5.4

18
figurf; 5.5

Delay P 101 (l/A - 90% A/C Mix

19
FIGURE 5.6

Delay 0 20% G/A - 80% A/C Mix

10 1 1 O S \0 25 30

OPERATIONS PER IFR HOUR

20
FIGURE 5.7

Delay @ 401 G/A - 601 A/C Mix

4000

O 5 \o \S 10 ZS 30

OPERATIONS PER IFR HOUR

21
FigjRI: 5 .8

Delay 0 80% G/A - 20% A/C Mix

O 5 lo SS to ZS" 30

OPERATIONS PER IFR HOUR

22
Tlierefore, the average time required per landing aircraft is;

.11 X .20 + .08 X .80 = .086 hours,

which yields an average rate of 11.6 landing aircraft per hour with no takeoffs.

In this example, i.e., 10 miles separation, the separation between landing

aircraft is great enough to permit takeoffs without affecting the sequence of

landings. Therefore, since half of the operations would be landings and half

takeoffs, the total potential operations per hour is 23 under the conditions

stated. Since these conditions can be considered as "ideal" relative to the

actual conditions under ivhich an airport is forced to operate, the capacities

computed in this manner are considered "ultimate". A slower aircraft landing

ahead a faster aircraft will generate a delay. This factor becomes evident

when the plots of the total delay for a A0°6 G/A mix are compared with higher

and lower percentages of G/A aircraft. The most critical condition would appear

in a 50°6 G/A mix.

In general, at the lower levels of operations per hour, the delay for

takeoffs is greater than that for landings since the landing aircraft always

have priority. However, as the ultimate capacities are approached, the

simulation model permits landing delays to exceed delays in takeoff to avoid

an excessive departure queue.

Additional simulation runs were made at the three mile and 7.5 mile

separations increasing the runway occupancy for landing A/C aircraft from

34 seconds to 60 seconds. No significant differences in the total delays

were apparent for this increase. However, the data suggest that runway

occupancy periods of over 60 seconds can become critical when computing

delays for a 3 mile separation distance.

During the survey, one of the ten tower chiefs reported that the ILS

runway had but one taxiway turn-off which was at the center of the runway.

A condition such as this would increase the runway occupancy time of A/C

and G/A aircraft in both takeoff and landing. It is therefore suggested that

delays be determined by using longer runway occupancy periods in the simulation

model

Several of the tower chiefs with ASR commented on the substantial

utilization of their facilities for instrument approaches to satellite airports.

A review of the FAA air traffic activity publications suggests the need for

further investigation of a means for computing delays at primary and secondary

airports. The existing DELCAP model may be capable of doing this with minor

modification.

6.0 Statement of Criteria and Sample Application

6. 1 Statement of Suggested Establislunent Criteria for ASR : Tlie primary purpose for converting an FAA manual approach control facility

to a radar approach control facility is to expedite the flow of arrival and

departure aircraft under IFR conditions. An FAA manual approach control facility

is a candidate for ASR/ATCRBS/BDS when the number of operations during the busy

IFR hour, and the number of busy IFR hours during the year are such that:

23
the cost of the aircraft delay estimated to be saved

by the addition of the ASR; plus

the value of the time of the passengers in the above

aircraft; plus

the value of other benefits provided by the ASR

is equal to or exceeds the annual operating cost of the ASR. Aircraft

using satellite airports under the jurisdiction of the ASR may be included

in the busy IFR hour count. A busy IFR hour is defined as an hour in which

the total number of operations is equal to or exceeds 75^ of the most active

hour of the week under IFR conditions. (An example of this condition is when

the number of operations during the busy IFR hours is 17, of which 80^6 or more

are air carrier or heavy military operations, and the busy IFR hour occurs 100

or more times per year.)

