U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

1997

Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of System Capacity

December 1997

Prepared jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration, the

FAA Technical Center, JIL Information Systems, and Fu Associates.
2 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1997 ACE PLAN
The purpose of the 1997 Aviation Capacity EnhanceEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ment (ACE) Plan, produced by the FAA Office of System

Capacity (ASC), is to describe FAA initiatives that will enhance the capacity and performance of the National Airspace

System (NAS). The Plan is divided into six chapters and four

appendices:

• Chapter 1: The National Airspace System

• Chapter 2: Major Capacity Initiatives — Free Flight

and NAS Modernization

• Chapter 3: Airport Development

• Chapter 4: Airspace Development

• Chapter 5: New Operational Procedures

• Chapter 6: Capacity Enhancing Technologies

Chapter 1 presents a broad overview of the current status

of the NAS. From 1992 to 1996, the number of aircraft

operations in the United States remained stable at about

62 million, while the number of aircraft operations at the top

100 U.S. airports increased from 25.3 to 26.6 million, a

5.1 percent increase. The increase in operations at the top 100

U.S. airports indicates that the busiest U.S. airports are getting

busier, which will compound problems of congestion at these

key airports unless airport and airspace capacity enhancements are made.

The FAA has established goals and performance measures

to address four aspects of system capacity: delay, flexibility,

predictability, and access. Delay, the traditional measure of

NAS performance, held steady at 7.1 minutes per operation

from 1992 to 1995, then increased to 7.5 minutes per operation in 1996. The number of operations delayed 15 minutes

or more fell steadily from 1992 to 1995, then increased in

1996. The increase in average delay per operation and number of operations delayed was primarily due to unusually

harsh storms that occurred in many areas of the U.S. in 1996.

Due to well-focused efforts on the part of the FAA and airport

authorities in expanding and enhancing airport facilities at

many of the busiest airports in the U.S., delays have fallen

while the number of operations at those airports increased.

User flexibility is improving as a result of several FAA initiatives, such as the National Route Program (NRP) and reduced

vertical and horizontal separation minima in oceanic airspace. Likewise, the FAA is working to improve system

predictability through the development of integrated systems
4 – PREFACE PREFACE 1997 ACE PLAN

for the dissemination of weather data. Finally, FAA initiatives

to improve access to its facilities and services include providing for and maintaining accessible public use airports, and

enhanced communication procedures between the Department of Defense (DOD), the FAA, and air carriers to increase

civilian access to special use airspace (SUA) when it is not in

use by the military.

Chapter 2 describes the FAA’s two major capacity enhancement initiatives - free flight and NAS modernization.

Free flight and NAS modernization are interdependent initiatives which aim to provide the new technologies and procedures that will increase NAS efficiency. The main objective of

free flight is to remove restrictions that hinder the efficient

flow of traffic while maintaining or improving the current

high level of safety. Transitioning to free flight requires both

procedural and technological advances. The FAA has already

initiated many of the procedural changes required for free

flight, and is in the process of modernizing and replacing

much of the equipment, computers, and software used to

manage air traffic and assure safe operations. Flight 2000 is

a demonstration project planned to test and validate free

flight capabilities that will be made possible by modernized

air traffic equipment and avionics.

Airport capacity enhancements are the subject of Chapter

3, Airport Development. There are approximately 3,300

airports in the 

U.S. that are considered significant to the

capacity of the NAS. Of the top 100 airports, 61 are developing or have recently completed new runways or runway

extensions to increase airport capacity. In this chapter, top

priority capacity projects from six of the nine FAA regions are

described. Since 1985, more than 40 airport capacity design

team studies have been conducted. A table in this chapter

indicates those recommendations that were implemented,

and those that are no longer under consideration. Finally,

ongoing airport capacity studies are described.

Chapter 4, Airspace Development, describes ongoing

terminal and en route airspace analyses. Airspace development studies focus on restructuring airspace, rerouting traffic,

or modifying arrival, departure, en route, or terminal flow

patterns to relieve congestion and reduce delays. The FAA is

currently involved in a large-scale analysis of the airspace on

the west coast of the United States, as well as studies of the

airspace around Salt Lake City, UT and Phoenix, AZ.
1997 ACE PLAN PREFACE

PREFACE – 5

A cost-efficient alternative to airport and airspace development is modifying air traffic control procedures to improve

the flow of aircraft in the en route and terminal area. Chapter

5 describes new and developing air traffic control procedures

requiring minimal or no investment in new technology. For

example, in the en route environment, the National Route

Program is allowing pilots to fly more direct routes. In the

oceanic environment, reduced horizontal and vertical separation minima will provide pilots with more flexibility and

efficient routing. Additionally, less restrictive instrument

approach procedures are being developed for the terminal

environment.

Chapter 6, Capacity Enhancing Technologies, is divided

into five areas: communications, navigation, surveillance,

weather, and air traffic management. For each area, characteristics of the current system are described, followed by a

description of planned enhancements and the key technologies that will make those enhancements possible. A table

listing all of the currently funded capacity-enhancing technology projects is presented for each area.

Figure 1 summarizes the components of capacity enhancement and reflects the content and organization of the

ACE Plan.

• System Delay Volume, Weather, Equipment

• Lack of Flexibility Restrictive Routing

• Lack of Predictability Information Availability, Weather

Data, Flight Time

• Lack of Access

Special Use Airspace, Flight Services

Capacity Problems

• Chapter 2: NAS Modernization,

Free Flight

• Chapter 3: Airport Infrastructure

• Chapter 4: Airspace Redesign

• Chapter 5: Procedures

• Chapter 6: Technology

Capacity Enhancements

• Decrease Delays

• Increase System Flexibility

• Increase System Predictability

• Increase User Access

FAA Capacity Goals

Figure 1.

Capacity Enhancement and ACE Plan Organization
6 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1997 ACE PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................ 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 13

CHAPTER 1: THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM.................. 15

Aviation Activity ............................................................................. 15

U.S. Aircraft Operations and Passenger Enplanements ............ 15

Aircraft Operations and Passenger Enplanements

at the Top 100 Airports.............................................................. 16

Air Cargo ................................................................................... 17

Traffic Volume in Air Route Traffic Control Centers .................... 19

System Performance Measures..................................................... 19

Delay ..........................................................................................22

Delay by Cause: Weather, Equipment, and Volume .............22

Delay by Phase of Flight .........................................................24

Identification of Delay-Problem Airports.................................25

Identification of Airports With More Than

20,000 Hours of Delay..........................................................25

Flexibility.....................................................................................28

Predictability ...............................................................................29

Access ........................................................................................30

CHAPTER 2: MAJOR CAPACITY INITIATIVES ........................33

Free Flight and NAS Modernization ............................................33

Free Flight ......................................................................................33

NAS Modernization .....................................................................34

Communications.........................................................................35

Navigation .................................................................................36

Surveillance................................................................................36

Weather ..................................................................................... 37

Air Traffic Management .............................................................38

Flight 2000 ................................................................................39

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT .................................. 41

Airport Capacity in the United States ........................................... 41

Financing of Airport Capacity Enhancements .............................. 41

Airfield Improvements ................................................................ 41

Facilities and Equipment ............................................................43

Operational Improvements ........................................................43

Airport Construction and Expansion ............................................ 44

Conversion of Military Airfields to Civilian Facilities................. 44

Airport Enhancements for New Large Aircraft (NLA) .................45

Construction of New Airports ....................................................45

Construction of New Runways and Runway Extensions ...........45

Regional Top Priority Capacity Projects.....................................46

Western Pacific Region ...........................................................46

Great Lakes Region ................................................................ 47

Northwest Mountain Region .................................................. 47

Central Region ........................................................................ 47

Southern Region ..................................................................... 47
8 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1997 ACE PLAN

Southwest Region ...................................................................50

Eastern Region ........................................................................50

Airport Capacity Studies ............................................................... 51

Airport Capacity Design Teams................................................. 51

Recommendations from Previous Airport Capacity Studies ...... 51

1997 Airport Capacity Design Team Studies ...........................54

Reno/Tahoe International Airport (RNO) ................................54

Memphis International Airport Update (MEM) .......................55

Miami International Airport Update (MIA) .............................55

Newark International Airport (EWR) .......................................56

1997 Tactical Initiative Teams.................................................... 57

San Diego International Airport (SAN) ...................................57

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (LAS).................... 57

1997 Regional Capacity Design Teams....................................58

Northeast Region Capacity Design Study .............................58

Anchorage Area Airspace Design Team Study .....................58

CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT ................................59

Ongoing Airspace Studies............................................................ 61

Chicago Metroplex Airspace Analysis...................................... 61

West Coast Airspace Analysis...................................................63

SCT Airspace Analysis .............................................................63

NCT Airspace Analysis ............................................................63

Las Vegas Airspace Analysis .................................................. 67

Salt Lake City Airspace Analysis................................................ 67

Phoenix Terminal Airspace Analysis ..........................................68

Commercial Space Transportation ...............................................68

CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES ................. 71

En Route Procedures......................................................................72

Direct Routing .............................................................................72

Area Navigation (RNAV) .........................................................72

The National Route Program (NRP) .........................................73

Elimination of Unnecessary ATC-Preferred Routes ...................73

Improving Civilian Access to Special Use Airspace (SUA) ..... 74

New Guidelines for Imposing Restrictions.................................75

Oceanic En Route Procedures....................................................... 76

Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) ............................ 76

Reduced Horizontal Separation Minima (RHSM)....................... 76

In-Trail Climb (ITC) and In-Trail Descent (ITD) ............................. 77

Dynamic Aircraft Route Planning (DARP) ....................................78

Terminal Area/Approach Procedures...........................................78

Area Navigation (RNAV) Approaches .......................................79

Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches....................79

Removal of 250 Knot Speed Limit for

Departing Aircraft in Class B Airspace ......................................80
1997 ACE PLAN PREFACE

PREFACE – 9

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES ...... 81

Communications............................................................................ 81

Current Communication Capabilities......................................... 81

Planned Communication Enhancements....................................82

Aeronautical Data Link System ...............................................82

Aeronautical Telecommunication Network (ATN) ...................83

Next Generation Air/Ground Communication System

(NEXCOM) ................................................................................83

Navigation ....................................................................................84

Current Navigation Capabilities................................................84

Planned Navigation Enhancements ..........................................86

Global Positioning System (GPS) .............................................86

GPS Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) ...................... 87

GPS Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) ......................... 87

Surveillance ...................................................................................89

Current Surveillance Capabilities ..............................................89

Planned Surveillance Enhancements .........................................89

Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS)...............................89

Weather ........................................................................................92

Current Weather Capabilities....................................................92

Planned Weather Enhancements...............................................92

Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) ..........................93

Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) ...................................93

Air Traffic Management ................................................................96

Current Automation/Decision Support Capabilities..................96

Planned Decision Support Enhancements .................................96

Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS)

and Display Replacement System (DSR) .................................96

Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) - Build1...................... 97

Center Terminal Radar Approach Control

Automation System (CTAS) ......................................................98

Initial Conflict Probe (ICP) ........................................................98

APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS .................................. A-1

APPENDIX B: TOP 100 AIRPORTS ........................................ B-1

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY .....................................................C-1

APPENDIX D: SURVEY.......................................................... D-1
10 – PREFACE PREFACE 1997 ACE PLAN

Figure 1. .................................................................................................................... 5

LIST OF FIGURES

Capacity Enhancement and ACE Plan Organization

Figure 1-1................................................................................................................ 16

Growth in U.S. Passenger Enplanements and Operations

Figure 1-2. .............................................................................................................. 20

Top 100 Airports Based on 1996 Passenger Enplanements

Figure 1-3. .............................................................................................................. 20

CONUS Air Route Traffic Control Centers

Figure 1-4. .............................................................................................................. 21

Operations at CONUS ARTCCS

Figure 1-5. .............................................................................................................. 21

Capacity Constraints, Goals, and Strategies

Figure 1-6. .............................................................................................................. 28

Annual Operations and Delays of Fifteen Minutes or More Per

1,000 Operations at Ten of the Busiest Airports

Figure 1-7. ............................................................................................................... 31

Flight Service Activities

Figure 2-1................................................................................................................ 35

Characteristics of Current and Future Communications Systems

Figure 2-2. .............................................................................................................. 36

Characteristics of Current and Future Navigation Systems

Figure 2-3. .............................................................................................................. 36

Characteristics of Current and Future Surveillance Systems

Figure 2-4. .............................................................................................................. 37

Characteristics of Current and Future Weather Systems

Figure 2-5. .............................................................................................................. 38

Characteristics of Current and Future Air Traffic Management

Systems

Figure 4-1................................................................................................................ 61

Flight Paths Over Five-Center Area

Figure 4-2. .............................................................................................................. 62

Airspace Design Alternatives for Chicago

Figure 4-3. .............................................................................................................. 64

Existing Routes to Los Angeles International Airport

Figure 4-4. .............................................................................................................. 64

Proposed Arrival Enhancement Procedure (AEP) to Los Angeles

International Airport

Figure 4-5. .............................................................................................................. 65

Flight Tracks of SFO Arrivals

Figure 4-6. .............................................................................................................. 66

Region of Origin and Existing Routings for SFO Arrivals

Figure 4-7. ............................................................................................................... 66

Region of Origin and Routings for Proposed Straight-In STAR for SFO

Arrivals

Figure 4-8. .............................................................................................................. 69

Current Arrival Tracks and Departure Routes for SLC

Figure 4-9. .............................................................................................................. 69

Proposed Arrival and Departure Routes for SLC

Figure 5-1................................................................................................................ 74

SUA in the Continental United States

Figure 5-2. .............................................................................................................. 78

In-Trail Climb and In-Trail Descent

Figure 5-3. .............................................................................................................. 80

Independent Converging Approach and Missed Approach

Procedure
1997 ACE PLAN PREFACE

PREFACE – 11

Table 1-1. ................................................................................................................ 18

LIST OF TABLES

Top 25 U.S. Airports by Total Cargo, 19964

Table 1-2. ............................................................................................................... 23

Distribution of Delay Greater Than 15 Minutes by Cause

Table 1-3. ............................................................................................................... 24

Average Delay by Phase of Flight

Table 1-4. ............................................................................................................... 26

Delays of 15 Minutes or More Per 1,000 Operations at Selected

Airports

Table 1-5. ............................................................................................................... 27

Airports Exceeding 20,000 Hours of Annual Delay in 1996 and

2006, Assuming No Additional Capacity Improvements

Table 3-1. ................................................................................................................ 42

Distribution of Aviation Activity at U.S. Airports

Table 3-2. ............................................................................................................... 48

New and Extended Runways – Completed in 1997, Under

Construction, Planned, or Proposed

Table 3-3. ............................................................................................................... 52

Completed Airport Capacity, Tactical Initiative, and Regional

Design Studies

Table 3-4. ............................................................................................................... 53

Completed Airport Capacity Studies and Recommendations

Table 4-1. ................................................................................................................ 60

Completed En Route and Terminal Airspace Studies

Table 4-2. ............................................................................................................... 60

Airspace Design Alternatives by Airspace Region

Table 6-1. ................................................................................................................ 85

Communications Enhancement Programs

Table 6-2. ............................................................................................................... 88

Navigation Enhancement Programs

Table 6-3. ............................................................................................................... 91

Surveillance Enhancement Programs

Table 6-4. ............................................................................................................... 94

Weather Enhancement Programs

Table 6-5. ............................................................................................................... 99

Decision Support System Programs
12 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1997 ACE PLAN
The purpose of the Aviation Capacity Enhancement (ACE

)

INTRODUCTION

Plan is to describe FAA initiatives that enhance the capacity and

performance of the National Airspace System (NAS). The FAA’s

commitment to improving system capacity is captured by Goal 4

of the 1996 FAA Strategic Plan:

Meet the capacity needs for air and space transportation

safely and efficiently through near-term actions targeted at

specific problems and a long-term comprehensive program

of research, planning, and investment matching user needs.

The FAA Performance Plan, required by the Government

Performance and Results Act (GPRA), supplements the FAA

Strategic Plan by setting annual goals with measurable target

levels of performance, and addresses specific aspects of capacity

such as delay, flexibility, predictability and access. Improving

aviation system capacity is a continuing dynamic process that

evolves as user needs change and technology advances.

The ACE Plan is produced by the FAA Office of System

Capacity (ASC). ASC identifies and evaluates capacity enhancements such as airport expansion, airspace redesign, and new

operational procedures to ensure that the capacity of the U.S.

Aviation System keeps pace with demand for aviation services.

Although ASC is the only office with capacity enhancement as its

primary mission, the activities of many offices within the FAA and

other agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DOD)

play key roles in capacity enhancement. For example, within the

FAA, the Office of Research and Acquisitions (ARA) enhances

capacity through the development of advanced air traffic control

technologies. The Office of Airports (ARP) provides grants and

authorizes the collection and use of passenger facility charges (PFC) for funding capacity-enhancing airport development projects.

Moreover, Air Traffic Services (ATS), of which ASC is one component, plays a critical role in maintaining and expanding capacity

through the installation and maintenance of air traffic control

equipment, and keeping air traffic flowing smoothly 24 hours a

day, 365 days a year.

The ACE Plan is organized by chapters. Chapter 1:The National Airspace System describes changes in levels of aviation

activity and FAA capacity goals for four aspects of system capacity

— delay, flexibility, predictability and access. Chapter 2: Major

Capacity Initiatives — Free Flight and NAS Modernization describes these interdependent efforts to improve aviation capacity

through the development of new procedures and technologies.

Chapter 3: Airport Development describes ongoing airport construction projects and airport capacity enhancement studies.

Chapter 4: Airspace Development describes ongoing airspace analy-
14 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1997 ACE PLAN

sis projects designed to achieve more efficient en route air traffic

patterns in congested airspace. Chapter 5: New Operational Procedures describes new en route and terminal approach procedures

which increase system capacity. Chapter 6: Capacity Enhancing

Technology describes technological advances in the areas of communication, navigation, surveillance, weather, and air traffic management, which will improve the quality of aviation services and

support implementation of free flight.

The appendices contain useful data on the aviation system.

Appendix A provides various aviation activity statistics for the top

100 airports. Appendix B contains diagrams of the top 100

airports, with descriptions of new or planned construction. Appendix C is a list of acronyms, and Appendix D is a survey.
THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYST

CHAPTER 1:

EM

Assuring that the capacity of the NAS can accommodate the

growing demand for aviation services is critical to the Nation’s

economic future. In 1996, civil aviation provided almost 10.1million jobs with total earnings of over $282 billion; economic activity

generated by aviation during that year amounted to $974 billion.

In the next 10 years, the demand for FAA aviation services will

expand slowly, but steadily. This increased demand will be placed

on an aviation system where key airports and terminal areas are

already frequently congested.

This chapter provides information on current and projected

aviation activity and on changes in flight delay and other measures

of system capacity and performance. Aviation activity data indicate the demand on the system; system performance measures

indicate the ability of the aviation system to accommodate the

demand.

Aviation Activity

Aircraft operations, passenger enplanements, air cargo tonnage, and ARTCC traffic volume are all indicators of aviation

activity and demand for FAA services. This section describes

trends in these indicators.

U.S. Aircraft Operations and Passenger Enplanements

From 1992 to 1996 the number of aircraft operations in the

United States remained stable at approximately 62 million. Over

the same period, the number of air carrier and regional/commuter

enplanements increased steadily from 506 million to 606 million,

a 20 percent increase. By 2008, operations are expected to increase

to 72.3 million (a 17 percent increase over 1996), and enplanements

to 995 million (a 64 percent increase over 1996). The higher

growth predicted for passenger enplanements relative to aircraft

operations is primarily the result of higher load factors and larger

seating capacity for air carrier aircraft. Figure 1-1 illustrates the

trend in aircraft operations and passenger enplanements nationwide and at the top 100 airports in the United States.1

1. Based on 1996 passenger enplanements in the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecasts.
16 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1997 ACE PLAN

Aircraft Operations and Passenger Enplanements at the

Top 100 Airports

The top 100 airports in the United States, as measured by

1996 passenger enplanements, are shown in Figure 1-2. These

100 airports accounted for almost 95 percent of the 606 million

passengers in the U.S. in 1996.

The number of aircraft operations at the top 100 airports

increased from 25.3 million in 1992 to 26.6 million in 1996, a 5.1

percent increase. Over the same period, the number of air carrier

Top 100 Airports in the U.S.

All U.S. Airports 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

19981999

2000

2001

20022003

2004

20052006

2007

20082009

2010

2011

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

0

15

30

45

60

75

Enplanements (millions)

Operations (millions)

19921993

1994

19951996

1997

19981999

2000

2001

20022003

2004

20052006

2007

20082009

2010

2011

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

0

15

30

45

60

75

Enplanements (millions)

Operations (millions)

Operations

Enplanements

Operations

Enplanements

Figure 1-1.

Growth in U.S. Passenger Enplanements and Operations
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 17

and regional/commuter enplanements increased from 474 million

to 575 million, a 21 percent increase. By 2011, aircraft operations

at the top 100 airports are projected to increase to 35.1 million (a

32 percent increase over 1996), and enplanements to 1 billion (a

74 percent increase over 1996). Operations and enplanement data

for 1994, 1995, and 1996 and forecasts of operations and

enplanements for the top 100 airports in 2011 are included in

Appendix A.

Air Cargo

Air cargo is increasingly important to the economy of the

United States. In 1996, air cargo accounted for 23 percent of U.S.

imports and 31 percent of U.S. exports by dollar value, up from 18

percent of imports and 28 percent of exports by dollar value in

1990.2 Air transportation is a preferred mode of shipment for

high-value, lightweight, perishable, and time-sensitive goods.

Over the next seven years, world air cargo traffic is projected to

grow at a faster rate than air passenger traffic.3

Air cargo is transported in the baggage compartments of

scheduled passenger aircraft and by all-cargo aircraft. In 1990 half

of the air cargo tonnage in the U.S. was transported by all-cargo

aircraft, and half of the tonnage was transported by passenger

aircraft. By 1996, two-thirds of air cargo tonnage was transported

by all-cargo aircraft, and only one third by passenger aircraft. Over

the same time period, the tonnage carried by all-cargo carriers in

the U.S. domestic market more than doubled. The increasing

dominance of all-cargo carriers in the domestic market is projected to continue, increasing the number of all-cargo operations

and demand for air traffic services at key cargo airports. However,

most all-cargo flights are scheduled during off-peak periods and

do not substantially contribute to airport congestion and delay

problems. Table 1-1 lists the top 25 U.S. airports by cargo tonnage

loaded and unloaded.

2. U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration

3. Boeing, from MergeGlobal 1997 World Air Freight Industry Analysis and

Forecast.

Air cargo is increasingly important

to the economy of the United States.

Over the next seven years, world air

cargo traffic is projected to grow at

a faster rate than air passenger

traffic.
18 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1997 ACE PLAN

4. “The World’s Airports in 1996: Airport Ranking by Total Cargo.”

Airports Council International. http://www.airports.org/cargo96.html

Table 1-1.

Top 25 U.S. Airports by Total Cargo, 19964

 * Loaded and unloaded freight and mail in thousands of metric tons.

Memphis, TN Memphis International MEM 1,934

Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles International LAX 1,719

Miami, FL Miami International MIA 1,710

New York, NY John F. Kennedy International JFK 1,636

Louisville, KY Louisville Standiford Field SDF 1,369

Anchorage, AK Anchorage International ANC 1,269

Chicago, IL O’Hare International ORD 1,260

Newark, NJ Newark International EWR 958

Atlanta, GA Hartsfield Atlanta International ATL 800

Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX Dallas-Ft. Worth International DFW 775

Dayton, OH Dayton International DAY 767

San Francisco, CA San Francisco International SFO 712

Oakland, CA Metropolitan Oakland International OAK 615

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis International IND 609

Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia International PHL 494

Hounolulu, HI Honolulu International HNL 436

Boston, MA Boston Logan International BOS 406

Denver, CO Denver International DEN 390

Seattle-Tacoma, WA Seattle-Tacoma International SEA 388

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN Minneapolis-St. Paul International MSP 361

Toledo, OH Toledo Express TOL 345

Detroit, MI Detroit Metropolitan DTW 320

Houston, TX George Bush Intercontinental IAH 310

Washington, DC Washington Dulles International IAD 309

Cincinnati, OH Greater Cincinnati International CVG 289

ID

Total

City Airport Cargo*
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 19

Traffic Volume in Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs)

From FY96 to FY97 instrument flight rules (IFR) operations

increased at 19 of the 20 Continental United States (CONUS)

ARTCCs. The number of aircraft flying under IFR handled by

ARTCCs totaled 40.8 million in FY97, an increase of 1.4 percent

over FY96.

The five busiest ARTCCs in FY97 were: Chicago, Cleveland,

Atlanta, Washington, and Indianapolis. Forecasts for FY08 indicate a change in ranking of the busiest ARTCCs to: Chicago,

Cleveland, Washington, Atlanta, and Indianapolis. The ARTCCs

with the highest average annual growth rates are Boston and Los

Angeles, which are projected to grow by 2.3 and 2.2 percent

respectively. Figure 1-3 is a map of the 20 CONUS ARTCCs.

Figure1-4 shows the number of operations by ARTCC for FY96

and FY97, and forecast operations for FY08.

System Performance Measures

Capacity-enhancing programs such as airport expansion and

the development of more efficient air traffic control procedures are

targeted at improving NAS performance. The FAA is developing

performance goals to address the following four aspects of system

capacity:

• Delay: the extent to which flights do not depart or arrive

within the planned, expected, or scheduled time;

• Flexibility: the extent to which the air traffic control system

allows users to optimize their operations based on their own

objectives and constraints;

• Predictability: the variation in the air traffic management

system as experienced by the user; and,

• Access: the ability of users to access airports, airspace, and

services.

To ensure that capacity-enhancing efforts address these aspects of system performance, the FAA has, in addition to delay,

begun to track flexibility, predictability, and access performance

measures and establish targets for improvement. The measures

will be used to monitor the capacity and performance of the

aviation system and evaluate proposed capacity and performance

enhancements. These actions are consistent with the Government

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1994, which requires all

Federal agencies to set performance goals, tie their budget requests to those goals, and measure their success in achieving them.

Figure 1-5 illustrates common capacity constraints and FAA goals

and strategies for addressing those constraints.

The FAA has, in addition to delay,

begun to track flexibility, predictability, and access performance measures and establish targets for improvement.
20 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1997 ACE PLAN

Cuba

Florida

Puerto

Rico

Guam

ABQ

BOI

BUR

COS

DFW DAL

ELP

LAS

LAX

LBB

OAK

ONT

PDX

PHX

RNO

SAN

SEA

SFO

SJC

SLC SMF

SNA

TUS

GEG

ATL BHM

BNA

BUF

GSP

CHS

CLE

CLT

CMH

CVG

DAY

DEN

DSM

DTW

GRR

GSO

IAD

ICT

IND

JAX

LIT

MCI

MDT MDW

MEM

MSP MKE

OKC

OMA

ORD

PIT

RDU

RIC

ROC

SDF STL

SYR

TUL TYS

ALB

BDL

BWI

DCA

EWR

LGA

JFK

ORF

PHL

PVD

ISP

BOS

PWM

KOA

HNL

OGG

ITO

ANC LIH

GUM

AUS

FLL

HOU

IAH

MCO

MIA

MSY

PBI

RSW

SAT

SRQ

TPA

SJU

SAV

CAE

MSN

PSP

Figure 1-2.

Top 100 Airports Based on 1996 Passenger Enplanements

ZSE

ZOA

ZLA

ZLC

ZDV

ZAB

ZFW

ZHU

ZKC

ZMP

ZAU

ZID

ZME ZTL

ZDC

ZOB ZNY

ZBW

ZMA

ZJX

ZNY

Busiest ARTCCs in FY97

Chicago ZAU

Cleveland ZOB

Atlanta ZTL

Washington ZDC

Indianapolis ZID

Busiest ARTCCs in FY08 - Forecast

Chicago ZAU

Cleveland ZOB

Washington ZDC

Atlanta ZTL

Indianapolis ZID

Figure 1-3.

CONUS Air Route Traffic Control Centers
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 21

FY96

FY97

FY08

Washington (ZDC)

Seattle (ZSE)

Salt Lake City (ZLC)

New York (ZNY)

Oakland (ZOA)

Minneapolis (ZMP)

Miami (ZMA)

Memphis (ZME)

Kansas City (ZKC)

Los Angeles (ZLA)

Jacksonville (ZJX)

Indianapolis (ZID)

Houston (ZHU)

Fort Worth (ZFW)

Denver (ZDV)

Cleveland (ZOB)

Chicago (ZAU)

Boston (ZBW)

Atlanta (ZTL)

Albuquerque (ZAB)

Air Route Traffic Control Centers

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Operations (000)

Figure 1-4.

Operations at CONUS ARTCCs

Capacity Constraints FAA Capacity Goals Strategies/Enhancements

Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6

Delay Reduce Delays Airport Dev. Airspace Dev. Procedures Technology

Air Traffic Volume • Reduce the rates of volume related delays. X X X X

Equipment • Reduce the rates of equipment related delays. X

• Accelerate NAS modernization by reducing the time it X

takes to acquire and field systems.

• Put into operational service 100 percent of the integrated X

systems necessary to deliver the capabilities

required to modernize the NAS, as documented in

Version 3.0 of the NAS architecture.

Weather • Develop and demonstrate the ability of new systems to X

decrease the rate of weather-related delays.

• Reduce weather-related delays due to restrictive X

instrument approach procedures.

Airports • Increase system capacity attributable to airport infrastructure. X X

Lack of Flexibility Increase System Flexibility

Routing • Reduce the amount of extra flight plan miles associated with X

ATC-preferred routes.

• Increase the percentage of flight segments flown off the X

ATC-preferred routes.

Lack of Predictability Increase Predictability

Information availability • Increase the level of information available to system users X X

and involve them more frequently in operational decision making.

Weather Data • Make improvements in obtaining and disseminating. X X

weather products.

Flight Time • Improve in-flight and ground movement predictability. X X

Lack of Access Increase User Access

Airspace • Improve civilian access to special use airspace when

not in use by military. X X

Flight Services • Reduce the average flight service call waiting time. X

Airports • Increase access to airports during IFR weather conditions. X X X

Figure 1-5.

Capacity Constraints, Goals, and Strategies
22 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1997 ACE PLAN

Delay

The FAA uses two sources of delay data, the Air Traffic

Operations Management System (ATOMS) and the Airline Service Quality Performance (ASQP) database. ATOMS, recorded by

FAA personnel, is a record of aircraft delayed in excess of 15minutes by cause (weather, terminal volume, center volume, closed

runways or taxiways, and NAS equipment interruptions) during

any phase of flight. Aircraft delayed by less than 15 minutes are not

included in ATOMS. A delay is recorded if an aircraft is delayed 15

minutes or more during taxi out or 15 minutes or more in any en

route center. Thus, an aircraft could be delayed 14minutes during

taxi out and 14 minutes in each ARTCC it passes through and not

be recorded as a delay by ATOMS. Taxi-in delays are not counted.

ASQP data, controlled by DOT, are collected from airlines with

one percent or more of the total domestic scheduled service

passenger revenue. ASQP records delays as small as one minute by

phase of flight (i.e., gate-hold, taxi-out, airborne, or taxi-in

delays). ASQP is used primarily for consumer on-time performance reporting.

Delay by Cause: Weather, Equipment, and Volume

Approximately 272,000 flights in 1996 were delayed 15 or

more minutes, an increase of 14.7 percent from 1995. The increase

in flight delays is primarily due to adverse weather; unusually

harsh storms resulted in the disruption of operations at numerous

airports during several months of FY96. As a result, weather was

attributed as the primary cause of 75 percent of operations delayed

by 15 minutes or more in 1996, up from 72 percent in 1995.

Weather-related delays are largely the result of restrictive

instrument approach procedures required in adverse weather to

maintain safety. The FAA is developing more efficient IFR approach procedures, such as the missed approach procedure for

simultaneous approaches described in Chapter 5. Weather-related delays are also caused by the absence of precision landing aids

at certain airports, preventing aircraft from landing at those

airports in IMC conditions. The FAA continues to install and

upgrade instrument landing systems (ILSs) to support operations

during conditions of reduced visibility. Improved technology for

detecting adverse weather and disseminating weather data, described in Chapter 6, will also reduce weather-related delays.

Table 1-2 illustrates trends in the distribution of flights

delayed 15 minutes or more by primary cause. Air traffic volume

in the terminal area accounted for 18 percent of delays of 15minutes or more in 1996, unchanged from 1995. Delays due to

equipment failures fell from 3 percent in 1995 to 2 percent in 1996.

Approximately 272,000 flights in

1996 were delayed 15 or more

minutes, an increase of 14.7 percent

from 1995.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 23

Delays created by equipment outages will be reduced as components of the National Airspace System (NAS) infrastructure are

replaced. Additional strategies to reduce delays include the following:

• Implement improved weather systems to mitigate the impacts of weather: Automatic Surface Observing System

(ASOS) and Weather and Radar Processor (WARP). Test the

Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) (see Chapter

6).

• Deploy prototype automation tools such as the Center

TRACON Automation System’s (CTAS) Passive Final Approach Spacing Tool (FAST) (see Chapter 6). Complete

implementation of the Display Channel Control Replacement (DCCR) program (see Chapter 6).

• Implement new procedures that take advantage of additional runway and airport capacity increases at various

locations (see Chapter 5).

• Field infrastructure replacement programs that will reduce

equipment-related delay. Display System Replacement (DSR)

and the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) will replace an aging display and computing

infrastructure that have caused several high-visibility delays

(see Chapter 6).

Table 1-2.

Distribution of Delay Greater Than 15 Minutes by Cause

Distribution of Delay Greater than 15 Minutes by Cause

Cause

Weather

Terminal Volume

Center Volume

Closed Runways/Taxiways

NAS Equipment

Other

Total Operations

Delayed (000s)

1996

75%

18%

0%

3%

2%

2%

272

1992

65%

27%

0%

3%

2%

3%

281

1993

72%

22%

0%

3%

2%

2%

276

1994

75%

19%

0%

2%

2%

2%

248

1995

72%

18%

0%

3%

3%

4%

237
24 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1997 ACE PLAN

Delay by Phase of Flight

Table 1-3 displays the average delay by phase of flight. More

delays occur during the taxi-out phase than any other phase. From

1992 to 1995, taxi out delays held steady at around 6.9 minutes per

flight, but increased to 7.3 minutes per operation in 1996. Airborne delays averaged 4.4 minutes per aircraft in 1996. To put this

in perspective, there were approximately 6.9 million air carrier

flights in 1996. With an average airborne delay of 4.4 minutes per

aircraft, a total of almost 506,000 hours of airborne delay occurred

that year, costing the airlines $809 million at an estimated $1,6005

per hour. The delay per operation held steady at 7.1 minutes from

1992 to 1995, but increased to 7.5 minutes per operation in 1996.

Like the increase in weather-related delays in 1996 displayed in

Table 1-2, the increase in delay per operation is primarily due to

unusually harsh storms that disrupted operations at numerous

airports during several months of 1996.

Table 1-3.

Average Delay by Phase of Flight

Phase

Gate-hold

Taxi-out

Airborne

Taxi-in

Total

Minutes per Operation

Average Delay by Phase of Flight

(minutes per flight)

1992

1.1

6.9

4.1

2.2

14.3

7.1

1993

1.0

6.9

4.1

2.2

14.2

7.1

1994

1.1

6.8

4.1

2.2

14.2

7.1

1995

1.1

6.8

4.1

2.2

14.2

7.1

1996

1.1

7.3

4.4

2.3

15.1

7.5

5. The actual average aircraft operating cost is $1,587 per hour. The cost for heavy

aircraft 300,000 lbs. or more is $4,575 per hour of delay, large aircraft under

300,000 lbs. and small jets, $1,607 per hour, and single-engine and twin-engine

aircraft under 12,500 lbs., $42 and $124 per hour respectively. These figures are

based on 1987 dollars.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 25

Identification of Delay-Problem Airports

From 1992 to 1996, the proportion of air carrier flights

delayed 15 minutes or more decreased at 33 of the 55 airports at

which the FAA collects air traffic delay statistics. From 1995 to

1996, however, the proportion of flights delayed decreased at only

16 of the 55 airports. Table 1-4 lists the number of operations

delayed 15 minutes or more per 1,000 operations from 1992 to

1996 at 51 of these airports. The proportion of flights delayed

ranges from nearly 65 per 1,000 operations at Newark International Airport to 0.08 per 1,000 operations at Kahului Airport. Of

the nine airports with more than 20 delays of 15 minutes or more

per 1,000 operations in 1996, three were in the New York area.

Figure 1-6 illustrates trends in operations and delays at ten of

the busiest airports in the United States from 1992 to 1996. At

ORD, DFW, ATL, and EWR, a smaller proportion of flights were

delayed 15 minutes or more in 1996 than in 1992, while the

number of operations increased. Delays at EWR, however, remain

among the highest in the country. The only construction planned

at EWR is a runway extension. At LAX, STL, and MSP, operations

and delays were higher in 1996 than they were in 1992. At STL, a

planned new runway will increase capacity. Likewise, at MSP a

runway extension completed in October 1996, and a new runway

in the planning stages, will increase capacity. At LAX, however, no

significant airport improvements are expected in the near-term.

Delay reductions will depend primarily on the development of

more efficient airspace design and management.

Identification of Airports With More Than

20,000 Hours of Delay

Despite ongoing capacity improvements and reduced delay

system-wide, certain airports continue to account for significant

delay. In 1996, 26 airports each exceeded 20,000 hours of annual

aircraft flight delay. With an average aircraft operating cost of

about $1,600 per hour of delay, each of these 26 airports contributed at least $32 million dollars in annual delay costs. Assuming

airport capacity is not improved, 31 airports are forecast to exceed

20,000 hours of annual aircraft flight delay each by the year 2006.

Table 1-5 lists airports exceeding 20,000 hours of annual delay in

1996 and in 2006, assuming no capacity improvements.

It should be noted that hours of delay are a function of the

number of operations and the average delay per operation. An

airport with 300,000 operations and an average delay of four

minutes per operation has 20,000 hours of delay. As the operations

increase, the delay per operation could go down and the airport

could still have more than 20,000 hours of delay.

From 1992 to 1996, the proportion

of air carrier flights delayed 15 minutes or more decreased at 33 of the

55 airports at which the FAA collects

air traffic delay statistics.
26 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1997 ACE PLAN

Table 1-4.

Delays of 15 Minutes or More Per 1,000 Operations at Selected Airports

3.90

2.36

4.29

0.32

2.43

1.09

1.50

1.32

2.00

1.02

1.05

0.13

0.38

0.68

2.09

1.99

6.42

5.04

3.73

5.04

5.99

2.98

1.62

0.42

2.88

1.42

58.13

29.90

67.26

61.63

47.94

14.80

35.32

22.09

32.84

41.67

23.96

12.62

9.26

7.87

16.87

5.61

0.14

6.68

5.28

18.85

9.68

9.01

10.16

7.09

28.44

30.18

14.96

83.48

55.23

45.40

19.75

29.82

29.90

34.61

41.23

9.68

7.86

11.24

4.36

18.47

11.03

0.56

8.16

5.95

13.19

6.19

7.33

3.03

2.12

26.26

3.69

1.58

8.95

2.74

5.07

8.04

5.80

0.75

1.33

0.31

4.29

1.78

2.91

1.96

1.74

0.20

1.10

0.62

1.02

0.34

3.60

2.11

0.29

0.13

0.13

0.69

23.79

19.54

87.88

38.32

47.49

9.15

33.71

23.28

39.23

35.68

10.48

8.06

9.05

7.16

18.75

9.34

0.30

2.86

6.38

6.78

3.79

6.86

3.91

2.98

37.92

3.77

2.37

4.72

3.49

3.86

6.86

3.94

1.26

1.24

0.46

3.88

1.94

2.72

0.95

0.38

0.10

1.03

0.33

0.81

0.74

1.99

0.57

0.29

0.05

0.19

0.27

28.46

22.72

74.29

47.37

26.83

10.96

37.65

19.98

29.79

35.79

10.47

5.52

6.95

3.52

20.85

10.44

0.71

3.48

6.40

6.09

4.90

8.43

2.51

3.10

18.14

2.92

1.62

5.37

2.96

2.79

4.20

5.15

1.82

0.96

0.78

3.22

2.41

1.55

1.15

0.72

0.35

0.79

0.21

0.39

0.29

1.25

0.45

0.76

0.03

0.08

0.21

54.71

33.87

33.81

33.65

30.93

27.03

26.80

24.26

22.15

17.38

11.00

10.79

10.52

9.23

6.89

5.61

5.29

4.97

4.88

4.77

4.75

4.54

4.41

4.03

4.01

3.98

3.74

3.61

3.36

3.16

2.99

2.68

2.22

1.96

1.62

1.62

1.47

1.46

1.29

1.03

0.87

0.86

0.60

0.57

0.51

0.50

0.40

0.24

0.20

0.17

0.09

SFO

STL

EWR

LGA

ORD

LAX

DFW

ATL

BOS

JFK

MIA

IAH

DTW

MSP

PHL

DCA

SJU

PHX

CVG

SEA

CLT

IAD

SAN

MDW

DEN

FLL

CLE

MCO

HOU

SLC

PIT

BWI

MCI

ONT

LAS

TPA

PDX

BNA

BDL

SJC

SAT

MEM

MSY

PBI

ANC

RDU

IND

DAY

OGG

HNL

ABQ

San Francisco International Airport

Lambert St. Louis International Airport

Newark International Airport

New York LaGuardia Airport

Chicago O’Hare International Airport

Los Angeles International Airport

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport

Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport

Boston Logan International Airport

New York John F. Kennedy International Airport

Miami International Airport

Houston Intercontinental Airport

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

Philadelphia International Airport

Washington National Airport

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

Greater Cincinnati International Airport

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Charlotte/Douglas International Airport

Washington Dulles International Airport

San Diego International Lindberg Field

Chicago Midway Airport

Denver International Airport*

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

Orlando International Airport

Houston William P. Hobby Airport

Salt Lake City International Airport

Greater Pittsburgh International Airport

Baltimore-Washington International Airport

Kansas City International Airport

Ontario International Airport

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport

Tampa International Airport

Portland International Airport

Nashville International Airport

Bradley International Airport

San Jose International Airport

San Antonio International Airport

Memphis International Airport

New Orleans International Airport

Palm Beach International Airport

Anchorage International Airport

Raleigh-Durham International Airport

Indianapolis International Airport

Dayton International Airport

Kahului Airport

Honolulu International Airport

Albuquerque International Airport

Airport ID 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

 * 1992 thru 1994 data is for Denver Stapleton Airport, which closed in 1995.