6 . 2 Sample Application

Assume that an FAA manual approach control facility, operating with a 7.5 miles separation distance, has 17 operations/hour during a busy IFR hour,

and that 20% or about 3.4 of the 17 operations are itinerant general aviation

and the remaining 13.6 operations are air carrier. The busy IFR hour occurs

100 times a year. To determine whether the location is a candidate for ASR

the following procedure is used: Figure 6.1 is used to estimate the delay

cost/hour for the specified traffic mix. (The curves in this figure are based

on generally accepted FAA factors for aircraft operating costs, passenger load

factors, and value of passengers' time as shown in Table 5.1). The air carrier

curve is entered at 13.6 operations/hour and the itinerant general aviation curve

at 3.4 operat ions /hour . From the curves, the delay cost/hour for the air carrier

operations is $18,500 and the cost/hour for the general aviation operations is

$460 for a total cost of $18,960/hour for that mix of traffic. In order to obtain

the expected cost of each plane in the mix, divide the total cost by the number

of operations during- the busy IFR hour, which yields $1115/hour for each

operation in this example. .

Next, since the separation is 7.5 miles. Figure 6.2 is used to estimate

the time saved/hour of operation, if the location had an ASR. The curves in

Figures 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 were derived from the delay estimates discussed in

paragraph 5.6. Entering the curve at 17 operations/hour for a mix of 20% general

aviation, the total aircraft delay saved is 0.48 hours/hour of operation. To

deteimine the dollar savings/hour of operation, the $1115 is multiplied by 0.48,

which is $532/hour. The $532 is next entered into the curve in Figure 6.5 and

extended out to 100, the number of busy IFR hours/year. In this particular

example, the intersection falls to the left of the curve. The curve in

Figure 6.5 is a plot of the ASR benefit/cost ratio equal to one. It is

predicated on the theory that since the ASR serves primarily an IFR function, its

annual operating cost should be ammortized during the period that it is being

used under IFR conditions. A manual approach control facility becomes a candidate location for ASR when the intersection of the Delay Cost/Hour of

Operation and the Number of Busy IFR Hrs/Yr. falls on or to the right of the curve.

If it falls on the curve, the benefit/cost ratio is one; if it falls to the

right of the curve, as in the example, the benefit/cost ratio is greater than one,

its value increasing as the intersection moves farther to the right of the curve.

24
FIGURE 6.1

Total Aircraft Delay Cost By

Category of Aircraft

100,000

I OPERATIONS PER IFR HOUR

25


FIGURE 6.4

Time Saved By ASR. 3 Mile vs. 15 Mile Separation

10 \5

OPERATIONS, PER IFR HOUR

28
BUSY IFR HOURS PER YEAR

29
7.0 Comments on Proposed Establishment Criteria

7.1 The time and resources allocated for this study did not permit a sufficiently comprehensive analysis of all of the aspects of the proposed

new establishment criteria for ASR. Although the limited analysis that was accomplished is felt to demonstrate that the proposed concept has promise,

there are areas which should be studied in more detail. Some of these are:

7.1.1 While it would be desirable to limit the proposed establishment

criteria to the primary function of the ASR, some credit must be assigned

to additional functions of the ASR in order that the establishment criteria

not be too rigid. The purpose of establishment criteria is to provide FAA

management with a tool by which the establishment of new FAA facilities

and services may be controlled or adjusted to be in consonance with such

constraints as the FAA budget, user requirements and safety considerations.

Thus the degree of rigidity of new establishment criteria should be

determined by FAA management . ,

7.1.2 The principle basis for the justification of an ASR in the^ proposed

establishment criteria is limited to values of the differences in delay which

would occur in a radar versus non-radar environments"^! Good delay data has been

historically difficult to obtain. For the purposes of this analysis, the

delay data generated by the DELCAP (discussed in Paragraph 5.6) simulation

model developed by MBS for the FAA were used. The delay generated by this

model is considered to be reasonably representative of the real world situation.

7.1.3 The air traffic activity data required to implement the proposed

concept are available, although not published, from flight strip information

gathered by the candidate locations. The DELCAP simulation can quickly and

reasonably generate the required estimates of delay that would be eliminated

by the ASR. FAA determined factors for aircraft operating costs, passenger or occupant load factors, and value of passengers' time are used in this analysis.

The passenger or occupant load factor data are the most subjective of these

factors and actual data would be preferable but are difficult to obtain.