This accounts for the drastic reduction in delay for the 1995 data.

Newark International Airport EWR 83.48 87.88 74.29 33.81 65.25

San Francisco International Airport SFO 30.18 23.79 28.46 54.71 56.57

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 55.23 38.32 47.37 33.65 46.22

Chicago O’Hare International Airport ORD 45.40 47.49 26.83 30.93 34.46

Lambert St. Louis International Airport STL 14.96 19.54 22.72 33.87 34.04

New York John F. Kennedy International Airport JFK 41.23 35.68 35.79 17.38 29.53

Boston Logan International Airport BOS 34.61 39.23 29.79 22.15 26.37

Los Angeles International Airport LAX 19.75 9.15 10.96 27.03 24.13

Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport ATL 29.90 23.28 19.98 24.26 23.88

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport DFW 29.82 33.71 37.65 26.80 19.59

Philadelphia International Airport PHL 18.47 18.75 20.85 6.89 17.95

George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH 7.86 8.06 5.52 10.79 11.45

Greater Cincinnati International Airport CVG 5.95 6.38 6.40 4.88 10.38

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport MSP 4.36 7.16 3.52 9.23 9.29

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport DTW 11.24 9.05 6.95 10.52 9.10

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport PHX 8.16 2.86 3.48 4.97 7.25

Washington Dulles International Airport IAD 7.33 6.86 8.43 4.54 6.81

Miami International Airport MIA 9.68 10.48 10.47 11.00 6.79

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 2.12 2.98 3.10 4.03 6.70

Greater Pittsburgh International Airport PIT 8.04 6.86 4.20 2.99 6.60

Charlotte/Douglas International Airport CLT 6.19 3.79 4.90 4.75 6.55

Washington National Airport DCA 11.03 9.34 10.44 5.61 6.53

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport SEA 13.19 6.78 6.09 4.77 6.37

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport CLE 1.58 2.37 1.62 3.74 4.68

Orlando International Airport MCO 8.95 4.72 5.37 3.61 4.59

Tampa International Airport TPA 4.29 3.88 3.22 1.62 4.43

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport LAS 0.31 0.46 0.78 1.62 3.68

Baltimore-Washington International Airport BWI 5.80 3.94 5.15 2.68 3.67

Salt Lake City International Airport SLC 5.07 3.86 2.79 3.16 3.53

San Diego International Lindberg Field SAN 3.03 3.91 2.51 4.41 3.31

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport SJU 0.56 0.30 0.71 5.29 2.92

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 2.74 3.49 2.96 3.36 2.57

Portland International Airport PDX 1.78 1.94 2.41 1.47 2.41

Denver International Airport* DEN 26.26 37.92 18.14 4.01 1.90

Raleigh-Durham International Airport RDU 3.60 1.99 1.25 0.50 1.59

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport FLL 3.69 3.77 2.92 3.98 1.53

San Jose International Airport SJC 1.74 0.38 0.72 1.03 1.39

Bradley International Airport BDL 1.96 0.95 1.15 1.29 1.36

Ontario International Airport ONT 1.33 1.24 0.96 1.96 1.06

San Antonio International Airport SAT 0.20 0.10 0.35 0.87 0.99

Kansas City International Airport MCI 0.75 1.26 1.82 2.22 0.98

Memphis International Airport MEM 1.10 1.03 0.79 0.86 0.88

New Orleans International Airport MSY 0.62 0.33 0.21 0.60 0.83

Nashville International Airport BNA 2.91 2.72 1.55 1.46 0.73

Dayton International Airport DAY 0.29 0.29 0.76 0.24 0.60

Indianapolis International Airport IND 2.11 0.57 0.45 0.40 0.58

Palm Beach International Airport PBI 1.02 0.81 0.39 0.57 0.46

Anchorage International Airport ANC 0.34 0.74 0.29 0.51 0.33

Honolulu International Airport HNL 0.13 0.19 0.08 0.17 0.19

Albuquerque International Airport ABQ 0.69 0.27 0.21 0.09 0.14

Kahului Airport OGG 0.13 0.05 0.03 0.20 0.08
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 27

Table 1-5.

Airports Exceeding 20,000 Hours of Annual Delay in 1996 and 2006,

Assuming No Additional Capacity Improvements

Annual Aircraft Delay in Excess of 20,000 Hours

1996 2006

Atlanta Hartsfield ATL

Boston Logan BOS

Baltimore-Washington BWI

Charlotte/Douglas CLT

Cincinnati CVG

Atlanta Hartsfield ATL

Boston Logan BOS

Charlotte/Douglas CLT

Cincinnati CVG

Washington National DCA

Dallas-Ft. Worth DFW

Detroit DTW

Newark EWR

Honolulu HNL

Houston Intercont’l IAH

New York John F. Kennedy JFK

Las Vegas LAS

Los Angeles LAX

New York La Guardia LGA

Orlando MCO

Chicago Midway MDW

Memphis MEM

Miami MIA

Minneapolis-Saint Paul MSP

Chicago O’Hare ORD

Philadelphia PHL

Phoenix PHX

Pittsburgh PIT

San Diego SAN

Seattle-Tacoma SEA

San Francisco SFO

Salt Lake City SLC

St. Louis STL St. Louis STL

Washington National DCA

Dallas-Ft. Worth DFW

Detroit DTW

Newark EWR

Honolulu HNL

Houston Intercont’l IAH

New York John F. Kennedy JFK

Las Vegas LAS

Los Angeles LAX

New York La Guardia LGA

Orlando MCO

Miami MIA

Minneapolis-Saint Paul MSP

Chicago O’Hare ORD

Philadelphia PHL

Phoenix PHX

Pittsburgh PIT

Salt Lake City SLC

Seattle-Tacoma SEA

San Francisco SFO

Denver International DEN

Cleveland CLE

Denver International DEN

 Source: FAA Office of Policy and Plans
28 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1997 ACE PLAN

ATL BOS CVG DEN DFW EWR LAX MSP ORD STL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

ATL BOS CVG DEN DFW EWR LAX MSP ORD STL

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

Delays of 15 Minutes or More Per 1,000 Operations

Operations 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Figure 1-6.

Annual Operations and Delays of Fifteen Minutes or More Per 1,000 Operations

at Ten of the Busiest Airports

Flexibility

Airlines, general aviation (GA) pilots, and other aviation

system users expect more from the air traffic management system

than the minimization of delay. They desire the capability to

optimize their operations based on their own objectives and

constraints, which vary by flight and user. Measuring the flexibility

of the air traffic control system allows the FAA to evaluate its ability

to permit users to adapt their operations to changing conditions.

One measure of flexibility is the proportion of flights that are

permitted to operate off ATC-preferred routes.

ATC-preferred routes are important tools that help air traffic

controllers organize traffic flows around major airports. On a

given day, approximately 30 percent of flights operate between

cities with published ATC-preferred routes. Once airborne, approximately 75 percent of the route segments between cities with

published ATC-preferred routes are actually flown off of the ATCpreferred routes. This ability to deviate from the ATC-preferred

route structure represents a significant portion of the flexibility

allowed to users in the air traffic management system.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 29

The following are strategies the FAA is pursuing to increase

system flexibility:

• Institute procedural changes to reduce unnecessary ATCpreferred routes (see Chapter 5).

• Implement Flight Management System (FMS) procedures

at waypoints for the top 50 airports (see Chapter 5).

• Conduct annual audits of static and dynamic operating

restrictions and eliminate unnecessary restrictions (see Chapter 5).

• Implement conflict probe prototypes to identify potential

conflicts with more certainty, thereby avoiding unnecessary

aircraft maneuvers and improving user flexibility (see Chapter 6).

• Replace the 200 nm constraint of the NRP (National Route

Program) with Standard Instrument Departure/Standard

Terminal Arrival Routes (SIDS/STAR) as ingress/egress points

to the NRP (see Chapter 5).

• Improve flexibility in trans-oceanic flights by implementing

Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) and Reduced

Horizontal Separation Minima (RHSM) (see Chapter 5).

• Relax the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000 feet in Class B

airspace (see Chapter 5).

Predictability

Predictability is defined by the variation in the air traffic

management (ATM) system experienced by the user. The majority

of system users rely on schedules that determine when aircraft

should take-off and land. These schedules are central to the

operations of almost all commercial flights, driving crew scheduling, ground service operations, and other operational components. Even the smallest deviation from the planned schedule can

cause drastic impacts. One of the most unpredictable portions of

a flight is the time the aircraft spends on the ground, prior to

takeoff. There are many factors that impact ground movement

times, including level of demand, weather, and airport runway

configuration.

A key strategy for increasing user predictability is improving

the quality and quantity of information available to system users

and involving them in interactive operational decision making.

Additionally, the FAA will improve the technologies available for

disseminating weather data, as weather is a significant contributor

to the uncertainty in the ATM system. See Chapter 6 for more

detailed information on technological enhancements related to

weather and predictability (i.e., WARP, ITWS).

One of the most unpredictable portions of a flight is the time the aircraft

spends on the ground, prior to takeoff.
30 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1997 ACE PLAN

Access

Access to the ATM system, airports, airspace, and other FAA

services is a basic need of all airspace users. The fundamental point

where most users gain access to the ATM system is through

airports. The FAA will increase access to the Nation’s airports

during IFR weather conditions by accelerating the publication of

Global Positioning System (GPS) approach procedures to provide

more accurate course guidance and increase access to airports in

adverse weather conditions. The FAA plans to publish a minimum

of 500 GPS approaches a year for the next three years.

An indicator of user access to the ATM system is the timeliness

and quality of flight services such as pre-flight briefings on

weather conditions, flight plan filing, and en route weather

updates. Flight services are provided primarily by Flight Service

Stations (FSS) (automated and non-automated) and Direct User

Access Terminal Service (DUATS). In addition, pilots can obtain

weather briefings through the Telephone Information Briefing

System (TIBS) or private weather briefing vendors. Although the

number of flight services provided by FSSs is expected to decrease

from 1996 levels, the number of DUATS services is expected to

increase (see Figure 1-7).

During adverse weather conditions when flight service information is most critical, users are often required to hold until a

specialist is available. From 1994 to 1996 the average call waiting

time fell from 34 to 30 seconds. To further improve timely access

to important flight information, the FAA will begin rerouting calls

from busy automated FSSs to facilities with shorter waiting times.

Another critical access issue is the utilization of special use

airspace (SUA) by civilian aircraft. The FAA has been working

closely with the Department of Defense to improve civilian access

to SUA when the military is not utilizing the airspace for its critical

mission. The FAA has begun operational trials of improved

notification procedures and information transfer with respect to

selected sections of SUA (see Chapter 5).

The FAA plans to publish a minimum

of 500 GPS approaches a year for

the next three years.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 31

Additional FAA strategies to increase user access include the

following:

• Supplement GPS navigation through independent operational testing and evaluation of the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) (see Chapter 6).

• Implement the Operational and Supportability Implementation System (OASIS) to provide improved flight services

(see Chapter 6).

The FAA also strives to increase user access by consistently

improving airport infrastructure at the busiest airports, maintaining runway pavement in a satisfactory condition, and providing for

and maintaining accessible public use airports.

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99

Millions of Services

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DUATS

Flight Services

Forecast

Figure 1-7.

Flight Service Activities
32 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1997 ACE PLAN
MAJOR CAPACITY INITIA

CHAPTER 2:

TIVES

Free Flight and NAS Modernization

The capacity of today’s National Airspace System (NAS) is

constrained by rules, procedures, and technologies that require

pilots and air traffic controllers to conduct operations within

narrow, often inefficient, guidelines. As air traffic continues to

grow, these inefficiencies and their associated costs are compounded. Responding to these limitations, the FAA and the

aviation industry are working together on two major interdependent capacity initiatives — free flight and NAS modernization.

Flight 2000 is a demonstration project planned to test and validate

the free flight capabilities made possible by modernized air traffic

equipment and avionics. Implementation of Flight 2000 is dependent on available funding and the NAS modernization schedule.

Free Flight

Free flight is “a concept for safe and efficient flight operating

capability under instrument flight rules (IFR) in which the operators have the freedom to select their path and speed in real time.

Air traffic restrictions are imposed only to ensure separation, to

preclude exceeding airport capacity, to prevent unauthorized

flight through special use airspace (SUA), and to ensure the safety

of flight. Restrictions are limited in extent and duration to correct

the identified problem. Any activity which removes restrictions

represents a move towards free flight.”

1

 The transition to free flight

requires changes in philosophies, procedures, and technologies.

The principal philosophical change required for free flight is

a shift from the concept of air traffic control (ATC) to air traffic

management (ATM). ATM differs from ATC in several ways: the

increased extent of collaboration between users and air traffic

managers, greater flexibility for users to make decisions to meet

their unique operational goals, and the replacement of broad

restrictions with user-determined limits and targeted restrictions

only when required.

The procedural changes required for free flight correspond

directly to the change in philosophy from ATC to ATM. Under the

current air traffic system, aircraft are frequently restricted to ATC-

preferred routes, which may not be the routes preferred by the

pilot or airline. Air traffic controllers direct pilots to change their

direction, speed, or altitude to avoid adverse weather or traffic

congestion. In contrast, free flight will grant pilots substantial

1. Final Report of RTCA Task Force 3, Free Flight Implementation,

October 26, 1995.
34 – CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2: MAJOR CAPACITY INITIATIVES 1997 ACE PLAN

discretion in determining their routes. Many decisions will be

collaborative, taking advantage of the best information available

to the pilot and air traffic manager to ensure safe, efficient flights.

The Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA)

Task Force 3, a joint government/industry workgroup leading the

free flight planning effort, identified 46 recommendations to

promote free flight implementation. Some recommendations

require extensive technological changes, such as the development

of automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) to improve surveillance coverage and accuracy. Technological changes

required for free flight are described below under NAS Modernization, and more extensively in Chapter 6. Other recommendations

involve primarily procedural modifications:

• Remove restrictions to allow for more direct routing;

• Increase civilian access to special use airspace when not in

use by the military;

• Implement collaborative traffic flow management procedures and supporting mechanisms;

• Develop missed approach procedures for simultaneous approaches;

• Implement reduced vertical and horizontal separation

minima;

• Remove the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000 feet in Class

B airspace; and

• Transfer separation responsibility to aircraft on a case-bycase basis.

Several of these initiatives are currently being implemented,

and are described in more detail in Chapter 5.

NAS Modernization

To achieve the free flight concept, the FAA is modernizing and

replacing much of the equipment, computers, and software used

to manage air traffic and assure safe operations. Modernization of

the NAS will give users and service providers new abilities such as

flexible departure and arrival routes and increased usage of preferred flight trajectories. Ultimately, NAS modernization will

increase the flexibility, efficiency, and capacity of the NAS, improve

traffic flow and weather predictability, and reduce user operating

costs. The schedule and interdependencies of the many technological advances required for NAS modernization and free flight

are outlined in the NAS Architecture.

The White House Commission on Aviation Safety and

Security recommended the full implementation of NAS modernization by the year 2005. Achieving full modernization by 2005

The principal philosophical change

required for free flight is a shift from

the concept of air traffic control (ATC)

to air traffic management (ATM).

Modernization of the NAS will give

users and service providers new

abilities such as flexible departure

and arrival routes and increased

usage of preferred flight trajectories.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 2: MAJOR CAPACITY INITIATIVES

CHAPTER 2 – 35

will pose high-risk cost and performance challenges for the FAA

and the airline industry due to technological uncertainties and

aggressive scheduling. The FAA expects, however, that the Flight

2000 program (described in this chapter) will mitigate many risks

of accelerated modernization through early, integrated research

and testing of new technologies and procedures.

The principal NAS modernization changes affecting capacity

are categorized into five functional areas: communications, navigation, surveillance, weather, and Air Traffic Management. The

transition between the current and future NAS, and the new

capabilities created by this change, are described below. The

specific technologies within the five areas are described in Chapter

6.

Communications

In the future, communication between aircraft and ground

facilities will require less radio voice communication and a greater

use of electronic data transmitted to and from the flight deck via

data link technology. Analog radios will be replaced by digital

equipment for both voice and data. See Figure 2-1.

Analog Data Link

Analog Voice Radio

Digital Voice Radio

Digital Data Link

Current Future

Figure 2-1.

Characteristics of Current and Future Communications Systems

Changes in the communication system will create the following capabilities:

• Integration of voice and data communications;

• More efficient use of the frequency spectrum;

• Improved quality and clarity of ATC messages to aircraft;

• Better flight and traffic information services (e.g., weather

graphics, proximity traffic data);

• Seamless communications across all operational domains

(airport, terminal, enroute, and oceanic);

• Information sharing with all NAS users; and

• An effective interchange network to support dynamic airspace usage.
36 – CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2: MAJOR CAPACITY INITIATIVES 1997 ACE PLAN

Navigation

Navigation will become increasingly reliant on the satellitebased Global Positioning System (GPS) as represented by Figure

2-2. Existing ground-based stations will be decommissioned as

new ground-based systems designed to augment the accuracy of

GPS are deployed.

Space Based

Ground Based

Ground Based

Space Based

Current Future

Figure 2-2.

Characteristics of Current and Future Navigation Systems

Augmented GPS will create the following capabilities:

• The movement toward user-preferred routing;

• Increased access to airports under IMC through more precision approaches; and

• Decommissioning of costly ground-based navigation and

landing systems.

Surveillance

In the future, surveillance coverage and accuracy will be

improved by replacing manually announced aircraft position

reports with an onboard navigation system known as Automatic

Dependent Surveillance (ADS). ADS automatically and continuously transmits position information that will be combined with

radar images to ensure the system’s accuracy. Analog radar will be

replaced by digital radar as shown in Figure 2-3 below.

Manual Position Reports

Analog Radar

Digital Radar

Automated Dependent Surveillance

Current Future

Figure 2-3.

Characteristics of Current and Future Surveillance Systems
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 2: MAJOR CAPACITY INITIATIVES

CHAPTER 2 – 37

The implementation of ADS and digital radar will create the

following capabilities:

• Continuous surveillance of all positively controlled aircraft;

• More precise monitoring of aircraft separation and flight

progression in oceanic airspace;

• Enhanced airport surface surveillance; and

• Reduced separation standards.

Weather

Today’s fragmented weather gathering, analysis, and distribution systems will be enhanced by a more harmonized, integrated

system as represented by Figure 2-4. Incremental improvements

in weather detection sensors, processors, dissemination systems,

and displays will also occur.

Flight Deck

FAA

National Weather Service

Commercial Vendors

National Weather Service

Flight Deck

FAA

Commercial Vendors

Current Future

Fragmented Weather Information Integrated Weather Information

Figure 2-4.

Characteristics of Current and Future Weather Systems

Improved weather technologies will allow the following advancements:

• Common situational awareness among service providers

and users through the use of integrated weather products;

• NAS-wide availability of distributed weather forecast data;

• Increased accuracy, display, and timeliness of weather information to service providers and users;

• Improved separation of aircraft from convective weather;

and

• Integrated weather information into associated air traffic

automation systems.
38 – CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2: MAJOR CAPACITY INITIATIVES 1997 ACE PLAN

Air Traffic Management

Manual air traffic control procedures will be replaced by

computer-based decision support systems (see Figure 2-5). These

systems will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of NAS-wide

information, thereby enhancing all phases of surface and flight

operations.

Decision Support Systems

Manual Procedures

Manual Procedures

Decision Support Systems

Current Future

Figure 2-5.

Characteristics of Current and Future Air Traffic Management Systems

The use of advanced automation and decision support systems

will enable the following:

• Greater collaboration of dynamic airspace management on

problem resolution;

• Coordination among local, national, and international traffic

flow managers;

• Increased use of airports by assisting in arrival sequencing

and spacing, merging streams of traffic, and assigning aircraft to runways;

• Enhanced monitoring, strategy development, and NAS performance measurement;

• International harmonization of data;

• Improved acquisition and distribution of flight-specific

data;

• Information updates for static and dynamic data (e.g., route

structures, NAS infrastructure status, special use airspace

restrictions, aircraft positions/trajectories);

• Improved accommodation of user preferences through improved traffic flow management, conflict detection/resolution, sequencing, and optimal trajectories;

• More flexible airspace structure by reducing boundary restrictions and creating dynamic sectors; and

• Automated information exchange between aircraft and decision support systems.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 2: MAJOR CAPACITY INITIATIVES

CHAPTER 2 – 39

Flight 2000

The Flight 2000 initiative will demonstrate and validate a

limited set of the capabilities planned for the free flight environment using the key technologies outlined in the NAS Architecture

Version 3.0. The objectives of this initiative are to:

• Demonstrate safety and efficiency benefits of new technologies and improved procedures.

• Evaluate communication, navigation, and surveillance (CNS)

transition issues.

• Streamline avionics development, certification, and installation, thereby driving down costs.

• Reduce risks for accelerated NAS modernization.

• Develop controller and pilot tools for transition to a free

flight environment.

The technical and operational tests will occur in Alaska and

Hawaii and the oceanic airspace between the U.S. West Coast and

Hawaii. Approximately 2,000 aircraft participating in Flight

2000 will be equipped with a new generation of advanced avionics

that include GPS, ADS-B, data link, and cockpit display of traffic

information. ATC facilities will be modernized with corresponding ground infrastructure necessary to support digital data link as

well as advanced decision support systems (DSS), such as the

oceanic conflict probe.