The factor of 751 used to determine the busy IFR hour and the numbeT of IFR

hours per year should be validated by collecting and analyzing appropriate data

from a larger sample of airports.

7.1.4 Decommissioning and improvement criteria compatible with the proposed

establishment criteria must be developed.

7.2 Considerable work has been conducted on the development of benefit/cost

type of establishment criteria for FAA facilities and services during the past

four or five years. The desirability of this approach in a world of rapidly

escalating costs and tighter budgets is universally recognized. Previous

30
efforts have been confronted by problems of developing benefit/cost

type criteria which can be sdjnply explained, readily applied, and easily

understood by all concerned. In addition, some of these criteria consider

numerous ancillary benefits, based largely on subjective data, that the

primary operational requirement for which a facility or service is

established becomes almost totally submerged in irrelevant considerations.

It is felt that the proposed establishment criteria for ASR contained in this

study avoids these problems.

31
APPENDIX A

ESTIMATED A^MJAL OPERATING COST

ASR/ATCRBS/BDS

ANNUAL AMORTIZATION OF INVESTMENT

ESTABLISHMENT COST $2,000,000

ANNUAL AMORTIZATION (15 Yrs) 133,333

ANNUAL INTEREST (lO^o Simple) 100,000

ANNUAL AMORTIZATION § INTEREST

ANNUAL MAINTENANCE

Man Years

ASR

ATCRBS

BDS

CONTROL END EQUIP.

TOTAL ANNUAL MANPOWER

OTHER COSTS (UTILITIES, ETC.)

ASR

ATCRBS

BDS

CONTROL END EQUIP.

TOTAL OTHER COSTS

2.48

1.14

0.19

1.44

5.25 (a $20975

$6,749

2,172

723

5,221

$233,000

$110,120

$14,685

32.
STOCKS ^ STORES

ASR $9,600

ATCRBS 1,400

BDS 2,700

TOTAL STOCKS 5 STORES $13,700

STAFFING

15 ADDITIONAL CONTROLLERS @ $19,250 $288,750

ANNUAL FLIGHT CHECK 2,000

TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST $662,583

SOURCES : ^

^

ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE COSTS - AFS

STOCKS § STORES COSTS - ALG

STAFFING COSTS BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WITH ATS PERSONNEL

AND INFORMATION CONTAINED IN "AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL STAFFING

STANDARD SYSTEM, ORDER 1380.33", June 8, 1973

33
APPENDIX B

AIRPORT ACTIVITY SURVEY FORMS

34
Location: McyTtf rey , CLq. .

Number of Oi^erations During , the Most Active Hour of a Week

Number of Operations on A

2 Normnl Traffic Activity Dav

Category of

Operation

Under Vl-'R Conditions

1 Inr'm' IV-iC' L J.IFP1 i Conditions Conditions Conditions

Itinerant 4' ' IB 80

Local U 0

Total (A) 6 / X i 3 so Id 0

Instrument (B) ^ / 40 1 0 0

Please estimate the respective number of operations per hour during heavy traffic

activity .day (s) under VFR and IFR weather conditions. The estimates should reflect

typical hea\y traffic activity and not necessarily the "busy hour" or "peak day" of

the year.

2Please estimate the respective number of daily operations during a normal traffic

activity day under VFR and IFR weather conditions. The estimates should reflect a normal or average activity day and not the heavy or light activity days.

Estimate the number of hours per year , the total operations shovm

in blocks A . ;id B above, equal or exceed IS'^i of the counts noted:

751 of A 43 . Hours per year total operations equal or exceed this value under

VFR conditions : /3 s';? hours

75% of B }S_ . Hours per year total operations equal or exceed this value under

IFR conditions ://<?5 hours

Please give a brief description of the pattern of heavy traffic (hours

of day, days of week, months of year, etc.) if a pattern can be

determined. , . ^ ^1 m t U c\

Estiinate of number of days per year total operations equal or exceeds 3:10

HQ ' days

Additional comments:

3S
Airport: fgt Sp^i^^ fAu v,icip<\\

Location: Pc^lhn Sp^"^^^ -^, Co.