Validation flights in domestic and oceanic airspace will demonstrate the interoperability of these advanced technologies, DSS,

and new procedures. On the airport surface, tests will be conducted to determine the effectiveness of systems to detect and

communicate the movement of traffic. GPS routes, precision

approach, and missed approach procedures will be developed,

tested and published. During domestic flight operations, new

procedures will be tested to determine when separation between

participating aircraft can be safely reduced from current standards

using enhanced surveillance provided via ADS-B position reports.

Aircraft flying oceanic routes will test the effectiveness of

integrated ADS/GPS/DSS/data link systems to enhance air traffic

control and monitoring and improve flexibility and access. Satellite data link will be evaluated as a prime means of ATC communication. New oceanic separation assurance procedures will be

validated to determine when separation between participating

aircraft can be safely reduced.

Certification is a prime component of Flight 2000 and the

successful evolution to a modernized NAS. Certification activities

for Flight 2000 will ensure that enabling technologies and associated operational procedures will continue to meet the FAA safety

requirements, while reducing time and cost of approval.

The Flight 2000 initiative will demonstrate and validate a limited set of

the capabilities planned for the free

flight environment using the key technologies outlined in the NAS Architecture.
40 – CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2: MAJOR CAPACITY INITIATIVES 1997 ACE PLAN
AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3:

Airports are visible symbols of the economic well-being of the

United States. To meet the capacity demands generated by a

prosperous economy, it is essential to expand the Nation’s airport

infrastructure. In this chapter, the expansion and improvement of

airports to increase aviation capacity are discussed.

Airport Capacity in the United States

There are approximately 3,300 airports

1

 in the United States

that are considered significant to the capacity of the NAS (see Table

3-1). These airports, by inclusion in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), become eligible to receive grants

under the Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP). There are

an additional 15,000 small or privately owned landing areas in the

United States that are not eligible for AIP grants

Of the 3,300 significant U.S. airports, 411 are considered

primary airports

2

. These airports account for 99.9 percent of all

commercial enplanements. Delay problems are most prevalent at

large-hub primary airports.

Financing of Airport Capacity Enhancements

Airport capacity enhancements funded by the FAA fall into

three general categories: airfield improvements, facilities and

equipment, and operational improvements.

Airfield Improvements

AIP grants are a significant funding source for airfield improvements. AIP grants are intended primarily to: stimulate capacity-enhancement projects such as the construction of runways,

taxiways, and aprons; promote safety and security; help finance

small and general aviation airports; and pay a significant part of

noise and environmental mitigation cost. Between 1985 and

1995, AIP grants financed 14 percent of all capital spending at

large commercial airports, 28 percent at medium-sized commercial airports, and 41 percent at small airports (small commercial

airports as well as reliever and general aviation facilities).3 In FY96,

the FAA awarded more than $1.5 billion in AIP grants. Airport

1. Airports include landing areas developed specifically for helicopters and seaplanes as well as conventional fixed wing aircraft landing areas.

2. Primary airports are commercial service airports with more than 10,000 annual

passenger enplanements.

3. http://www.faa.gov/ARP/app500/finalcom/eshome.htm
42 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1997 ACE PLAN

Table 3-1.

Distribution of Aviation Activity at U.S. Airports

Distribution of Aviation Activity at U.S. Airports

Number of

Airports Airport Types % of CommercialEnplanements % of Aircraft

Non-AIP Eligible Airports

411 Primary Commercial Service 99.9% 20.8%

29 Large Hub 67.2% 1.3%

42 Medium Hub 22.2% 3.8%

67 Small Hub 7.1% 4.5%

273 Non Hub 3.4% 11.2%

155 Other Commercial Service 0.1% 3.2%

320 Reliever 0.0% 30.0%

2,444 General Aviation 0.0% 37.5%

3,330 Total 100.0% 91.5 %

14,961 Low Activity Landing Areas 0.0% 8.5%

AIP Eligible Airports

Primary airports are commercial service airports with more than 10,000 annual

passenger enplanements.

Commercial Service Airports are defined as public airports receiving scheduled

passenger service and having 2,500 or more enplaned passengers per year.

Hub is used by the FAA to identify very busy commercial service airports. For instance:

Large hubs are airports that account for more than one percent of passenger

enplanements. Some large hub airports have very little passenger transfer

activity (LaGuardia, Washington National, and San Diego InternationalLingbergh Field, for example) while transfers account for more than half of the

traffic at others (Atlanta, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis, for example). General

aviation plays a relatively small role at most large hubs.

Medium hubs are airports that account for 0.25 percent to 1 percent of passenger

enplanements. Medium hub airports have sufficient capacity to accommodate

air carrier operations and a substantial amount of general aviation.

Small hubs are airports that account for 0.05 percent to 0.25 percent of passenger

enplanements. These airports can have a great deal of general aviation activity,

with an average of 135 based aircraft (locally owned-aircraft hangared or based

at the airport).

Non-hub primary airports are commercial service airports that account for less

than 0.05 percent of commercial passenger enplanements but more than 10,000

annually. These airports are heavily used by general aviation.

Other Commercial Service Airports enplane 2,500 to 10,000 passengers annually.

These airports are used mainly by general aviation.

Reliever Airports are high-capacity general aviation airports designed to improve GA

access to airports in major metropolitan areas.

GA Airports are airports that do not receive scheduled commercial service, have at

least ten based aircraft, and are at least 30 minutes from the nearest NPIAS airport. The

number of based aircraft criterion may be realized for remote locations or other

mitigating circumstances. GA airports are generally distributed on a one-per-county

basis in rural areas. GA airports are the most convenient source of air transportation

for about 19 percent of the population and are particularly important to rural areas.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 43

development is also funded through a combination of Passenger

Facility Charges (PFCs), airport revenue and reserves, municipal

bonds, commercial loans, and state and local grants.

Public agencies controlling commercial service airports, after

receiving approval from the FAA, can charge enplaning passengers

a $1, $2, or $3 facility charge. PFC revenues are used primarily for

terminal development; they are also used for airport planning,

runway, taxiway and apron infrastructure, and airport access. The

PFC program currently generates approximately $1 billion annually for airport development. PFC revenues are concentrated at

high activity airports. Ten airports generate almost 50 percent of

total PFC revenue. Seven of the ten busiest airports are currently

collecting PFCs. Thus, PFC revenues are concentrated at airports

with the greatest capacity development and noise mitigation

needs.

Facilities and Equipment

Full realization of the capacity benefits of new and extended

runways and other airport improvements frequently requires the

installation of equipment such as Instrument Landing Systems

(ILS), Runway Visual Ranges (RVR), VHF Omnidirectional Ranges

(VOR), approach lighting, and Precision Runway Monitors (PRM).

This equipment is funded by the FAA’s Facilities and Equipment

(F&E) budget. Due to funding limitations, installation of equipment must be staggered to give priority to the needs of the most

capacity-constrained airports.

Operational Improvements

Operational improvements to expand airport capacity, such as

improved IFR approach procedures and reduced separation standards for arrivals, are primarily funded by the FAA’s Research,

Engineering, and Development (R,E&D) budget. See Chapter 5

for information on several operational improvements under development.
44 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1997 ACE PLAN

Airport Construction and Expansion

Airport development frequently entails the construction of

new terminals, new and extended runways, and improved taxiway

systems. In large metropolitan areas with frequent flight delays

and limited airport expansion possibilities, other options must be

explored. New airports, expanded use of existing commercialservice airports, civilian development of former military bases,

and joint civilian and military use of existing military facilities are

some of the additional options available for meeting expanding

aviation needs.

Conversion of Military Airfields to Civilian Airport Facilities

To date, 20 military airfields have been converted to civil use

airports under the DOD Base Realignment Closure program

(BRAC). This has resulted in the addition of sixteen runways of

lengths ranging from 8,000 feet to 12,000 feet and the replacement of two runways in the civil inventory. Eleven BRAC airports

have participated in the Military Airport Program (MAP). The

MAP, funded by an AIP set-aside, provides grants to current or

former military airports with the potential to improve the capacity

of the NAS. Airports remain eligible to participate in the MAP for

five fiscal years following their initial designation as participants.

There were twelve MAP participants in 1997, six reliever airports,

five primary commercial service airports, and one other commercial service airport. Several MAP projects are described below.

In Austin, Texas, the conversion of Bergstrom Air Force Base

will replace Robert Mueller Airport, which can no longer meet

growing demand. The new airport opened for cargo service in

June 1997 and will open for passenger service by May 1999.

The former Williams Air Force Base has been converted to a

civil use reliever airport for Phoenix Sky Harbor International

Airport. The airport was renamed Williams Gateway Airport. It

will serve most categories of civil aircraft with its three runways

ranging from 9,300 to 10,400 feet long. The additional airport will

add over 290,000 potential annual aircraft operations to the

Phoenix airport system.

The former Memphis Naval Air Station has been converted

to a civil use reliever airport for Memphis International Airport.

The airport was renamed Millington Municipal Airport. It will

serve most categories of aircraft with its runway of 8,000 feet. The

airport has a potential capacity of 205,000 annual operations.

Other MAP participants include: San Bernardino International Airport, California (a reliever for Los Angeles and Ontario)

and Dade County-Homestead Regional, Florida (a reliever for

Miami Airport).
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 45

Airport Enhancements for New Large Aircraft (NLA)

New Large Aircraft (NLA) offer the potential of meeting the

expected increase in passenger volume in the foreseeable future.

With seating capacities expected to be in the 600-800 passenger

range and added cargo capacity, NLA may allow airports to provide

increased service without major infrastructure alterations. In

response to announced plans to build NLA by the year 2003, FAA

has formed a NLA Facilitation Group, which will draw on internal

and external expertise in airports, air traffic control, aircraft rescue

and fire fighting, manufacturing, operations, security, and other

relevant areas. This group will address the criteria and conditions

under which NLA will operate in the United States.

To make use of existing airport runways, taxiways, ramp, and

parking areas with minimal modifications, the maximum fuselage

length and wingspan of the NLA must be limited to 80 meters, a

figure which some NLA proposals already exceed. Other issues

which need to be addressed include the turning radius, the effects

of the landing gear on pavement, and the effects of engine thrust

on other operations in the airport environment.

The operation of NLA may affect departure and landing

separation, as well as ground handling procedures. Such issues as

wake vortices and obstacle clearance must be reviewed and special

handling procedures may need to be developed. These could

include mandatory taxi routes, remote holding or remote gates

during infrequent CAT II/III operations, and special accommodations for terminal use.

Construction of New Airports

The largest NAS capacity gains result from the construction of

new airports. However, given the high cost of airport construction

(e.g., more than $4 billion for the new Denver International

Airport, which opened in 1995), building a new airport is not a

common capacity enhancement technique. Currently, no new

airports with the potential to significantly impact NAS capacity are

being constructed, with the exception of construction required to

convert Bergstrom Air Force Base into a civilian airport (see

Conversion of Military Airfields above).

Construction of New Runways and Runway Extensions

The construction of new runways and extension of existing

runways is the most direct and significant action to improve

capacity at existing airports. Large capacity increases, under both

visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR), result

from the addition of new runways that are properly placed to allow

additional independent arrival/departure streams.

The largest NAS capacity gains result from the construction of new

airports. However, given the high

cost of airport construction, building

a new airport is not a common capacity enhancement technique.
46 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1997 ACE PLAN

Of the top 100 airports (based on 1996 passenger

enplanements), two completed runway construction projects in

1997. Memphis (MEM), the most significant gateway for U.S.

international cargo, completed a new parallel runway, and Boise

(BOI) completed a runway extension. Ten additional airports are

presently constructing new runways or runway extensions. Of the

top 100 airports, 61 are developing or have recently completed

new runways or runway extensions to increase airport capacity.

Table 3-2 lists new runways and runway extensions that were

completed in 1997, are under construction, or are planned or

proposed at the top 100 airports.

Of the 26 airports exceeding 20,000 hours of air carrier flight

delay in 1996 (see Table 1-5), 17 are planning or constructing new

runways or runway extensions. Twenty-one of the 31 airports

forecast to exceed 20,000 hours of annual air carrier delay in 2006

are planning or constructing new runways or runway extensions.

Regional Top Priority Capacity Projects

Six of the nine FAA regions identified the following capacity

enhancement projects (planned or underway) as their most important airport development project. Several of these initiatives

are the result of recommendations from Airport Capacity Studies,

conducted by FAA’s Office of System Capacity.

Western Pacific Region

In accordance with the Phoenix Capacity Enhancement Plan

completed in September 1989, a third runway is being constructed

at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) with a

target completion date of September 1999. The relocation of

facilities that lie in the new runway’s path is one of the most

challenging aspects of this project. Replacement facilities for an

Arizona Air National Guard complex are being constructed

southwest of their current location. The existing airport surveillance radar must also be moved to accommodate runway construction. Upon completion, the third runway will help accommodate

the increased airport operations and aviation needs forecast in the

PHX Capacity Plan. This runway will prevent additional delays,

increased aircraft operating costs and passenger travel times, and

will provide the capability to perform simultaneous instrument

operations.

Of the top 100 airports, 61 are

developing or have recently completed new runways or runway extensions to increase airport capacity.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 47

Great Lakes Region

The Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport plans

a 700 foot long extension to runway 7L-25R. This capacity

project, while a relatively minor alteration, will postpone the need

for a third parallel runway until the year 2015. The $1.9 million

project, scheduled for construction in 1998, will decrease commuter aircraft delays by 40 percent, thus yielding significant

capacity benefits with a minimal investment.

Northwest Mountain Region

The Port of Seattle is planning major expansion for the

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac), including a

north unit terminal and a 8,500 foot long third parallel runway

2,500 feet west of Runway 16R/34L. The third parallel runway, to

be completed by 2004, will improve the airfield capacity in adverse

weather. Adverse weather currently restricts Sea-Tac operations

to a single arrival stream 44 percent of the year. The additional

runway would allow parallel dependent approaches 99 percent of

the year. The total Airport Capital Improvement Program funding through FY2007 is $1.4 billion. The Airport Layout Plan was

approved by the FAA on July 7, 1997, and the Port of Seattle has

begun acquiring property needed for the planned construction.

Central Region

The new runway at Lambert-St. Louis is the Central Region’s

top priority capacity enhancement project. This project, being

nearly ten years in the planning phase, has the potential to

significantly reduce projected delays both at St. Louis and across

the NAS. The estimated cost of the new runway is $850 million

with the total expansion effort estimated to cost over $2 billion.

The new runway will provide Lambert with the capability to

conduct simultaneous independent IFR arrivals. The FAA Technical Center completed a performance analysis on the proposed

expansion of Lambert and concluded that the expansion has the

potential for system-wide savings of $5.1 billion in operational

delay and $9.5 billion in passenger delay over the years 2005-2015.

This represents approximately a 14 percent reduction in operational delay and an 18 percent reduction in passenger delays.

Southern Region

The Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport (ATL) Capacity

Design Team recommended a commuter/GA runway complex in

its March 1987 Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan. This concept was later modified to a 6,000-foot long fifth parallel

commuter
48 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1997 ACE PLAN

Albany (ALB) 10/28 extension 5.8 2000

1R/19L parallel 7.5 2010

Atlanta (ATL) 5th E/W parallel 420.0 2002

Baltimore (BWI) 10R/28L parallel n/a 2003

Bergstrom (new Austin) 17L/35R parallel 46.0 1998

west runway renovation 10.0 1996 X

Boise(BOI) 10L/28R extension 8.0 1997 X

10R/28L Parallel n/a 2010

Boston (BOS) 14/32 n/a n/a

Charlotte (CLT) 18W/36W 3rd parallel 160.0 2001

Chicago Midway (MDW) 4R/22L reconstruction 32.0 1997 X

Cleveland-Hopkins (CLE) 5R/23L replacement 180.0 2000

5L/23R extension 40.0 2005

Port Columbus (CMH) 10L extension 7.9 1997 X

Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) 18L/36R extension 25.0 2002

18R/36L extension 25.0 2002

18R/36L new parallel 268.0 2003

17C/35C extension 15.0 2000

Denver Intl (DEN) 16R/34L parallel 75.0 2000

Des Moines (DSM) 05 extension 21.5 2001 X

Detroit (DTW) 4/22 parallel 116.5 2001

El Paso (ELP) 8L/26R parallel 30.0 2010+

22 extension 8.0 2000

Fort Lauderdale (FLL) 9R/27L extension 300.0 2003

Fort Myers (RSW) 6R/24L parallel 80.0 2002

Grand Rapids (GRR) 18/36 extension 58.0 1997 X

Greensboro (GSO) 5L/23R parallel n/a 2020

14/32 extension 27.0 2004

Greer (GSR) 3R/21L parallel 65.0 2010

3L21R extension 34.1 1999

George Bush Intl (IAH) 14R/32L extension 8.0 2000

8L/26R new parallel 95.0 2002

9R/27L parallel n/a n/a

Jacksonville (JAX) 7R/25L parallel 50.0 2011

Kahului (OGG) 2/20 extension 40.0 1999

Kansas City (MCI) 1L/19R extension 12.0 n/a

Las Vegas (LAS) 1L/19R reconstruction 50.0 1997 X

Little Rock (LIT) 4L/22R extension 31.0 1998 X

Louisville (SDF) 17R/35L parallel 59.0 1997 X

Lubbock (LBB) 8/26 extension 5.0 2005

Memphis (MEM) 18L/36R new parallel 1997 X

18C/36C extension & reconst 103.0 2000

Miami (MIA) 8/26 new parallel 180.0 2002

Midland (MAF) 10/28 extension 5.0 2008

Milwaukee (MKE) 7R/25L parallel n/a n/a

7L/25R extension 1.9 1998

Minneapolis (MSP) 17/35 air carrier 175.0 2003

Table 3-2.

New and Extended Runways – Completed in 1997, Under Construction,

Planned, or Proposed

Est Cost Operational Completed Under

Airport Runway ($M) Date in 97 Construction
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 49

Nashville (BNA) 2E/20E parallel n/a n/a

2R/20L extension n/a n/a

New Orleans (MSY) 18/36 near parallel 400.0 2005

10/28 parallel n/a n/a

Newark (EWR) 4L/22R extension n/a 2000

Norfolk (ORF) 5R/23L parallel 75.0 2005

Oakland Metro (OAK) 11R/29L parallel n/a n/a

11/29 extension n/a n/a

Oklahoma City (OKC) 17L/25R extension 8.0 2014

17R/35L extension 8.0 2014

17W/35W parallel 13.0 2004

13/31 extension 5.0 2005

Orlando (MCO) 17L/35R 4th parallel 137.0 2002

17R/35L extension n/a n/a

Palm Beach (PBI) 9L/27R extension 10.0 2000

Philadelphia (PHL) 8/26 parallel-commuter 220.0 n/a

9L/27R relocation n/a n/a

Phoenix (PHX) 7/25 3rd parallel 170.0 1999

8L/26R extension 7.0 2000

Pittsburgh (PIT) 4th parallel 10/28 150.0 n/a

5th parallel 10/28 n/a n/a

Raleigh-Durham (RDU) 5R/23L extension n/a 2005

3rd parallel n/a n/a

Richmond (RIC) 16/34 extension 45.0 1997 X

Reno/Tahoe (RNO) 7/25 extension n/a n/a

34R extension n/a n/a

Rochester (ROC) 4R/22L parallel 10.0 2010

4/22 extension 4.0 2000

10/28 extension 3.2 2000

Lambert-St. Louis (STL) New 12R/30L 850.0 2003

12R/30L extension 50.0 n/a

San Antonio (SAT) 12L/30R reconstruction 20.0 2010

12N/30N new runway 400.0 n/a

San Jose (SJC) 12L/30R extension 16.0 1999

Santa Ana(SNA) 1/19R extension n/a n/a

Sarasota-Bradenton (SRQ) 14L/32R parallel 10.0 2002+

14/32 extension 5.1 2002+

Savannah (SAV) 9L/27R new parallel 20.0 2020

Seattle-Tacoma (SEA) 16W/34W parallel 585.0 2004

Spokane (GEG) 3L/21R 11.0 2010

Syracuse (SYR) 10L/28R 55.0 n/a

Tampa (TPA) 18W/36W 3rd parallel n/a n/a

9/27 extension n/a 2010+

18L/36R extension n/a 2005+

Tucson (TUS) 11R/29L parallel 30.0 2005

Tulsa (TUL) 18L/36R parallel 115.0 2005

Washington Dulles (IAD) 1L/19R parallel n/a 2009

12R/30L parallel n/a n/a

Total of Available estimated costs: $6,312.5M

n/a = no data available at press time

Table 3-2.

New and Extended Runways – Completed in 1997, Under Construction,

Planned, or Proposed

Est Cost Operational Completed Under

Airport Runway ($M) Date in 97 Construction
50 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1997 ACE PLAN

runway, 4,200 feet south of existing runway 9R/27L. A December

1995 update of the Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan showed

this runway would provide significant delay savings benefits at

ATL. The city of Atlanta is currently purchasing land for the new

runway. Construction is expected to begin in early 1998 and be

completed in early 2002. This runway will allow triple simultaneous arrivals to ATL in instrument conditions using the new

Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) technology. A runway dedicated to commuter aircraft arrivals will reduce airborne delay for

these aircraft and air carrier aircraft operating on the four existing

runways. A reduction in delays at a major hub airport such as ATL

will reduce delays in the entire NAS.

Southwest Region

Due to the projected growth of handling one million operations annually before 2005, the Dallas/Fort Worth International

Airport (DFW) is extending three of its seven runways and will

begin construction of a new parallel runway, Runway 18R/36L

(west of the existing north/south runways). This runway will

significantly increase capacity in all weather conditions. The $208

million dollar project will be 5,800 feet from the closest runway

and will allow independent approaches without PRMs. The runway is expected to be operational by 2003. DFW will be the first

airport to offer four simultaneous parallel approaches and takeoffs

under instrument conditions.

Eastern Region

The City of Philadelphia is well underway with the construction of a fourth runway for Philadelphia International Airport.

This is especially important in the light of recent enhancements

to it’s hub service levels.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 51

Airport Capacity Studies

As environmental, financial, and other constraints continue to

restrict the development of new airports in the United States,

increased emphasis has been placed on the redevelopment and

expansion of existing airport facilities. The FAA’s Office of System

Capacity (ASC) forms Airport Capacity Design, Tactical Initiative, and Regional Design Teams to focus on maximizing the

capacity at existing airports through improvements in runways

and taxiways, navigational and guidance aids, and operational

procedures. Table 3-3 lists the completed airport capacity, tactical

initiative, and regional studies and the year in which they were

published.4

Airport Capacity Design Teams

Airport Capacity Design Teams address capacity problems at

airports with significant flight delays. The teams are composed of:

FAA representatives from ASC, the Technical Center, Air Traffic,

and the appropriate FAA Region; airport operators; airlines; general aviation; and other aviation industry representatives.

Airport Capacity Design Teams consider capacity improvement alternatives. Impacts of alternatives that are considered

technically feasible are evaluated by computer simulation modeling (SIMMOD, RDSIM, ADSIM)conducted by the FAA Technical

Center’s Aviation Capacity Branch. The product of the study is a

set of capacity-enhancing recommendations. Environmental, socioeconomic, and political implications, while not evaluated by

the design teams, are addressed by the FAA and local authorities if

and when the airport authority chooses to pursue one or more of

the capacity enhancement alternatives.

The presence of a recommended improvement in a Capacity

Enhancement Plan does not obligate the FAA to provide Facilities

and Equipment (F&E) or AIP funds.

Recommendations from Previous Airport Capacity Studies

Since 1985, more than 40 Airport Capacity Design Team

studies have been conducted. The typical Airport Capacity Design Team considers 20 to 30 alternatives for increasing capacity.

Table 3-4 lists completed airport capacity studies and their

recommendations according to generalized categories of im4. Electronic copies of many of these reports can be obtained from the ASC

world wide web site: http://www.asc.faa.gov

As environmental, financial, and

other constraints continue to restrict

the development of new airports in

the United States, increased emphasis has been placed on the redevelopment and expansion of existing

airport facilities.

Airport Capacity Design Teams address capacity problems at airports

with significant flight delays.

Since 1985, more than 40 Airport

Capacity Design Team studies have

been conducted. The typical Airport

Capacity Design Team considers 20

to 30 alternatives for increasing capacity.
52 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1997 ACE PLAN

Table 3-3.

Completed Airport Capacity, Tactical Initiative, and Regional Design Studies

Study Date

Capacity Enhancement Plans

Albuquerque Int’l 1993

Boston Logan Int’l 1992

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l 1991

Chicago Midway 1991

Chicago O’Hare Int’l 1991

Cleveland-Hopkins Int’l 1994

Dallas-Ft. Worth Int’l 1994

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 1988

Eastern Virginia Region 1994

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l 1993

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l 1991

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l 1987

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Update 1995

Honolulu Int’l 1992

Houston Intercontinental 1993

Indianapolis Int’l 1993

Kansas City Int’l 1990

Lambert St. Louis Int’l 1988

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l 1994

Los Angeles Int’l 1991

Memphis Int’l 1988

Memphis Int’l Update 1997

Miami Int’l 1989

Minneapolis-Saint Paul Int’l 1993

Nashville Int’l 1991

New Orleans Int’l 1992

Oakland Int’l 1987

Orlando Int’l 1990

Philadelphia Int’l 1991

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l 1989

Port Columbus Int’l 1993

Portland Int’l 1996

Raleigh-Durham Int’l 1991

Salt Lake City Int’l 1991

San Antonio Int’l 1992

San Francisco Int’l 1987

San Jose Int’l 1987

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín Int’l 1991

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l 1991

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Update 1995

Washington Dulles Int’l 1990

Tactical Initiatives

Charlotte Douglas Int’l 1995

Los Angeles Int’l (Commuter Gates) 1996

Los Angeles Int’l (TBIT Expansion) 1993

New York La Guardia Airport 1994

Orlando Int’l 1995
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 53

Table 3-4.

Completed Airport Capacity Studies and Recommendations

Airports

Recommended Improvements 1Airfield Improvements

Construct third parallel runwayConstruct fourth parallel runway 2

Relocate runwayConstruct new taxiwayRunway extensionTaxiway extensionAngled exits/improved exitsHolding pads/improved staging areasTerminal expansion

Facilities and Equipment Improvements

Install/upgrade ILSs

Install/upgrade RVRs

Install/upgrade lighting systemInstall/upgrade VOR

Upgrade terminal approach radarInstall ASDEInstall PRMNew air traffic control towerWake vortex advisory system

Operational Improvements

Airspace restructure/analysisImprove IFR approach procedures

Improve departure sequencingReduced separations between arrivalsIntersecting operations with wet runwaysExpand TRACON/Establish TCA

Segregate trafficDe-peak airline schedulesEnhance reliever and GA airport system

1. Recommendations summarized and grouped in generalized improvement categories.

2. Construct fifth parallel runway in the case of Atlanta.

Miami C √ C C C C C C C C

Houston Intercontinental √ √ √√ √√√ √ √ √ √

Port Columbus √√√ √√ √√√ √ √ √√√ √ √ √ √ √

Dallas-Ft. Worth C √ C C C C C

Chicago O’Hare √ √ √ √ C C C C

Boston √√√√ √ √ √ C C

Richmond √√ √ √ √ √ √

New Orleans C √ √ C C C C

Norfolk √ √ √ √ √

Newport News √ √ √ √

Philadelphia √ √ √ √ √√√

Oakland √ √ √

Seattle-Tacoma √ C √ √ √ C √

Salt Lake City C CC CCC C C C √ √ √ √

St. Louis √ √√ C √√ √ C C C √

Phoenix √ √ √ √ √√√ √√ C CC C C C

Albuquerque CCCC C √√ √ √ √ √

Charlotte-Douglas C C √ √√ √ √√ √ √ C

Fort Lauderdale √ √√√ √ √ √ √ √ √ C √ √ √ √

√

Orlando √ √ √ √ √ √√ √ √ √ C C

Pittsburgh √ √ C C √ √

Raleigh-Durham √√ √ √√ √ √√ √ √ √√ √ √

San Antonio √ √ √ √ C CC √ √ √ √√ √ √

San Jose C CC C

San Juan, Puerto Rico √ √√√√ √√ √ C √ √

Washington-Dulles √ √ CCC C C C C C √ √

San Fransisco √√ √ √√ C C √ C

Los Angeles C C √√√ CC C √

Las Vegas √ √ C C C √ √ √ C

Kansas City √ √ C √√√ √ √ C √ √ √

Indianapolis √ √ C √ √√ √√√ √ √ √ √

Honolulu √ √√√ √√ √ C

Atlanta (Update Study) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Chicago Midway √ √√ C C C

Cleveland √ √ √√ √ √ √√ √ √ √ √ √ √

Minneapolis-Saint Paul √ √√ √√√ √√√√ √ √ √ √

Nashville √ √√ √ CC C C √ √ √ √ √

Portland √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ Recommended

C Completed

√ No Longer Under

Consideration

Memphis Update √√ √√ √ √ √ √ C √ √
54 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1997 ACE PLAN

provements. The table indicates those recommendations that

have been implemented, completed, or are no longer under

consideration.

Airfield improvements were recommended for all of the

airports studied. Common airfield recommendations include

building or extending runways and taxiways and improving exits

and staging areas to increase the efficiency of existing runways. At

least one of the recommended airfield improvements has been

completed at 25 of the airports studied. Airfield improvements

such as construction of new runways and runway extensions may

take more than ten years from proposal to completion due to

financing constraints and the need to study and address environmental concerns.

Common recommendations for improving F&E are the installation or upgrade of Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) to

improve runway capacity during IFR operations and the installation of Runway Visual Range (RVR) and approach lighting systems. Improvements to F&E and operations are generally less

expensive and time consuming to implement than airfield improvements. However, like airfield improvements, the ability to

implement F&E recommendations is contingent upon available

financing. F&E improvements such as the installation of RVRs and

approach lights generally coincide with the completion of a new

runway or runway extension.

Common procedural recommendations include improved IFR

approach procedures and reduced separation standards for arrivals. Enhancement of the reliever and general aviation airport

system is also a frequent recommendation for moderating the

demand on a given airport. Improved IFR approach procedures

and reduced separations between arrivals have been implemented

at several of the airports studied by the Capacity Design Teams.

1997 Airport Capacity Design Team Studies

Airport Capacity Design Team studies, or updates of previous

studies, in progress or completed in 1997, are summarized below.

Reno/Tahoe International Airport (RNO)

Reno has experienced steady and sustained growth over the

last decade. As a result, passenger enplanements more than

doubled from 1.4 million in 1983 to 2.9 million in 1995. Therefore, in February 1995 an Airport Capacity Design Team for RNO

was formed. Capacity enhancing alternatives considered include

the construction of a new apron, a new concourse, de-icing

facilities, and runway and taxiway extensions. Possible F&E im-
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 55

provements include development of precision approaches and the

installation of Doppler radar and RVR systems. Procedural improvements include adoption of land and hold short procedures

(LAHSO), and a 2.5 nm in-trail separation. Publication of this

study is scheduled for 1998.

Memphis International Airport Update (MEM)

Memphis International Airport is the 25th busiest airport in

the country when ranked by 1996 aircraft operations. MEM has

experienced steady, sustained growth over the past five years as

operations increased 5.6 percent and enplanements increased

more than 15 percent. MEM is ranked as the number one air cargo

airport in the world for the fifth consecutive year. If improvements

are not made, continued traffic growth will cause more than

20,000 hours of annual delay through 2006.

In 1995 ASC began an update to the 1988 Capacity Enhancement Plan. The update was initiated in light of the fact that a new

runway was to be commissioned in December 1996, and soon

after, an existing runway would be closed for reconstruction. The

design team’s primary goals were to provide input for the Memphis Master Plan update and use computer modeling to determine

how to maximize use of the new operational third parallel runway,

while existing runways are being reconstructed. The Memphis

International Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan Update was

completed during 1997 and the most significant recommendations include:

• Extend Runway 18C/36C to the south to 11,100 feet to

accommodate non-stop long range flights;

• During reconstruction of Runway 18R/36L, operate Taxiway M as an air carrier runway with arrivals and departures

in north and south flow during visual flight rules (VFR) only;

• Extend Taxiway N to the full length of existing Runway

18R/36L to provide improved access to Runway 36L and

provide temporary service to Taxiway M while being used as

an active runway.

Miami International Airport Update (MIA)

When ranked by aircraft operations, MIA is fifth on the list of

the 100 busiest airports in the U.S. In the past five years, MIA

experienced a 28 percent increase in passenger enplanements and

a 12.4 percent increase in operations. MIA will continue to

experience more than 20,000 hours of annual delay through the

year 2006 if no capacity improvements are made. The update to

the 1989 Capacity Enhancement Plan for MIA was initiated in
56 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1997 ACE PLAN

September 1995 in response to traffic growth and the need to

further analyze capacity enhancement alternatives. The capacity

design team reassessed some previously recommended improvements and considered potential new improvements to increase

MIA’s capacity. The team analyzed a new, closely-spaced parallel

runway and a reconfigured terminal and conducted an airfield

study. The MIA study is scheduled for publication in 1998.

Newark International Airport (EWR)

A study of Newark began in November 1996. The Design

Team is investigating the effect of a runway extension that will

intersect the crosswind runway and other short term improvements such as approaches to other airports using EWR’s Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS). The team is also studying

innovative approach procedures to the converging runway and

innovative dual approach procedures to the closely spaced parallel

runways. The EWR study will be published in FY98.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 57

1997 Tactical Initiative Teams

Tactical Initiative Teams focus on providing immediate relief

to airports with chronic delay. The recommendations of Tactical

Initiative Teams generally focus on procedural changes that can be

implemented quickly with little financial investment. Ongoing

Tactical Initiative projects in 1997 are summarized below.

San Diego International Airport (SAN)

The San Diego study began in May 1996; the expected

completion date is late 1998. The Tactical Initiative Team has

been investigating the effect of another terminal, ground flow and

other short term improvements such as an additional terminal

concourse, taxiway development, and remote aircraft parking

areas already approved in the Immediate Action Plan. The study

analyzes major airfield improvement concepts developed in the

1997 airport Master Plan study.

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (LAS)

LAS is adding another gate complex, Terminal D, to the

airport. Construction on this terminal is underway. The FAA is

examining the impacts of an initial increase in traffic on existing

taxiways and gates. In addition, the ability of the new terminal

complex to accommodate future traffic levels will be tested. Other

issues such as off-gate and overnight parking will also be examined. This new study is an extension of the previous Las Vegas

study completed in 1994. The expected completion date is February 1998.
58 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1997 ACE PLAN

1997 Regional Capacity Design Teams

Looking beyond the individual airport and its immediate

airspace, the Office of System Capacity plans regional studies.

Regional Capacity Design Teams analyze all the major airports in

a metropolitan or regional system and model them in the same

terminal airspace environment. This regional perspective explores

how capacity-producing improvements at one airport will affect

air traffic operations at other airports and within associated

airspace.

Northeast Region Capacity Design Study

The Northeast Region study, which began in September

1996, was initiated to analyze the impacts of the decentralization

of northeastern airports as passengers migrate from the primary

airports (BOS, EWR, JFK, and LGA) for each metropolitan area. The

Design Team is working with the Volpe National Transportation

Systems Center to study the effect of increased passenger traffic

at the outlying airports in both the New York and Boston areas.

Anchorage Area Airspace Design Team Study

The Anchorage Area Airspace Design Team Study will identify ways to best accommodate existing and future aircraft operations in the Anchorage area. The study is expected to last 18

months and involves four major airports: Anchorage International (ANC), Lake Hood, Merrill Field, and Elmendorf. Additionally, the private use airports and heliports in the Anchorage

area will be included in the study.

The study’s complexity is heightened by multiple airport

interaction and the strong presence of GA aircraft in Alaska and

the Anchorage area — Lake Hood is the busiest seaplane facility

in the world, and Merrill Field is one of the busiest GA airports in

the world. Obtaining representative data on those GA users who

do not use air traffic control services adds an additional degree of

complexity to this study.

As the scope of the study is being defined, the following

considerations are being evaluated: the impact on operations in

the Anchorage area of constructing a new runway and runway

extension; innovative approach procedures to the converging

runway at ANC and to the closely spaced parallel runways; and

means of addressing congestion problems caused by more than

one million annual operations transiting over Point McKenzie, a

single fix.
AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 4:

Airspace development studies strive to relieve congestion and

reduce system delay by determining how to: restructure airspace;

reroute traffic; or modify arrival, departure, or en route and

terminal flow patterns. En route airspace studies may extend to

one or more Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs), encompassing traffic flowing into and out of several airports. In contrast,

terminal airspace studies address only the terminal area, usually

encompassing about a 40 mile radius around the airport.

En route airspace studies may be prompted by experienced or

projected congestion and delays, airport development, improved

operational procedures, or resectorization of the airspace that

provides opportunities to modify traffic flow. From the analysis

stage to implementation, major redesign of en route airspace is a

complex process that may take up to ten years. En route airspace

capacity studies are conducted jointly by the Office of System

Capacity (ASC), Air Traffic (AAT), and the Office of Environment

and Energy (AEE).

Terminal airspace studies, generally intended to follow Airport Capacity Design Team studies, examine ways to ensure that

the airport’s airspace can most efficiently accommodate new

traffic patterns resulting from new runways and runway extensions and projected traffic increases. Terminal airspace studies are

typically conducted by the Airport Capacity Design Team that

conducted the airport capacity enhancement study, with the

assistance of the FAA Technical Center and additional Air Traffic

representatives. Table 4-1 lists completed en route and terminal

airspace studies.

Table 4-2 lists the various alternatives proposed for improving

traffic flow for each airspace region. Common airspace improvement alternatives include: relocating arrival fixes, creating new

arrival and departure routes, modifying ARTCC traffic flows, and

redefining Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) boundaries.

This chapter describes ongoing and recently completed en

route and terminal airspace studies. It concludes with a short

description of the FAA’s involvement in a relatively new airspace

frontier, commercial space.
60 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1997 ACE PLAN

Table 4-1.

Completed En Route and Terminal Airspace Studies

Terminal Airspace

Houston Intercontinental

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l

San Bernardino/Ontario

En Route Airspace

Chicago

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Denver

Expanded East Coast Plan

Houston-Austin

Kansas City

Los Angeles

Oakland

New York

Jacksonville

Atlanta

Miami

Table 4-2.

Airspace Design Alternatives by Airspace Region

Studied Alternatives

Relocating arrival fixes

New arrival routes

New departure routes

Modifications to ARTCC traffic

New airport

Hub/non-hub alternatives

Change in metering restrictions

Redifining TRACON boundaries

Military traffic considered

New runways at existing airports

Specific modeling of 2 or more

airports for interactions analysis

Airspace Regions

ChicagoDallas-Ft. WorthDenverExpanded East Coast PlanHouston-AustinLos AngelesOakland

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Kansas City

√

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Redifining sector ceilngs

Resectorization

New YorkJacksonvilleAtlantaMiami

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√√√√

√√√

√√√√

√

√
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 4 – 61

Ongoing Airspace Studies

ASC is currently involved in en route airspace studies in three

regions of the country: Chicago; the west coast, including northern California, southern California and Las Vegas; and Salt Lake

City. ASC is also conducting a terminal airspace study at Phoenix

International Airport.

Chicago Metroplex Airspace Analysis

The purpose of this project is to increase the efficiency of

existing airport capacity by redesigning arrival and departure

routes and using a new TRACON with an updated area route

terminal system (ARTS) to improve airspace traffic flow. The study

area consists of the Chicago Center, which includes traffic operations within Chicago and Milwaukee TRACONs, and en route

portions of the four adjacent ARTCCs.

The FAA identified the time and location of traffic bottlenecks

and other constrained operations by animating traffic flows,

computing traffic count statistics, and computing time and distance relationships. Figure 4-1 illustrates the arrival paths for

Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD). Wavering flight

paths indicate that flights were path-stretched by air traffic

controllers to regulate traffic flow approaching the terminal area.

ZAU

ZKC

ZOB

ZID

ZMP

Chicago O'Hare Jet Arrivals

6:00 - 7:00 PM Local

Figure 4-1.

Flight Paths Over Five-Center Area
62 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1997 ACE PLAN

After extensive analysis, three airspace design alternatives

were developed that would provide an airspace structure to increase airspace capacity for O’Hare International arrivals. The first

alternative is to add four arrival routes to Chicago’s TRACON for

ORD arrivals. During heavy traffic periods, two additional dual

routes (Alternative 1A) or one dual route (Alternative 1B) could

be activated as required. The second alternative is to rotate the

existing four corner posts by 45 degrees, allowing redistribution of

traffic flow and an additional arrival fix from east and west. The

third alternative is to establish two additional arrival corner posts

(totaling six) for ORD arrivals. Figure 4-2 is a simplified diagram

illustrating the basic routing concepts behind the proposed alternatives. For each alternative, the projected annualized dollar

savings resulting from the reduced flight time at the baseline

traffic level is presented.1

 The FAA is currently conducting analyses of the likely environmental impacts.

1. All aircraft operating costs savings quoted in this chapter are based on marginal

aircraft operating cost of $1,600 per hour.

Alternative 1A Alternative 1B

Arrival Gate

Departure Gate

ORD ORD

Annual Savings $54.8M Annual Savings $39.6M

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

ORD ORD

Annual Savings $42.9M Annual Savings $61.0M

Figure 4-2.

Airspace Design Alternatives for Chicago
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 4 – 63

West Coast Airspace Analysis

ASC is involved in a large-scale analysis of the airspace on the

west coast of the United States, ranging from San Francisco/

Oakland in the north, to Los Angeles in the south, and extending

to Las Vegas to the east.

In California, the airspace of two major new facilities, the

Southern California TRACON (SCT) and the Northern California

TRACON (NCT), are being analyzed to capitalize on potential

efficiency and capacity gains made possible by the new facilities.

The SCT controls terminal airspace in the Los Angeles-San Diego

area and consolidates the operations of the former Los Angeles,

Coast, Burbank, Ontario, and San Diego TRACONs into a single

facility. The NCT (which has been proposed but not yet constructed) will control airspace in San Francisco, Sacramento, and

their surrounding areas. The consolidation and expansion of the

airspace surrounding San Francisco into the NCT will enhance

controller flexibility for merging and sequencing aircraft to and

from northern California. The FAA has developed proposals for

streamlining the coastwise traffic flow while addressing the longhaul traffic problems specific to each facility.

SCT Airspace Analysis

Over the last year, the FAA developed airspace alternatives to

address traffic movement problems within the Los Angeles Basin

area. An Arrival Enhancement Procedure (AEP) for Los Angeles

International Airport (LAX) would provide dual arrival streams for

flights landing at LAX from the east. Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show a

comparison of flight tracks for the existing landing procedure and

the proposed traffic flows under the AEP alternative, respectively.