- Category of

0[:)eration

Nimhcr of Opera t ions During , tlie Most Active !'our of a Week

j Nianber of Operations on A \ Nominl Traffic Activity n.'iv" Under Vl-R

Condi t ions

Under Il-i. Conditions

Under Vi-'R Condi t ions

Under J.i-R Conditions

Itinerant \ ^^ :. 40

Local 1 1 0 O

Total

(A) /

/ 0 ;4 4 o

Instnment ' 40 (B) )4 2 OO 40

'Please estimate the respective number of operations per hour during lie avy traffic

activity day(s) under vTR and IFR v;eather conditions. The estimates should reflect

typical hea^/)^ traffic activity and not necessarily the "1-usy hour" or "peak day" of

the year.

'Please estimate the respective number of daily operations during a normal traffic

activity day under \TR and Il'R v;eather conditions. The estimates should reflect a normal or average activity day and not the heavy or light activity days.

Estimate the number of hours per year , the total one-rations sho\m

in blocks A and B above, equal or exceed IS'o or the counts noted:

751 of A S 2 • Hours per year total operations equal or exceed this value under

VFR conditions: 300 hours

75^0 of B jO__.

: ... Hours per year total operations equal or exceed this value under

IFR conditions: ^oq hours

Please give a brief description of the pattern of heavy traffic (hours

of day, days of week, months of year, etc.) if a pattern can be

determined. , -r ,1 TU (

Estimate of nignber of days per year total operations equal or exceeds -4 3 0

' "

' days.

Additional comments:

36
Airport:

Location : rA h (/ 7c/ c"t i c >? ^ o .

Category of

Operation

Number of Operations During

^ the.e Most_____ Active !!our of a Week

UnHer Vi'R

Conditions

Under IFR

Conditions

K\imber of Operations on A . Normal Traffic Activity Dav'^ Under Yi-'R Undei' Ifr

Conditions Conditions

Itinerant

Local

Total

-3.0 o i 0

3

(A) AS I 7 J- 3 3

Instrument (B) r 3 3 3 3

Please estimate the respective number of operations per hour during heavy traffic

activity day(s) under VTR and IFR weather conditions. The estimates should reflect

typical heavy traffic activity and not necessarily the "busy hour" or "peak day" of

the year.

Please estimate the respective number of daily operations during a norm.al traffic

activity day under VFR and IFR weather condition s^f*. The estimates should reflect a normal or average activity day and not the heavy or light activity days.

EstiiTiate the number of hours per year , the tota.1 operations shouTi

in blocks A and B above, equal or exceed 75% of the counts noted:

751 of A 34 . Hours per year total operations equal or exceed this value under

VFR conditions: i^S^ hours

75% of B _4 . Hours per year total operations equal or exceed this value under

IFR conditions : O hours

Please give a brief description of the pattern of heavy traffic (hours

of day, days of week, months of year, etc.) if a pattern can be

determined.

Estimate of number o f days per year total operations equal or exceeds

/c>o days

Additional comments:

Or, ly

37
Airport '. 'JZ^' e f cl - hjeu.H'^^^^ QTU/

Lx)cation:

Categor)'' of

Operation

Number of Operations During , the Most Active Ftour of a Ueck

K\miber of Operations on A

2 Normal Trnffic ActivitA' Dav

Under Vi-R

Conditions

Under li'R

Conditions

Under VFR

Conditions

Under li-R

Conditions

Itinerant 3

Local SO o . 1 0^ sr Total (A) 8 ^" /r 3 70 4

^~

Instrament 7 (B) / ^ :i 7 4- ..r

Please estimate the respective number of operations per hour during lieav>' traffic

activity day(s) under VFR and IFR weather conditions. The estimates should reflect

typical heav)^ traffic activity and not necessarily the "busy hour" or "peak day" of

the year.

'Please estimate the respective number of daily operations during a normal traffic

activity day under VF'R and IFR weather conditions. The estimates should reflect a normal or average activity day and not the heavy or light activity days.

Estimate the number of hours per year , the total operations shoim

in blocks A and B above, equal or exceed 75^ of the counts noted:

751 of A _£_!_.