Currently, traffic from the east and northeast merge into a single

flow over CIVET for sequencing to Runway 25L at LAX. Under the

AEP, the path for flights arriving from the northeast would remain

unchanged. Flights arriving from the east would be rerouted to

GEORG, REBCA, PDZ, and ARNES, then to Runway 25L. The new

arrival route would remove pressure on CIVET and reduce congestion related delays. Annualized cost savings due to reduced flight

times as a result of the AEP are projected to be $13.3 million at

baseline traffic levels. By 2005, savings are expected to increase to

$64.9 million annually.

NCT Airspace Analysis

Two FAA proposals for enhancing airspace efficiency in northern California are: an offshore standard terminal arrival route

(STAR) for Oakland Airport (OAK), to remove Oakland-bound
64 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1997 ACE PLAN

BURBANK HEC

AREA

EMPIRE

AREA

SECTOR20

COAST AREA

LOS ANGELES

AREA

SAN DIEGO

AREA

DAWNA J128

TNP

LAX

Existing SCT Airspace

RUSTT

Jet Arrival Route

ABREE

ARNES

J107

J10

CIVET

FUELR

Legend

Fix/Intersection

LAX International Airport

VORTAC

Figure 4-3.

Existing Routes to Los Angeles International Airport

HEC BURBANK

AREA

EMPIRE

AREA

NEWLAX

FEEDER

COAST AREA

LOS ANGELES

AREA

SAN DIEGO

AREA

DAWNA J128

TNP

LAX

Proposed SCT Airspace

RUSTT

Existing Jet Arrival Route

ABREE

GEORG

ARNE

J107

J10

PDZ

REBCA

CIVET

DENAY

FUELR

Fix/Intersection

LAX International Airport

Legend

GOLDI

ProposedArrival Route

VORTAC

Figure 4-4.

Proposed Arrival Enhancement Procedure (AEP) to Los Angeles International Airport
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 4 – 65

SFO

PYE

FLOW

ILA

ENI

LOCKE

FLOW

BS

FLOW

HADLY

STAR

Figure 4-5.

Flight Tracks of SFO Arrivals

traffic from the San Francisco arrival stream; and a straight-in

STAR for northwest arrivals to San Francisco International Airport (SFO).

Figure 4-5 illustrates the flight paths of aircraft arriving to SFO

over a six-hour period. The distended and circular flight paths for

northbound flights approaching SFO and OAK are evidence of

spacing techniques used by air traffic controllers to moderate

traffic in the terminal areas. To reduce congestion in the northbound traffic, the FAA is considering segregating northbound SFO

and OAK traffic by establishing an offshore STAR for flights bound

for OAK.

Currently, most air traffic from the north, northwest, and

northeast is routed over PYE (an arrival fix at Point Reyes) on

approach to SFO. Due to congestion, traffic over PYE frequently

must be path-stretched for sequencing into SFO. The FAA is

studying the development of a new, straight-in STAR for SFO

arrivals over UPEND, an initial approach fix for runway 19L.

Implementation of the straight-in STAR is dependent on the

consolidation and expansion of the airspace surrounding SFO into

the NCT to enhance controller flexibility for merging and sequencing of aircraft. The new STAR would reduce average route distance

for SFO arrivals by nearly 40 miles. Annual aircraft operating cost

savings resulting from the SFO straight-in and OAK offshore STARs

are estimated at $6.6 million at baseline traffic levels.
66 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1997 ACE PLAN

PYE

ENI

ILA

RBL

SWR

Pacific Rim

Pacific

Northwest

Polar & Upper

Midwest

Northern

Rockies

Reno/Tahoe

Modesto

Offload

Short

Haul

SFO

JetArrivalRoute

Legend

SanFransiscoInternationalAirport

VORTAC

VOR/DME

Figure 4-6.

Region of Origin and Existing Routings for SFO Arrivals

ILA

RBL

SWR

Pacific Rim

Pacific

Northwest

Polar & Upper

Midwest

Northern

Rockies

Reno/Tahoe

Modesto

Offload

ENI

PYE

Short Haul

UPEND

SFO

Jet Arrival Route

Legend

San Fransisco International Airport

VORTAC

VOR/DME

Figure 4-7.

Region of Origin and Routings for Proposed Straight-In star for SFO Arrivals
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 4 – 67

Figures 4-6 and 4-7 show a comparison of existing routings of

SFO arrivals over PYE and the proposed rerouting of aircraft over

UPEND under the straight-in STAR, respectively.

Las Vegas Airspace Analysis

In 1995, Las Vegas had 29 million tourists. Of these, over 14

million traveled by air. By 1997, the number of tourists increased

to more than 34 million, with more expected as new hotel rooms

continue to be built. The consistent increase in visitors to Las

Vegas has strained the operations at McCarren International

Airport (LAS), which experienced more than 20,000 hours of

delay in 1996, and for which continued delays are projected if no

capacity improvements are made. Currently, LAS is constructing

an additional 60 gates, which will more than double the number

of existing gates. Although one runway is being upgraded, this

improvement will probably not be sufficient to accommodate

projected demand. To relieve pressure on LAS, most VFR sightseeing

tour operations have been moved to North Las Vegas Airport(NLV).

The Las Vegas airspace analysis encompasses the airspace of

the Los Angeles Center, including LAS and NLV. Computer

analysis was used to design alternative arrival and departure

routings in conjunction with modified runway use to enable the

FAA to better service the dramatic growth in air traffic demand in

the Las Vegas area. The study also assesses how best to route tour

flights so that they are compatible with other flights within the Las

Vegas TRACON and how moving tour operations to NLV has

affected operations at LAS.

A proposed corner post structure for LAS arrivals and the

establishment of dedicated arrival and departure runways could

result in substantial flight-time savings. The proposed airspace

changes would result in daily flight-time savings of 65 hours at

current traffic levels; aircraft delays of greater than 15 minutes

would be reduced by 82 percent. At anticipated traffic levels,

projected delay savings are even more pronounced.

Salt Lake City Airspace Analysis

Air traffic activity at the Salt Lake City Airport (SLC) has

increased significantly in the past few years, from 317,000 operations in 1992 to 374,000 operations in 1996. SLC is a hub for Delta

and SkyWest Airlines. Federal Express is in the process of

building a cargo hub operation there. SLC experienced more than

20,000 hours of delay in FY96, and if no further capacity enhancements are made, will continue to exceed 20,000 hours of delay

annually (see Table 1-5). The Salt Lake City airspace analysis

began in April 1997. The purpose of the study is to reduce traffic
68 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1997 ACE PLAN

flow complexity to accommodate expected traffic growth, including traffic growth projections for the upcoming 2002 Winter

Olympic games. Routing options for SLC are limited by the

presence of military special use airspace to the west of the airport,

and mountainous terrain to the east.

Airspace analysis and modeling tools were used to create

graphic displays of existing flight tracks to assess current airspace

operations within Salt Lake Center and portions of Denver

Center. Under the existing air traffic structure, certain sectors

handle both arrivals and departures, which is not ideal from a

workload and safety standpoint. Figure 4-8 shows the current

arrival tracks and departure routes for SLC. The FAA developed an

improved corner post structure for arrivals in conjunction with

additional downwind legs for the purpose of increasing runway

throughput, and redefined sector boundaries. Figure 4-9 shows

the proposed resectorization and arrival and departure structure.

Restructuring of the en route airspace will allow refinements of air

traffic control in the terminal airspace, thus generating additional

capacity gains.

Phoenix Terminal Airspace Analysis

Due to a significant increase in operations, a Terminal Airspace Study has been initiated in Phoenix. The study, which also

involves the Albuquerque Center, began in the fall of 1997. This

team is addressing the expected increase of arrival and departures

in the Phoenix area.

Commercial Space Transportation

The FAA regulates the U.S. commercial space transportation

industry, licenses commercial launches and launch sites, and

manages the airspace required for commercial launches to assure

safety. Most commercial space launches contain communications,

scientific, weather, or remote sensing satellites. Launches are

financed by private corporations, states, Air Force grants, and

NASA. Unlike airports, where the FAA builds and maintains air

traffic control facilities, the FAA has no infrastructure at launch

sites.

As of November 1997, there have been 81 licensed launches;

all but one have launched from one of the following Federal sites:

Cape Canaveral, White Sands Missile Range, Vandenberg, Wallops Island, and Barking Sands, Hawaii.

In September 1996, the FAA issued the first non-Federal space

launch site license to the California Spaceport. In May 1997, the

FAA issued a license to the Space Florida Authority. The FAA is
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 4 – 69

45

42

41

29

06

16

05

44

46

03

32 04

07

40

2

UTT

UTT

WEST ARRIVALS

SOUTHEAST ARRIVALS

SOUTHWEST ARRIVALS

NORTHEAST ARRIVALS

NORTHWEST ARRIVALS

LowAltitudeSectors

Figure 4-8.

Current Arrival Tracks and Departure Routes for SLC

45

42

41

06

16

05

44

46

03

07

40

UTT

SOUTHEASTARRIVALS

NORTHEASTARRIVALS

NORTHWESTARRIVALS

LowAltitude

Sectors

UTT

47 31

08

32 33

WESTARRIVALS

SOUTHWESTARRIVALS

Figure 4-9.

Proposed Arrival and Departure Routes for SLC
70 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1997 ACE PLAN

also working with Alaska, Nevada, New Mexico, and Virginia on

other proposed commercial launch sites. The FAA is preparing

regulations for licensing commercial launches and launch sites.

The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation is

currently leading a program to analyze airspace requirements for

launch and reentry of space vehicles. This project, which began in

early 1977, will focus on the current practice of using SUA and

refining the amount of airspace required during a launch or

reentry. The first part of the study includes an analysis of the SUA

required for the space shuttle.
NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 5:

This chapter describes new and developing air traffic control

procedures requiring minimal or no investment in new technology. Many of these developments are free flight initiatives that will

give pilots more flexibility in determining their routes, altitude,

speed, and departure and landing times. Modernization of the

National Airspace System (NAS) equipment over the next decade

will provide additional opportunities to develop procedures that

take advantage of new technological capabilities. The procedures

described in this chapter are listed below.

En Route Procedures

• Direct routing

• Area Navigation (RNAV

)

• Continue expansion of the National Route Program (NRP)

• Reduce the number of Air Traffic Control (ATC)-Preferred Routes

• Improved civilian access to Special Use Airspace (SUA)

• New guidelines for imposing restrictions

Oceanic En Route Procedures

• Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM)

• Reduced Horizontal Separation Minima (RHSM)

• In-Trail Climb and In-Trail Descent

• Dynamic Aircraft Route Planning (DARP)

Terminal Area/Approach Procedures • RNAV approaches

• Simultaneous converging instrument approaches

• Removal of 250 knot speed limit below 10,000 feet in

Class B airspace
72 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 1997 ACE PLAN

En Route Procedures

New en route procedures give airspace users more flexibility to

determine their routes, altitude, and speed.

Direct Routing

The ability of pilots to plan and fly direct routes is being

improved through several procedural initiatives.

Area Navigation (RNAV)

Most aircraft today have equipment that enables them to fly

direct routes using a procedure known as RNAV. RNAV is a generic

term that refers to any instrument navigation performed outside

of conventional routes  routes defined by the ground-based

navigational aids or by intersections formed by two navigational

aids. Technologies such as Flight Management Systems (FMS),

LORAN-C, and inertial guidance systems have offered RNAV

capability to aircraft, especially commercial carriers, for nearly two

decades. With the introduction and widespread acceptance of

Global Positioning System (GPS) to civilian aviation in the 1990s,

even more aircraft have acquired this capability.

While RNAV offers the potential for more flexibility and

greater airspace efficiency, its use is often restricted by air traffic

control procedures that are based on established route structures.

This is the case in high-density terminal airspace where air traffic

controllers rely on the use of standard instrument departures

(SIDs) and standard terminal arrival routes (STARs) to align and

sequence traffic. While possible, it is difficult for controllers to

simultaneously accommodate non-standard RNAV arrival and

departure procedures with SIDs and STARs. For this reason, RNAV

arrival and departure routes are typically restricted to periods of

low traffic.

To make greater use of RNAV capabilities in terminal airspace,

the FAA has begun to develop RNAV arrival and departure procedures for the top 50 airports. For major airports within 500 nm of

each other (e.g., Phoenix and Las Vegas), the FAA is exploring the

concept of city pair SID/STAR routes whereby the STAR would

begin where the SID ends, and en route air traffic control services

would not be required. To accommodate longer range en route

RNAV flights, the FAA has modified software to allow the filing of

RNAV routes. Some RNAV routes have already been implemented

in the Caribbean.

To make greater use of RNAV capabilities in terminal airspace, the FAA

has begun to develop RNAV arrival

and departure procedures for the

top 50 airports.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 5 – 73

The National Route Program (NRP)

The NRP gives airlines and pilots increased flexibility in

choosing their routes. NRP flights are not limited to published

ATC-preferred routes; they are only subject to route limitations

within a 200 nm radius of take-off or landing. This flexibility

allows airlines to plan and fly the most cost-effective routes and

increases the overall capacity and efficiency of the aviation system.

From January 1995 to November 1996, the NRP was expanded

in ten phases, with each phase lowering the base altitude for

participation. NRP operations are currently authorized at or above

FL290 across the contiguous United States. Participation has

increased with the implementation of each phase. In October

1995, there were 600 NRP flights daily. By September 1997, the

average had increased to more than 1,500 NRP flights daily.

Participation rates are higher on longer flights. The FAA estimates

that the NRP saved the aviation industry as much as $65 million in

1997, or about $150 per flight, by allowing pilots to fly more

optimal routes.

In an effort to expand the NRP and increase participation rates,

the FAA is planning to eliminate the 200 nm requirement through

the use of SID/STAR routes as ingress/egress points to the NRP. In

doing this, the user will be allowed to file a SID to join an NRP route

and to exit an NRP route via a STAR. Twenty-four SIDs and 15

STARs in six airport areas (Kansas City, St. Louis, Denver, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and Philadelphia) will be included in

initial implementation. The first implementation of SID/NRP/

STAR procedures is scheduled for early 1998. Future efforts to

augment the NRP will focus on expansion of the NRP to altitudes

below FL290.

Elimination of Unnecessary ATC-Preferred Routes

The FAA is striving to increase user routing flexibility by

eliminating ATC-preferred routes where possible. ATC-preferred

routes are important tools that help air traffic controllers organize

traffic flows around major airports. There are currently 1,975 ATCpreferred routes. It is estimated that during a given day, pilots

using the low altitude system (below 18,000 feet) add approximately 125,000 miles of extra distance to their flight plans as a

result of published ATC-preferred routes. While it may never be

desirable to eliminate all ATC-preferred routes, a recent audit

indicates that at least 100-150 of these routes could be eliminated

without negatively impacting system operations. In early 1998,

the FAA plans to begin a six-month test phase in which these 100-

150 ATC-preferred routes will be suspended. If no problems arise

from the suspension of a particular ATC-preferred route, that ATC-
74 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 1997 ACE PLAN

preferred route will be eliminated. An additional 1,300 routes will

be analyzed to assess whether they also can be eliminated. As

additional candidates for elimination are identified, they will be

added to the list of suspended routes, and undergo a six-month

test phase before being eliminated.

Improving Civilian Access to Special Use Airspace (SUA)

Commercial and general aviation (GA) users seek access to

Special Use Airspace (SUA) when that airspace is not in use by the

military. The FAA is working with the Department of Defense

(DOD) and NAS users to develop procedures for allowing greater

civilian access to SUA. For these procedures to be effective, more

real-time information on SUA availability is needed. Providing

civilian users with this information requires the development of

software for recording SUA time and altitude availability, as well as

procedures and software for ensuring that users have access to the

data. An operational trial conducted within the Edwards R-2508

airspace complex demonstrated that improved information exchange on the status of SUA can increase civil aircraft use of these

military areas. During the operational trial, one airline saved

approximately $180 per flight due to direct routing through the

SUA, a monthly savings of $30,000. Due to the successful operational trial, the FAA has continued to disseminate SUA information

on a real-time basis and allow flights to file flight plans that

transverse the Edwards R-2508 airspace complex when it is not in

use by the military. Figure 5-1 illustrates areas designated as SUA

in the continental United States.

Figure 5-1.

SUA in the Continental United States

The FAA is working with the Department of Defense (DOD) and NAS

users to develop procedures for allowing greater civilian access to SUA.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 5 – 75

Information sharing between the military and the FAA on SUA

availability has also increased capacity in other areas. For example,

Southern California Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON)

has developed a departure through an SUA that reduces delays

from Los Angeles; High Desert TRACON receives immediate

notification when a nearby SUA is available and forwards this

information to the users. The FAA’s Alaskan Region has worked

with the military to provide frequencies and a 1-800 telephone

number for pilots to obtain current information on SUA availability. Additional initiatives to increase access to SUA include cooperative decision-making between the DOD and the FAA on which

hours SUAs will be active and redefining the boundaries of some

SUAs.

New Guidelines for Imposing Restrictions

The use of air traffic restrictions is a tool by which air traffic

controllers manage their workload, avoid congestion, and restrict

aircraft movement during periods of severe weather. For example,

during high volume arrival and departure periods, air traffic

controllers may request that arriving aircraft maintain ten milesin trail separation from the preceding aircraft to moderate traffic

flow into the terminal area. Beginning in 1994, the FAA conducted

several audits to measure the number and duration of restrictions

and identify unnecessary restrictions. The initial audit showed

3,998 restrictions in effect for 8,229 hours. An audit performed

one year later found a 28 percent reduction in the number of

restrictions and a 34 percent reduction in the number of hours in

which restrictions were in place. An audit in February 1996

yielded an additional 5 percent reduction in the number of

restrictions and an additional 25 percent reduction in the number

of hours in which restrictions were in place.

In June 1997, the FAA developed a procedure to prevent

unnecessary traffic restrictions. In the past, facilities often imposed restrictions based on their recollections of prior traffic

patterns. Under the new procedure, all requests for restrictions

must be coordinated through the Air Traffic Control System

Command Center (ATCSCC). Local facilities must do thorough

testing and analysis of all options before calling ATCSCC with a

request for a restriction. The ATCSCC will then analyze the options

from a national perspective before discussing which option to

implement. The decision to impose the restriction requires consensus between ATCSCC and the requesting facility. The result of the

more stringent standard has been a further reduction in the

number of restrictions, resulting in more efficient operations for

the users.

Additional initiatives to increase access to SUA include cooperative

decision-making between the DOD

and the FAA on which hours SUAs

will be active and redefining the

boundaries of some SUAs.
76 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 1997 ACE PLAN

Oceanic En Route Procedures

A number of procedural initiatives are currently underway

that will increase capacity in the oceanic airspace while maintaining or improving safety.

Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM)

Procedures implemented more than 40 years ago required a

1,000-feet minimum vertical separation between IFR aircraft

below FL290 and 2,000-feet separation above FL290. The adoption of 2,000-feet separation above FL290 reflected the belief that

altimeters in use at that time were less accurate at higher altitudes.

Today, most aircraft are equipped with highly accurate altimeters.

In response to the demand for more capacity, the FAA has begun

a phased implementation of RVSM in the North Atlantic. The goal

of RVSM is to reduce the vertical separation between FL290 and

FL410 from the current 2,000-feet minimum to 1,000-feet minimum. Operational trials of RVSM began in the North Atlantic

airspace from FL330 to FL370, inclusive, in March 1997. Expansion of the RVSM to FL310 and FL390 is planned for April 1998.

Additional phases will lead to full implementation that will

include FL290 and FL410. Implementation of RVSM should result

in almost doubling available oceanic tracks across the North

Atlantic within the relevant altitudes. Existing capacity constraints on optimum tracks and levels will be substantially reduced, and aircraft will be able to operate closer to optimum levels.

Fuel savings from aircraft flying more optimum routes due to

RVSM in the North Atlantic are projected to range from 13 to 18

million gallons annually, depending on traffic density. Based on

the successful implementation of RVSM in the North Atlantic,

users have requested RVSM in the Pacific as well. The FAA is now

examining the feasibility of this initiative.

Reduced Horizontal Separation Minima (RHSM)

The current oceanic ATC system uses filed flight plans and

position reports to track an aircraft’s progress and ensure separation is maintained. The progress of an aircraft is monitored by ATC

using position reports sent by the aircraft over high frequency

(HF) radio. Position reports are infrequent (approximately one

report per hour), and the accuracy of these reports depends on the

accuracy of the on-board navigation system and timing standard

aboard the aircraft. HF communication is subject to interference,

disruption, and delay because it involves the use of radio operators

to relay messages between pilots and controllers. These deficiencies

in communications and surveillance have necessitated large horizontal separation minima.

The goal of RVSM is to reduce the

vertical separation between FL290

and FL410 from the current 2,000-

feet minimum to 1,000-feet minimum.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 5 – 77

As a result of improved navigational capabilities made possible by technologies such as GPS, TCAS, and controller to pilot

data link communications (CPDLC), oceanic minimum horizontal

separation standards, lateral and longitudinal, will be reduced. In

the Pacific, lateral separation standards will be reduced from the

current standards (60 nm to 100 nm depending on location) to

50nm in specific oceanic areas in 1998. Where traffic density

permits, longitudinal separation in the Pacific will be reduced

from the current time-based standard of 15 minutes to 50 nm by

late 1998. The reduced lateral separation minima will allow

increased capacity during peak hours. The reduced longitudinal

minima will provide increased opportunities for altitude changes

to achieve optimum altitudes, thus saving fuel.