Hours per year total operations equal or exceed this value under

. VFR conditions: /t/^ hours

751 of B K . Hours per" year total operations equal or exceed this value under

IFR conditions : g hours

Please give a brief description of the pattern of hea\7' traffic (hours

of day, days of week, months of year, etc.) if a pattern can be

determined. 4P/n-6P**^

fV^c-yy/ T.^ff.c N^o. IP^-3P^ ^

Hp^^^Y '^/-tf -T^c C^P8) T)- I - -S^i^? .

Estimate of number of days per year total operations equal or exceeds 6'

/ o

' days

Additional comments:

38
Location: 'F}> n s c\ c c \ , Fci.

Ntmber of Operations During , the Most Active Ffcur of a Week

j NiDuber of Operations on A ^

1 NoTTT'al Traffic Activity Day"

Categor)' of

\jpL 1 d. LIUU

Under Vl-il Conditions

Under IFR

Conditions

Under VTR

Conditions

Under IFR

Conditions

Itinerant

I4.D /O

Local s o

Total (A) f 1 0 S'OO C 0

Instmnient 7S (B) 4 ^ 6 00 4 S'O

'Please estimate the respective number of operations per hour during heavy traffic

activity day(s) under VFR and IFR v.-eather conditions. The estimtes should reflect

t)Tpical heavy traffic activity and not necessarily the "busy hour" or "peak day" of

the year.

'Please estijrate the respective number of daily operations during a normal traffic

activity day imder VFR and IFR weather conditions. The estim.ates should reflect a normal or average activity day and not the heavy or light activity days.

Estimate the number of hours per year , the total operations sho'vm

in blocks A and B above, equal or exceed 75*!. ot the counts noted:

75% of A I 3> . Hours per ye ar total operations equal or exceed this value under

VFR conditions : 3 /

"3. hours

75% of B /? . Hours_j)er year total operations equal or exceed this value under

IFR conditions : ip^^ hours

Please give a brief description of the pattern of heavy traffic (hours

of day, days of week, m^onths of year, etc.) if a pattern can be

Estimate of number of days per year total operations equal or exceeds ^

I S^O days

Additional comments:
Airport '. Satnc^o y 1 m't^ y hc:Su'j <.J 6 f? ^

Location: Bo, >i<fc y , Me .

Number of Operations During

^ the Most Active [four of a IVeek

i Nlimber of Operations on A

2 Nonnal Traffic Activity Day

Operation

Under Vh'R

Conditions

Under IFR

Conditions

Under VFR

Conditions

Under IFR

Conditions

Itinerant 90

Local 7 O V JO

Total (A) / (OO

Instrument (B) 3 0 / 00

"Please estiinate the respective number of operations per hour during heavy traffic

activity day(s) under VFR and IFR weather conditions. The estimates should reflect

typical heavy traffic activity and not necessarily the "busy hour" or "peak day" of

the year.

'Please estiiiiate the respective number of daily operations during a normal traffic

activity day under WR and IFR weather conditions. The estim^ates should reflect a normal or average activity day and not the heavy or light activity days.

Estimate the number of hours per year, the tota^l operations shoun

in blocks A and B above, equal or exceed 75% ot the counts noted:

751 of A ^0 . Hours per year total onerations equal or exceed this value under

VFR conditions : 10 hours

751 of B l-Z. .

. .v: . Hours J) er year total operations equal or exceed this value under

IFR conditions : US' hours

Please give a brief description of the pattern of heavy traffic (hours

. of day, days of week, months of year, etc.) if a pattern can be

determined. st ^ ^ a/i -r)

^ecvy -r.^i^'c- 9:30AH -'f^^ '^'^ ^

Estimate of number of days per year total operations equal or exceeds 5 9 r" e (uariT) days.

Additional comments:
Airport: fh^t- h^ sL^p (l^ N T)

Location : I

i tnlT ^ /V] / c /> ,

Category of

Operation

the

NiDTiber of Operations During , .e Most Active Flour of a V'eek

Number of Operations on A

Normal Traffic Activity Dav

Under Vb'R

Conditions

Under!FR

Conditions

Under VPR

Conditions

Under IFR

Conditions

Itinerant

Local

3'0

O

I S O

6

Total (A) 17-^ 3 O 4 OO

Instruiient 4^ (B) GO I so 0 <2 S~

Please estiirnte the respective number of operations per hour during heavy traffic

activity day(s) under VFR and IFR weather conditions. The estiriUtes should reflect

typical heavy traffic activity and not necessarily the "busy hour" or "peak day" of

the year.

Please estijnate the respective number of daily operations during a normal traffic

activity day under VFR and IFR weather conditions. The estimates should reflect a normal or average activity day and not the heavy or light activity days.

Estin-Late the number of hours per year, the total operations sho\sTi

in blocks A and B above, equal or exceed 75-o of the counts noted:

75^ of A qs . Hours per year total operations equal or exceed this value under

VFR conditions : /oo o hours

751 of B ;Z;i . Hours per year total operations equal or exceed this value under

iFR conditions: 9oo hours

Please give a brief description of the pattern of heav>'' traffic (hours

of day, days of week, months of year, etc.) if a pattern can be

determined.

Estimate of number of days per year total operations equal or exceeds ^33

lib' days

Additional comments:

h^i AS/e Alx6 s^r^e^ 5-

41
Airport : \cc^ >^ ^/ s'to Homci pc, \ (^^^

Location: Yci^'^nn^sTcw ^ ^ Ohio

Number of Operations During , the Most Active Hour of a Vveek

i Number of Operations on A

2 Normal Traffic Activity Day

Category of

. Operation

Under VFR

Conditions

Unaci" I Mi

Conditions

Under VFK

Conditions

Under IFR

Conditions

Itinerant I80 //2

Local c:, o .

Total (A) 2. S % 7

6'

1 3 ?^

Instnoment (B) :l 9 i 3 ^>

'Please estimate the respective number of operations per hour during heavy traffic

activity day(s) under VPR and IFR \\^eatlier conditions. The estim.ates should reflect

typical heavy traffic activity and not necessarily the "busy hour" or "peak day" of

the year.

'Please estimate the respective number of daily operations during a norm.al traffic

activity day under VFR and IFR weather conditions. The estim.ates should reflect a normal or average activity day and not the heavy or light activity days.

Estimate the num.ber of hours per year , the total operati ons shown

in blocks A and B above, equal or e-xceed 751 of the counus noted:

751 of A ^5- . Hours per year total operations equal or exceed this value under

VFR conditions : /o4- hours

75^0 of B

' ' Hours per year total operations equal or exceed this value under

IFR conditions : hours"

Please give a brief description of the pattern of heavy traffic (hours

of day, days of week, months of year, etc.) if a pattern can be

detemined.

_ p^t-M-^r , WeAs. fM TU. F... -"J S... -

Estimate of number of days per year total operations equal or exceeds SO i 6 0 days

.

Additi onal comments

42
Airport : fj^>M.U^^ Ut'l-6UA.4F IJ - (MO^

Location: MidcZ/e tou^^ ^ To- .

Category of

O|oeration

the

Number of Operations During , e Most Active P!our of a V/eek

Number of Operations on A , Normal Traffic Activity Dav'

Under Vl'i\

Conditions

Itinerant

Local

Under li-R

Conditions

3

Unaer VFJl

Conditions

140

160

Under I Ml

Conditions

) 3 r

7 C>

Total (A) 3 O 3DO ;2 D b" Instrument (B) /2 66

Please estimate the respective number of operations per hour during hea\'y traffic

activity day(s) under VFR and IFR weather conditions. The estinntes should reflect

t>'pical heavy traffic activity and not necessarily the "busy hour" or "peak day" of

the year.

^Please estimate the respective number of daily operations during a normal traffic

activity day under VTR and IFR weather conditions. Tlie estimates should reflect a normal or average activity day cuid not the heavy or light activity days.