In-Trail Climb (ITC) and In-Trail Descent (ITD)

The ITC and ITD procedures enable a trailing aircraft in a nonradar (oceanic) environment to climb or descend through the

altitude of a leading aircraft to a more desirable cruising altitude.

Using the ITC or ITD procedure, an aircraft flying behind and

2,000 feet above or below an aircraft along the same oceanic route

may request to climb or descend through the altitude of the lead

aircraft as long as the distance between them is at least 15 nm and

the ground speed closure rate is 20 knots or less. The pilot wanting

to ascend or descend uses the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) traffic display (described in Chapter 6) to

positively identify and determine the distance to the lead aircraft.

The trailing aircraft initiates the procedure, coordinates with the

lead aircraft, and obtains climb or descent clearance from ATC.

ATC maintains responsibility for separation during the maneuver.

Standard non-radar spacing criteria are applied by ATC after the

procedure is completed. ITC and ITD are the first procedures to

utilize the display of traffic information on the flight deck to assist

air traffic controllers in monitoring and reducing aircraft spacing

requirements. The ITC and ITD procedures reduce the typical

non-radar in-trail distance necessary to approve a climb or descent

from 10 minutes (approximately 100 nm) to a minimum of 15 nm.

Without the benefit of this procedure the trailing aircraft may be

trapped below the lead aircraft. The inability to gain a higher

altitude significantly increases fuel burn.

Operational trials for the ITC procedure have been conducted

in the Oakland and Anchorage Flight Information Regions (FIRs)

since 1994 with United Airlines and Delta Air Lines. Data

collected during the trials indicate that pilots and controllers find

the procedure useful and are using it correctly, safely, and cooperatively. Both pilots and controllers have recommended adoption of

this procedure. Based on these data, the next phase of operational
78 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 1997 ACE PLAN

trials will include six additional airlines—American, Air New

Zealand, Canadian, Cathay Pacific, Hawaiian, and Singapore

airlines. Figure 5-2 illustrates the ITC and ITD procedures.

Minimum Flight Level Spacing

Minimum Flight Level Spacing

In-Trail Climb

In-Trail Descent

Minimum 15 nautical miles

Minimum 15 nautical miles

Figure 5-2.

In-Trail Climb and In-Trail Descent

Dynamic Aircraft Route Planning (DARP)

The DARP initiative provides the ability to update/revise a

flight route while an aircraft or a group of aircraft is en route. This

will allow a user to take advantage of a more efficient trajectory

when a revised forecast is published by the traffic management

unit (including real-time weather and winds information) in order

to optimize the route of flight. An aircraft may take advantage of

this trajectory for the remainder of its route, saving time and fuel.

In 1997, the FAA began oceanic trials of the DARP between Los

Angeles and Sydney.

Terminal Area/Approach Procedures

There are a number of visual and electronic landing aids at or

near airports that assist pilots in locating the runway, particularly

during IFR weather conditions. Approach procedures have been

developed based on the type and accuracy of landing aids available.

Some of these approach procedures are discussed below.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 5 – 79

Area Navigation (RNAV) Approaches

With the capabilities enabled by RNAV technologies such as

GPS and FMS, the availability and number of approach procedures

to airports can be increased. GPS, unlike other RNAV technologies,

is capable of providing precise vertical and horizontal guidance to

a runway. This capability will enable the development of precision

approaches during low weather minimums to airports not having

precision landing aids today. By accelerating the publication of

RNAV approach procedures, air traffic services (ATS) will increase

access to the Nation’s airports during IFR weather conditions. ATS

plans to publish a minimum of 500 non-precision RNAV approaches per year over the next three years.

Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches

Under existing approach procedures, converging runways can

be used for independent streams of arriving aircraft only when the

ceiling is at least 900 - 1,000 feet and visibility is at least three

statute miles. This requirement decreases runway capacity in

instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and causes weatherrelated delays. Simultaneous approaches cannot be conducted

under IMC if the converging runways intersect.

In an effort to refine the converging approach procedures and

obtain greater operational efficiency for the users, the Converging

Approach Standards Technical Work Group (CASTWG) was

formed. The goal of the workgroup is to reduce landing minimums for aircraft conducting simultaneous converging instrument approaches, using FMS technology and new procedures to

ensure required aircraft separation is provided in the event of a

simultaneous missed approach.

The CASTWG developed and tested a new missed approach

procedure using a 95 degree turn from the localizer course, which

can be implemented at 650-feet minimums. The procedure requires flight testing and validation prior to initial implementation.

Once the new 650-feet minimums are implemented, efforts to

further reduce the minimums to as low as 500 feet will continue.

Average capacity gains using the new minimums with FMS

positive missed approach guidance are expected to be 30 arrivals

per hour. When the new procedure is used in conjunction with

other approaches, annual delay savings of more than 12,000 hours

are projected for Chicago O’Hare, one candidate for the new

procedure.

Average capacity gains using the

new minimums with FMS positive

missed approach guidance are expected to be 30 arrivals per hour.
80 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 1997 ACE PLAN

Figure 5-3 illustrates the missed approach for the new simultaneous converging instrument approach and lists candidate airports for the new procedure.

Removal of 250 Knot Speed Limit for Departing Aircraft in

Class B Airspace

Currently aircraft are restricted to a 250 knot speed limit

below 10,000-feet mean sea level (MSL). This restriction constrains capacity by limiting departure rates. Laboratory simulations for St. Louis and Dallas/Fort Worth terminal areas indicated

that removing the speed limit resulted in no major safety concerns,

insignificant noise impacts, and no appreciable change in controller workload. In June 1997, the FAA began a field program at

George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Houston International

TRACON to determine the feasibility and impact of removing the

250 knot speed restriction for aircraft departing in Class B

airspace. Under the field program, there are three test procedures.

The first test procedure is to allow controllers to remove the 250

knot speed limit when operationally advantageous. The second

test procedure will allow aircraft to exceed 250 knots after reaching a particular altitude. The third test procedure will allow aircraft

to climb at an unrestricted speed at the pilot’s discretion. Interviews with controllers and users conducted in August 1997

indicated that the flight crews were enthusiastic supporters of the

concept, while controllers view their authority to remove restrictions as a valuable tool to enhance the efficiency of departure flow.

15° - 50°*

95°

Boston

Charlotte

Chicago O’Hare

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Houston Intercont’l

Miami

Nashville

New Orleans

Newark

Philadlephia

St. Louis

Salt Lake City

Washington Dulles

Candidates Among

Top 100 Airports

* Greater convergence angle

with site specific authorization.

Figure 5-3.

Independent Converging Approach and Missed Approach Procedure
CAPACITY ENHANCING T

CHAPTER 6:

ECHNOLOGIES

Over the next two decades, the FAA will introduce numerous

technologies to the civil aviation system that promise to improve

safety, increase capacity, reduce delays, provide greater flexibility

and predictability, and improve the overall efficiency of the

National Airspace System (NAS). Worldwide, civil aviation authorities and airspace users are adopting many of these technologies as part of the transition from traditional air traffic control (ATC)a system based on radio communications, radar surveillance, and ground-based navigationto a more flexible and

efficient airspace management system using digital communications, satellite navigation, and advanced processors.

The technologies identified in this chapter were selected

based on their projected benefits to airspace and airport capacity.

While emphasis is placed on new and developing technologies, it

is understood that many capacity improvements will also be

gained from incremental upgrades to existing systems or new

applications of existing technology. Technologies discussed in this

chapter are described in more detail in the FAA’s Capital Investment Plan (CIP), Plan for Research, Engineering, and Development (R,E&D), and NAS Architecture.

This chapter is divided into five areas: Communications,

Navigation, Surveillance, Weather, and Air Traffic Management.

For each area, the characteristics of the current system are described, followed by a description of planned enhancements and

the key technologies that will make those enhancements possible.

A table listing all of the currently funded capacity-enhancing

technology projects is presented for each area.

Communications

The exchange of information is vital to all flight operations.

This is especially true for large commercial operations that require

continual interaction with flight planning and ATC facilities to

obtain information concerning weather forecasts, clearances, taxi

instructions, expected delays, position reports, air traffic advisories, airport information, etc. Problems in the communication

system, such as frequency congestion and interference, impact the

overall efficiency of operations. Planned improvements to the

communications systems will greatly improve the quality, clarity,

and amount of information exchanged among and between aircraft and ground facilities.

Current Communication Capabilities

In domestic airspace, information is typically transmitted and

received using voiced air/ground ultra high frequency (UHF) and
82 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1997 ACE PLAN

very high frequency (VHF) radio. As the number of aircraft

operations has grown and the demand for information exchange

continues to rise, frequency congestion has become increasingly

problematic, especially within terminal airspace. This congestion

limits the effectiveness of communication, increases controller/

pilot workload, creates delays, and increases the likelihood of

missed or misinterpreted information. Frequency congestion is

largely a result of increased demand for the spectrum available to

the FAA. Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and Atlanta airspace

are already out of available channels. By 2004 - 2007, the FAA will

be unable to provide additional channel assignments.

In oceanic airspace, long-range air/ground communication is

performed through third-party high-frequency (HF) radiosa

communication system that is often hampered by lengthy delays

and subject to atmospheric interference. The shortcomings inherent in the HF radio system make position reports and ATC

approvals for routine pilot clearance requests (i.e., altitude changes

for favorable winds) difficult to obtain due to uncertainties concerning the location of nearby air traffic.

Planned Communication Enhancements

Limited spectrum availability is a major driving force in

transitioning to digital communications. Between now and 2003,

the NAS will add digital communication capabilities through the

expanded use of UHF and HF data link services. The FAA expects

a spectrum recovery of 3.8 digital channels for each current analog

channel. As a result, communication capabilities among aircraft

and ground facilities will be enhanced to increase the volume of

information being transmitted while minimizing frequency congestion, interference, delays, and misunderstandings. Data, especially in the form of text and graphical information, will constitute

a much larger portion of all air/ground communications than

today. Further, wireless information will be made more available

as worldwide aeronautical communication networks are developed.

Aeronautical Data Link System

The term data link refers to the overall system for entering,

processing, transmitting and displaying information. Data link

technology is designed to transmit and receive air/ground voice,

alphanumeric, and graphic information. Although some commercial operators already use these technologies to alleviate frequency congestion and improve communications, current data

link architecture is limited to alphanumeric information in terminal and airport environments.

Limited spectrum availability is a

major driving force in transitioning

to digital communications.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 83

Improvements planned for data link will expand and enhance

communications on the airport surface and during all phases of

flight, and will facilitate more accurate and reliable communications between flight crews in oceanic airspace. Expanded use of

data link technologies in the cockpit will also increase the effectiveness of pilot and air traffic management collaborative decision

making. Data link’s ability to handle large volumes of data will

allow for greater on-demand access to airport information; arrival,

departure, and taxi schedules; airborne and surface surveillance

information; NAS infrastructure status; and real-time weather

information. This communication system will shift from analog to

digital, make more use of satellites as a transmission media, and

reduce congestion and frequency interference associated with

today’s analog-based communication systems. Specific data link

projects include Ocean Data Link (ODL), which will greatly

expand oceanic communications, and Controller to Pilot Data

Link Communications (CPDLC), which will improve the speed

and reliability of controller to pilot communications and contribute to overall NAS safety and capacity. Current data link services

will be expanded between 2000 and 2005 to provide services in all

phases of flight.

Aeronautical Telecommunication Network (ATN)

An integral component of the data link system is the Aeronautical Telecommunication Network (ATN). The ATN is a worldwide data network intended to provide data communications

connectivity among mobile platforms, airlines, and other companies that provide services. The ATN will allow a collection of

dissimilar transmission networks and interconnecting computers

to operate as a single, cooperative network. The goal is to provide

full and flexible support for data communications between aviation end-users around the world—both fixed-based and mobile.

Next Generation Air/Ground Communication System (NEXCOM)

The Next Generation Air/Ground Communication System

(NEXCOM) will provide air/ground communications in support of

safety-critical ATC services. This project will provide radio system

equipment to satisfy the FAA’s need to replace existing unmaintainable radios and increase the capacity of the VHF spectrum.

When fully operational, NEXCOM will:

• Provide air traffic controllers with the ability to accommodate the growing number of sectors and services using the

available, limited radio frequency spectrum;

Improvements planned for data link

will expand and enhance communications on the airport surface and

during all phases of flight, and will

facilitate more accurate and reliable

communications between flight

crews in oceanic airspace.
84 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1997 ACE PLAN

• Reduce logistical costs by replacing expensive to maintain

VHF and UHF radios;

• Provide new data link communications capability to all user

classes;

• Reduce air/ground radio frequency interference and provide

security mechanisms to identify unauthorized users; and

• Recover critically needed VHF channels through improved

spectrum utilization.

NEXCOM will meet the needs of the increasing number of NAS

users and will satisfy the current and identified future requirements that cannot be met using the current voice communications

system. Based on the VHF digital link standards defined by the

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the new digital

radio system will permit rapid failure detection and recovery to

meet air/ground service availability requirements. It will also

provide compatible interfaces with voice switches and aeronautical telecommunications network elements at control facilities. An

investment decision is expected by March of 1998, and initial

operational capability is expected in 2005.

Table 6-1 identifies and describes communications programs

and technologies that will contribute to capacity enhancement.

The projects are listed with CIP and R,E&D identification numbers for reference purposes.

Navigation

Aviation navigation systems in use today vary considerably in

terms of accuracy, coverage, and capabilities. The current navigational airways structure and most approach and landing charts are

designed principally around the geographic location and technical

characteristics of ground-based navigational aids. Future initiatives will enhance the current navigation system by using a more

flexible and available satellite-based system.

Current Navigation Capabilities

The primary means of aircraft navigation in the United States

today is the VHF omnidirectional range (VOR)  a system made

up of a series of ground stations that broadcast directional signals.

These signals are used by aircraft to determine bearings to or from

VOR stations. If the VOR and aircraft are equipped with Distance

Measuring Equipment (DME), the signals can also be used to

determine the distance to VORs. Navigating using VORs typically

consists of flying airways (specific radials connecting VOR stations). The location of VOR stations often leads to indirect,

inefficient flight paths between an aircraft’s origin anddestination.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 85

Table 6-1.

Communications Enhancement Programs

CIP/R,E&D Facility/Civil Aviation System Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Component(s) Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

Voice Switches C-05 Airport, Terminal, En Route This project will provide modern voice switching equipment for

terminal radar approach control (TRACON) facilities, large consolidated TRACON facilities, and airport traffic control towers. The new

voice switching capabilities will enable air traffic controllers to communicate with aircraft and each other to manage traffic flows.

FAA Telecommunications Satellite C-15 Flight Service Stations, This project provides the FAA with a leased service and a diverse,

(FAATSAT) Terminal, En Route/Oceanic alternative path for primary interfacility telecommunications circuits—

with the goal of avoiding single points-of-failure. It will be a costefficient way to meet NAS service availability and message quality

requirements.

Aeronautical Data-link System (ADLS) C-20 Airport, Terminal, ADLS will develop the hardware and software needed for noncritical

En Route/Oceanic air traffic control communications between pilots and air traffic controllers, provide en route applications, and implement controller-topilot data link communications. This will improve pilot accessibility to

information, relieve congested voice frequencies, and reduce the

workload of pilots, specialists, and air traffic controllers.

Next-Generation Air/Ground C-21 Flight Service Stations, Airport, This program will design, implement, and install a new air/ground

Communications System (NEXCOM) Terminal, En Route/Oceanic radio communications system. It will replace obsolete, unmaintainable analog controller-to-pilot radios with multimode radios having

digital voice and data link capability, provide new information exchange functions, and increase very high frequency (VHF) band

spectrum use.

Aeronautical Data Link Communications 031-110 R,E&D, En Route, Oceanic, This project will develop and validate domestic and international

and Applications Terminal, Airport data communications standards associated with the Aeronautical

Telecommunications Network (ATN) and special purpose air/

ground data link capabilities. The two major elements of this Data

Link program are communications and applications. The communications element includes the development of the automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) concept; concurrently, the key

enabling applications to permit efficient flight crew to controller

communications will be developed. The enhanced ATN communications capabilities provided by data link will facilitate improved airspace utilization and reduced delay and operating expenses.

Satellite Communications Program 031-120 R,E&D, En Route, Oceanic, This project will develop the standards and perform required testing

Terminal, Airport to support mobile satellite communication (SATCOM) operational

use as an oceanic subnetwork to the ATN. This program is integrated with the Aeronautical Data Link Communications and Applications and the Oceanic Air Traffic Automation R,E&D programs to

achieve increased safety, help reduce separation standards, and

provide direct, reliable communications in the oceanic and remote

areas.
86 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1997 ACE PLAN

However, some avionics are capable of interpreting VOR and/or

DME signals to provide Area Navigation (RNAV), allowing for

more direct routing of flights. Most new air carrier and similarly

equipped aircraft have a flight management system (FMS) with

multiple DMEs that improve RNAV VOR accuracy.

Landing navigational systems are similar to and in some cases

the same as en route systems. Landing aids are classified as

precision and non-precision. Precision landing aids refer to systems that can, with a high degree of accuracy, align an aircraft’s

vertical and horizontal path with a runway to allow for low

visibility landings. The Instrument Landing System (ILS) is the

primary system used for precision navigation today. The capabilities of ILS systems are defined in three categories, with Category

I being the least accurate and Category III being the most accurate.

Non-precision landing aids typically refer to the use of en route

navigational aids or a limited component of precision aids (e.g.,

ILS localizer only), to place aircraft within the proximity of a

runway, allowing for a visual approach to landing.

Planned Navigation Enhancements

The satellite navigation system in use today will become more

accurate and available and have greater integrity. Current capabilities will be further augmented by ground facilities that will allow

for precision guidance to landing, thereby expanding the number

of precision approaches available during instrument meteorological conditions.

Global Positioning System (GPS)

An alternative to land-based navigation and inertial guidance

systems for both en route and terminal environments is the

satellite-based U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS). The GPS

system was developed by the military and has been in use by civil

aviation since the early 1990s. Currently, the GPS system consists

of a 24 satellite constellation, plus associated ground-based monitoring and control facilities. The satellites transmit precisely timed

signals coded so that a receiver on or near the surface of the earth

can calculate position information. The system is accurate, easy to

use, and provides worldwide coverage. GPS also gives horizontal

and vertical position information, a capability lacking in groundbased navigational aids (with the exception of certain precision

landing aids). These combined attributes allow for more flexible

arrival, departure, and low altitude random direct routes; reduced

separation standards; precision approach and missed approach

guidance to all runways; and streamlined procedure and navigaAn alternative to land-based navigation and inertial guidance systems for both en route and terminal

environments is the satellite-based

U.S. Global Positioning System

(GPS).
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 87

tion techniques. GPS has been extensively tested and is already

being used as a primary means of navigation in the oceanic

environment.

GPS Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)

The Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) is an augmentation of GPS that includes integrity broadcasts, differential corrections, and additional ranging signals. It is being developed to

provide the accuracy, integrity, availability, and continuity required to support all phases of flight through Category I precision

approaches. WAAS consists of a network of wide area ground

reference stations that receive and monitor the GPS signals. Data

from these reference stations are transmitted to master stations,

where the validity of the signals from each satellite is assessed and

wide area corrections are computed. These validity (integrity)

messages and wide area corrections also act as additional sources

of GPS ranging signals, giving the user a direct verification of the

integrity of the signal from each satellite in view. The system is

scheduled to reach its initial operational capability in 1999.

Additional satellites and ground stations will be added to enable

it to serve as a primary system for air navigation and precision

landing capabilities for Category I operations in 2001.

GPS Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS)

The Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) is an augmentation of GPS that will be needed for operations down to

CAT II/III

precision landing minimums. This system relies upon a precisely

surveyed ground station within the terminal area to calculate

differential correction and integrity information, which it then

transmits to aircraft within line-of-sight coverage, typically providing an operational radius of up to 25-30 nautical miles. One

LAAS system can provide service for multiple runways as long as

they are within the LAAS operational range. LAAS can also provide

terminal navigation, airport surface navigation, and guided missed

approach and departure procedures. Minimum operating performance standards are scheduled to be completed by the middle of

1998; validation testing is scheduled to be completed by the end

of 2001. By making precision approach procedures available to

more airport runways and extending precision navigation to the

airport surface, the LAAS will improve the safety and capacity of

airports and surrounding airspace.

Table 6-2 identifies and describes navigation programs and

technologies that will contribute to capacity enhancement. The

projects are listed with CIP and R,E&D identification numbers for

reference purposes.

By making precision approach procedures available to more airport

runways and extending precision

navigation to the airport surface,

the LAAS will improve the safety and

capacity of airports and surrounding airspace.
88 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1997 ACE PLAN

Table 6-2.

Navigation Enhancement Programs

CIP/R,E&D Facility/Civil Aviation System Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Component(s) Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

Instrument Landing System (ILS) N-03 Airport This program will establish new Category I (CAT I) ILS installations

and provide operations and maintenance funding to sustain existing

CAT I Mark-IA ILS installations until global positioning system (GPS)

precision approaches are available.

Runway Visual Range (RVR) N-08 Airport This program establishes new generation runway visual range systems to support precision landing operations and airport capacity

enhancements. It also provides advanced microprocessor technology, remote maintenance monitoring capability, and resistance to

poor weather conditions.