Estimate the number of hours per year , the total operatioiis sho^sTi

in blocks A and B above, equal or exceed 751 of the com its noted:

751 of A 2^ • Hours per year total or)erations equal or exceed this value under

VFR conditions : ^'^ hours

75% of B lO

Hours per year total operations equal or exceed this value under

IFR conditions : 4/6 hours

Please give a brief description of the pattern of heavy traffic (hours

of day, days of week, months of year, etc.) if a pattern can be

determined

14 oc - If''

Estimate of number of days per year total operations equal or exceeds 4- 39*

l6 days

Additional comments: _^

^ost Co^TycI ah T>a.f-{\<i To a Fk6^ (T) "^o^i^^y , wkich /)t^s hoT
AWort: ykkikvia Mon.a.pc^l (y ^ ^)

Location: Yow^t^ha . U/a^

NLOTiber of Operations During . the Most Active Hour of a V.'eek Category of

Operation

Under VFii

Conditions

Under IFR

Conditions

Under VMl

Conditions

Under IFR

Conditions

Itinerant

Local AO o 30c 6

Total (A)

Instrument (B) tX \ . ,1 / 2 r SO

Number of Operations on A ^ NorniGl Traffic Activity Dav"

Please estimate the respective number of operations per hour during heavy traffic

activity day(s) under VPR and IFR weather conditions. Tne estimates should reflect

t>'pical heavy traffic activity and not necessarily the "busy hour" or "peak day" of

the year.

?"Please estimate the respective numher of daily operations during a normal traffic

activity day under VFR and IFR weather conditions. The estimates should reflect a normal or average activity day and not the heavy or light activity days.

Estimate the number of hours per year , the total operations sho\vTi

in blocks A and B above~j equal or exceed 75°i of the counts noted:

7S% of A

Hours per year total operations equal or exceed this value under

VFR conditions: '/ZO hours

75% of B _q . _Hours_per year J"jotal operations equal or exceed this value under

IFR conditions : lO^ hours

Please give a brief description of the pattern of heavy traffic (hours

of day, days of week, m^onths of year, etc.) if a pattern can be

determined.

Estimate of number of days per year total operations equal or exceeds "73 / ^

^Cv«I\iT days

Additional comments: ,

1 lj a ^^ T

>7S% Vec<V. day/ T

.

' 44
NBS-lUA (REV. 7.731

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. pilHI U Al ION OK Ki:i'OI< T NO. 2. (.ov't Accession

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA ^gjj^ 74.593 No. 5H c t T

3. Recipient s Accession No.

4. Tl l Li; AND sum 1 1 1.

A Concept for New Establishment Criteria for Airport

Surveillance Radar

5. Publication Date

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

Wm. F. Druckenbrod. C. Warren Hurler

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

1 1 • 0ontr3.cc /Grsn t No

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

Department of Transportation

Pp<1pT«o1 Avia1"Tnn AdTTiini <^tTrltion

Office of Aviation System Plans

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

13, Type of Report 8c l"^erioci Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-woTd or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

The purpose of this study is to present a benefit/cost concept for new

establishment criteria for the Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) . The annual

operating costs of the ASR were determined by combining data obtained from

the FAA. The primary benefit of the ASR ^vas identified as _ reduction in delay.

An analysis was made of the available operational data from twenty randomly

selected airports whose total operations per year ranged from 50,000 to 250,000.

This- analysis revealed an extremely erratic pattern of the number of operations

per year and other characteristics related to the stablishment of an ASR.

A limited field survey was made to obtain data concerning operating

conditions related to the primary function of an ASR. The results of this survey

siq)plied the necessary data to allow the DELCAP simulation model developed at NBS

in 1971, to be used in obtaining estimated of delay with and without an ASR [ under IFR (Instrument Flight Regulation ) weather conditions. Combining the 1 information obtained, a methodology was established to allow the benefits derived i from the time saved by an ASR to be directly compared with the actual operating cos of an ASR.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name: separated by semicolons) Airport surveillance radar; Benefit/cost analysis; Establishment

criteria; IFR Hourly Activity; Reduction of delay; Ultimate hourly capacity

18. AVAILABILITY Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF PAGES

1 X For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

UNCLASSIFIED

1

' Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. GoTernment Printing Office Washineton. D.C. 20402. SD Cat. No. CH

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22. Price

1 1 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151 UNCLASSIFIED

^ USCOMM-DC 29042-P7«


i