Augmentations for the N-12 Airport, Terminal, This program enables the satellite-based GPS to function as the

Global Positioning System (GPS) En Route/Oceanic single FAA radio navigation system for all oceanic and domestic

phases of flight. Two specific projects involved in this program are

the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) and the Local Area

Augmentation System (LAAS). WAAS will provide a wide area network of precisely located monitors, reference stations, master control

stations, leased satellites, and ground uplinks. LAAS will augment

GPS to allow precision runway approaches in geographical areas

not covered by WAAS. GPS will reduce the interdependency of

proximate airports by improving an airport’s surrounding airspace

capacity.

Satellite Navigation System 032-110 R,E&D, En Route/Oceanic, This program will develop augmentations to navigation satellites

Terminal, Airport (e.g., GPS) to support techniques, procedures, and standards to

meet all civil aviation navigation needs. Satellite navigation presents

opportunities for standardized worldwide civil aviation operations

using a common navigation receiver and for significant improvements in safety, capacity, service, flexibility, and operating costs.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 89

Surveillance

Knowing the position and intended path of aircraft relative to

other aircraft  both on the ground and in the air  is necessary

to ensure safe separation. The accuracy and certainty with which

aircraft positions can be tracked determines the procedures and

spacing allowed to maintain safe operations. Enhancing surveillance improves the efficiency of airspace usage by reducing separation requirements. In order to realize reduced separation standards, the free flight concept imposes particularly high demands

on the ability to accurately and reliably locate and track the

movement of aircraft with greater precision and a faster update

rate than is used today.

Current Surveillance Capabilities

Separation is ensured today by visual confirmation, radar

imaging, and pilot position reports. Visual separation is common

in both general aviation and commercial air transport operations,

though its use is limited to clear weather conditions. Radar

imaging allows air traffic controllers to see a wide view of aircraft

movements and makes possible the task of monitoring and

sequencing large numbers of aircraft. Pilot position reports are

used particularly in areas where radar coverage is poor or absent

and where visual contact cannot be assured.

Planned Surveillance Enhancements

Surveillance coverage and accuracy will be enhanced by incorporating aircraft navigation information with existing radar. This

information will be translated into 4-D (four dimensional -

position plus time) position information and made available to

pilots and controllers to enhance situational awareness, improve

the efficiency of aircraft spacing, allow for greater route flexibility,

and heighten conflict avoidance capabilities.

Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS)

To augment existing surveillance procedures and radar, a new

system known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) will

be used. Unlike radar, which tracks aircraft using interrogating

radio signals, ADS transmits position reports based on onboard

navigational instruments. ADS relies on data link technologies to

transmit this information. Presently there are two forms of ADS:

ADS-Address (ADS-A) and ADS-Broadcast (ADS-B). The ADS-A

system exchanges point-to-point information between a specific

aircraft and air traffic management facility upon request; the

In order to realize reduced separation standards, the free flight concept imposes particularly high demands on the ability to accurately

and reliably locate and track the

movement of aircraft with greater

precision and a faster update rate

than is used today.
90 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1997 ACE PLAN

ADS-B system broadcasts information periodically to all aircraft

and all air traffic management facilities within a specified area.

The primary objective of ADS-A and ADS-B technology is to

improve surveillance coverage, particularly in areas having poor or

no radar coverage.

When ADS-equipped aircraft are within radar coverage, their

positions will be verified by radar reports, providing independent

and redundant surveillance. In areas not covered by radar, ADS will

allow separation requirements for participating aircraft to be

reduced from current procedural separation standards, providing

greater capacity and increased approvals of user preferred routes

and altitudes. In the oceanic environment, where separation is

now maintained through pilot position reports, the use of ADS will

have a particularly beneficial impact. Optimum altitudes and

speeds will be achieved through the expanded use of oceanic intrail climb and descent procedures and aircraft will have the

flexibility to change routes mid-flight if winds are not as forecasted. Because separation requirements will be reduced, more

efficient merging of traffic from multiple oceanic tracks onto

arrival routes will be possible.

On the airport surface, ADS will be used to assist in taxi

operations. ADS-equipped aircraft will be displayed directly to

flight crews and air traffic controllers on an appropriate overlay

map. This capability will give the flight crew information to better

evaluate the potential for runway and taxiway incursions, especially at night or in poor visibility, than is available today. The FAA

plans to add ADS-A capabilities in Oakland and New York oceanic

airspace in the year 2000. Initially, ADS-B will enable aircraft-toaircraft transmission of position information from GPS, aircraft

identification, and intent information. With deployment of STARS

and replacement of the Host computer, the FAA can begin to

receive ADS-B reports for display to the controller. The FAA will

initially use interrogation of the aircraft to receive the ADS-B

information, then add additional ground stations to increase

surveillance coverage. A fully operational ground system is not

scheduled until 2008.

Table 6-3 identifies and describes surveillance programs and

technologies that will contribute to capacity enhancement. The

projects are listed with CIP and R,E&D identification numbers for

reference purposes.

In the oceanic environment, where

separation is now maintained

through pilot position reports, the

use of ADS will have a particularly

beneficial impact.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 91

Table 6-3.

Surveillance Enhancement Programs

CIP/R,E&D Facility/Civil Aviation System Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Component(s) Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

ASDE Radar and Airport Movement S-01 Airport The ASDE-3 provides radar surveillance of aircraft and airport service

Area Safety System (AMASS) vehicles at selected airports to ensure an effective mode of directing

and moving surface traffic. AMASS provides visual and aural alerts

to potential and actual surface conflicts. When combined, ASDE-3

and AMASS provide a near-term solution to prevent runway incursions.

Mode S, Secondary Surveillance S-02 Airport, Terminal, Mode S will improve the surveillance capability of the air traffic

En Route/Oceanic control radar beacon system (ATCRBS). It provides more accurate

positional information and minimizes interference. The program

replaces aging and obsolete air traffic control beacon interrogator

(ATCBI-4/5) equipment with a new mono-pulse secondary surveillance radar (MSSR) system.

Multilateration Technology S-02/S-08 Airport The purpose of this project is to provide a demonstration prototype

of the multilateration approach to monitoring final approaches to

parallel runways. The multilateration approach represents a low-cost

alternative to prescision runway monitor (PRM) that uses multiple air

traffic control radar beacon (ATCRB) transponders and Mode S to

provide accurate surveillance capability for monitoring final approaches to closely spaced parallel runways.

Terminal Radar (ASR) Program S-03 Airport, Terminal This program replaces obsolete, logistically unsupportable airport

surveillance radars with modern digital equipment compatible with

the standard terminal automated radar system (STARS) and upgrades en route and secondary surveillance radars.

Long-Range Radar Program (LRR) S-04 En Route/Oceanic This project will provide a national radar surveillance network by

installing the air route surveillance radar at existing and new sites. It

will improve the current inventory of long-range radars that will extend their useful life and/or aid the transition to a beacon-only en

route surveillance system.

Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) S-08 Airport This project developed a high-up-date-rate radar and computer

predictive displays that reduce the allowable runway spacing for

conducting independent parallel instrument approaches at closelyspaced runways. Conducting independent approaches will enable

airports to increase throughput capacity, reduce delays, and save

fuel during reduced visibility.
92 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1997 ACE PLAN

Weather

Weather is the single largest contributor to delay in the civil

aviation system and is a major factor in aircraft safety incidents and

accidents. Short-term forecasts and timely, accurate weather

information on hazardous weather are critical to ensure safe flight

and to plan fuel and time-efficient flight plans.

Many of the inefficiencies in today’s weather system can be

attributed to limitations in the accuracy, predictability, analysis,

transmission, coordination, and display of weather data. To mitigate these issues, the FAA will incorporate technologies and

procedures to improve the dissemination of consistent, common,

and timely aviation weather information in graphical format to all

users of the aviation system, both ground and airborne. Further,

weather information will be improved through the use of better

sensors, sophisticated computer modeling, and new automated

systems.

Current Weather Capabilities

The timeliness and reliability of weather information available

to pilots and air traffic controllers is largely determined by the

degree of communication and coordination among the many

organizations and systems that gather and disseminate that information. The technical systems used to gather, report, and forecast

weather range from obsolete to state-of-the-art. The weather

systems in use today can be characterized as good in predicting

large area forecasts (e.g., movement of fronts) but less capable of

predicting the exact timing, location, and severity of local phenomena (e.g., thunderstorms).

Planned Weather Enhancements

The FAA is working in conjunction with other agencies such

as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to improve NAS capacity though better forecasting,

detection, and dissemination of adverse weather conditions. Other

weather-related technology enhancements include new information systems designed to integrate a wide range of weather data

into a single database where it can be analyzed using new models.

The output of these analytic tools will be displayed in the form of

enhanced graphics on new display systems in ATC facilities and in

the aircraft cockpit. The data link system will be an essential

element in the timely dissemination and coordination of weather

information to flight crews.

Weather is the single largest contributor to delay in the civil aviation

system and is a major factor in aircraft safety incidents and accidents.

The FAA is working in conjunction

with other agencies such as NASA

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to improve

NAS capacity though better forecasting, detection, and dissemination of adverse weather conditions.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 93

Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS)

The Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) is a fullyautomated weather-prediction system that will give air traffic

personnel and pilots enhanced information on weather hazards in

the airspace within 60 nm miles of an airport. When fully

implemented, ITWS will have the capability to generate predictions of weather phenomena such as microbursts, gust fronts,

storm cell movements, and runway winds up to ten minutes in

advance. Additionally, the system will display weather data in

tower cabs, terminal radar approach control facilities, and their

associated air route traffic control centers to facilitate coordination

among air traffic control personnel. This system is a step toward

avoiding delays caused by localized, hazardous weather and will

increase the margin of safety. In addition, ITWS will improve

traffic flow due to earlier warnings of weather impacts to an

airport.

Weather and Radar Processor (WARP)

Meteorologists working in the weather units of ATC centers do

not have an integrated system for collecting and displaying

multiple weather sensor inputs. The Weather and Radar Processor

(WARP) will collect and process weather data from Low Level

Windshear Systems (LLWAS), Next Generation Weather Radar

(NEXRAD), Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) and surveillance radar, and disseminate this data to controllers, traffic

management specialists, pilots, and meteorologists. WARP will

also provide meteorologists with automated workstations that

improve their ability to analyze rapidly changing weather conditions. By providing a mosaic of weather information to advanced

display systems, the WARP will assist air traffic management in

minimizing weather-related delays.

Table 6-4 identifies and describes weather programs and

technologies that will contribute to capacity enhancement. The

projects are listed with CIP and R,E&D identification numbers for

reference purposes.

When fully implemented, ITWS will

have the capability to generate predictions of weather phenomena such

as microbursts, gust fronts, storm cell

movements, and runway winds up to

ten minutes in advance.
94 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1997 ACE PLAN

Table 6-4.

Weather Enhancement Programs

CIP/R,E&D Facility/Civil Aviation System Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Component(s) Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

Automated Weather Observing W-01 Flight Service Stations, Airport, AWOS processes aviation-critical weather data from automated

System (AWOS) En Route/Oceanic sensors and disseminates information to pilots by computer generated voice radio transmissions. The connection of AWOS with the

automated weather observation system data acquisition system

(ADAS) will make current weather observation data accessible to

pilots and controllers, enhancing safety and efficiency.

Weather Radar Program (NEXRAD) W-02 En Route/Oceanic NEXRAD provides a national network of Doppler weather radars to

detect, process, distribute, and display hazardous weather information. Automated ATC capabilities, such as preferred routing and

improved flow management, will require this type of accurate aviation weather data for en route applications.

Terminal Doppler Weather W-03 Airport, Terminal This program involves the installation of a new terminal Doppler

Radar (TDWR) System weather radar that can detect microbursts, gust fronts, wind shifts,

and precipitation. It will warn aircraft in the terminal area of hazardous weather conditions and of changing wind conditions to enable

the timely change of active runways.

Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) W-04 En Route/Oceanic The WARP will collect, process, and disseminate weather information

from next generation weather radars (NEXRAD) to air traffic controllers, traffic management specialists, pilots and meteorologists. By

providing a mosaic product of NEXRAD data to the Display System

Replacement (DSR), the WARP will enhance the quality of weather

information available to air traffic controllers, thus reducing accidents

and air traffic delays. It also provides center weather service unit/

central flow weather service unit meteorologists with automated

workstations that improve their ability to analyze rapidly changing

weather conditions.

Low-Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS) W-05 Airport The LLWAS provides local controllers and pilots with information on

microbursts and windshear near airports. This program will increase

the probability of microburst and windshear detection through system expansion and upgrades. Planned upgrades will refurbish the

LLWAS system to make it logistically supportable for at least 15

years.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 95

Table 6-4.

Weather Enhancement Programs

CIP/R,E&D Facility/Civil Aviation System Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Component(s) Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

Integrated Terminal Weather W-07 Terminal The ITWS will integrate relevant weather data accessible in the

System (ITWS) terminal area and from in-flight aircraft to provide air traffic personnel

with timely, near-term weather information and predictions in a clear

graphical and textual form. This program will deploy ITWS product

generators to 34 TRACONs.

ASR Weather Systems Processor W-09 Terminal This program enhances the hazardous weather detection capability

of an airport surveillance radar by developing and testing a modular data processing channel for automatic detection of windshear,

thunderstorm microbursts, and gust fronts. The advancement provides airports ineligible for terminal doppler weather radars with

windshear warnings.

Aviation Weather Analysis 041-110 Aircraft/Aircrew, Flight Service, The integration of this project with other national research programs

and Forecasting Airport, Terminal, En Route, R,E&D that focus on atmospheric mesoscale analysis and prediction problems will improve the understanding of weather’s effects on aviation.

An additional purpose is to concentrate research efforts on developing new algorithms, numerical weather analysis and prediction

models, and methods to detect the impact from weather hazards.

This research will significantly improve weather product and forecast

quality, thus enabling aviation weather users to make effective strategic and tactical decisions for aviation operations.

Aeronautical Hazards Research 042-110 Aircraft/Aircrew, Terminal, Designed to improve safety, the project will collect data and ana- En Route, R,E&D lyze systems to validate technology for detecting hazards such as

mountain rotors. The research will improve the operational capability

to detect, monitor and alert flightcrews to aeronautical hazards.

Low Visibility Landing and NASa Airport, Terminal The goal is to improve the efficiency of airport surface operations

Surface Operations (LVLASO) for commercial aircraft operating in weather conditions to Category

IIIB while maintaining a high degree of safety.
96 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1997 ACE PLAN

Air Traffic Management

Air traffic management requires gathering and processing

large volumes of data to make effective decisions according to ever

changing conditions. The development of automated decision

support systems will improve the effectiveness of air traffic information and yield more efficient use of airspace.

Current Automation/Decision Support Capabilities

Air traffic controllers today use a combination of procedures

and automated systems to separate traffic. The decision support

systems in use today, however, provide only limited assistance to

air traffic controllers. Most routine decisions are made based on

the training, experience, and judgment of the individual controllers who must follow a set of narrowly defined air traffic procedures. As the volume of air traffic increases and as procedures allow

greater pilot discretion, the efficient management and monitoring

of air traffic will require the use of more advanced decision support

systems.

Planned Decision Support Enhancements

Numerous technologies are being developed to ensure the

efficient and effective collection, transfer, and display of information. Decision support systems will augment these initiatives by

coordinating information (e.g., flight plans, weather forecasts,

infrastructure status, traffic densities, etc.) from multiple ground,

air, and space-based sources and processing this information to

improve the effectiveness of tasks such as flight planning, traffic

sequencing, conflict checking, and conflict resolution. The integration of these data provides the opportunity for new analytic

tools that controllers and/or flight crews may use to plot fuel

efficient routes, identify potential conflicts with other aircraft, or

adjust routes during flight. Graphical output from these analytic

tools will assist users in decision making. The tools will enable

controllers throughout the system to simultaneously provide

greater flexibility, reduce delays in congested airspace, and enhance overall safety.

Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) and

Display Replacement System (DSR)

The Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System

(STARS) will replace outdated air traffic control computers with

21st century systems at nine large consolidated TRACONs and

approximately 152 FAA and 60 DOD terminal radar approach

control sites across the country. STARS will support radar target

As the volume of air traffic increases

and as procedures allow greater

pilot discretion, the efficient management and monitoring of air traffic

will require the use of more advanced

decision support systems.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 97

identification and separation, traffic and weather advisory services, and navigational assistance to aircraft. STARS will also

provide safety functions such as conflict alert and minimum safe

altitude warning. Improvements, such as improved weather displays, will be introduced on the STARS platform to support air

traffic management decision support functionality. The FAA expects to have the first STARS operational by December 1998, with

subsequent deliveries to the FAA and DOD facilities scheduled

through 2007.

The STARS’ counterpart for en route airspace is the Display

System Replacement (DSR). DSR will provide air traffic controllers

with a modern digital display system capable of processing and

providing information in a fast, reliable manner. DSR will support

a conflict probe capability.

Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) - Build 1

Part of the larger Air Traffic Management Program (ATM),

the Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) program was initiated

in an effort to improve traffic flow management by establishing

closer collaboration between the FAA and the airlines. By using

automated systems to establish accurate pictures of real-time

schedule information, the FAA will be better able to determine

actual and projected traffic flow demands at major airports. As the

NAS becomes more congested, the efficient use of resources will

become more important to both the FAA and NAS users. This

improved communication with the airlines will help to eliminate

some ground delay programs (GDPs), reduce the scope and duration of other GDPs, and allow NAS users more flexibility in

responding to airport arrival constraints.

Build 1 of CDM consists of several components including: the

Flight Schedule Monitor (FSM) software, which displays arrival

information, monitors ground delay situations, measures ground

delay performance, and provides traffic managers with a “what-if ”

analysis capability for projecting scenarios and arrival rates; the

Ration-by-Schedule function, which uses the schedule defined in

the Official Airline Guide (OAG) as the baseline for allocating

arrival slots to NAS users; the Schedule Compression function,

which moves participating flights into newly available slots,

thereby compressing the departure schedule and reducing assigned delays; the Data Exchange capability, which enables the

airlines and the command center to send and receive the real-time

schedule and demand information; and Flow Management Decision Support Enhancements, which includes utility functions for

both traffic managers and NAS users that are user-friendly and

permit “what-if ” analysis. All of these features facilitate information exchange between NAS users and air traffic service providers.

By using automated systems to establish accurate pictures of real-time

schedule information, the FAA will

be better able to determine actual

and projected traffic flow demands

at major airports.
98 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1997 ACE PLAN

Center Terminal Radar Approach Control

Automation System (CTAS)

The CTAS will provide users with airspace capacity improvement, delay reductions, and fuel savings by introducing computer

automation to assist controllers in efficiently descending, sequencing, and spacing arriving aircraft. CTAS will provide two

major functional capabilities in the near term: single center traffic

management advisor (TMA) and passive final approach spacing

tool (pFAST). The TMA will provide en route controllers and traffic

management coordinators with automation tools to manage the

flow of traffic from a single center into selected major airports. It

will result in estiamed delay reductions of one to two minutes per

aircraft during peak periods. pFAST will help controllers select the

most efficient arrival runway and arrival sequence within 60nm of

an airport, resulting in increased arrival throughput. The FAA is

planning to implement TMA at 15 ARTCCs between the years 2002

and 2004, and pFAST at 22 TRACONs between 2002 and 2006.

Long term improvements for CTAS include: multi-center

TMA capability, required when multiple ARTCCs meter arrivals

into a single terminal; descent advisor, which will provide optimized descent point and speed advisories to controllers based on

aircraft type; and active FAST, which will help controllers determine how to vector aircraft onto final approach.

Initial Conflict Probe (ICP)

The Initial Conflict Probe will provide controllers with the

ability to look ahead to identify potential separation conflicts with

greater precision and accuracy. By estimating current position and

predicted flight paths, ICP checks for potential loss of separation

at current and future times. This system can be triggered automatically or manually.

The ICP display supports the strategic planning function and

reduces the use by air traffic controllers of manual flight strips.

Other potential benefits of ICP include conflict detection in

oceanic airspace, greater route flexibility during weather changes,

relaxed boundary restrictions, and more efficient routings provided well in advance of, rather than close to, the conflict. The FAA

implemented the User Request Evaluation Tool, a prototype ICP,

as a daily-use probe at the Indianapolis Center in 1997. It will be

implemented at the Memphis Center in 1998. Field upgrades to

ICP will also occur in 1998.

Table 6-5 identifies and describes automation/decision support programs and technologies that will contribute to capacity

enhancement. The projects are listed with CIP and R,E&D

identification numbers for reference purposes.
1997 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 99

Table 6-5.

Decision Support System Programs

CIP/R,E&D Facility/Civil Aviation System Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Component(s) Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

En Route Automation Program A-01 En Route/Oceanic Projects in this program will replace aging and unsupportable

equipment and allow continued system growth in the present ATC

system, providing a safe and efficient air traffic environment that

contributes to the move toward a free flight environment.

Tower Automation Program (TAP) A-02 Airport The program will integrate new and existing safety systems in a

consolidated automation platform with a common computer/human

interface. TAP will solve the problems of controllers having minimal

flexibility to rearrange operational positions for various tower operating conditions and the inefficient placement of individual control

systems.

Automated Radar Terminal A-03 Terminal This program will provide contractor support for developing terminal

System (ARTS) Improvements software where the technical requirements exceed FAA in-house

development capabilities. New and modified equipment will maintain or improve safety levels while increasing traffic capacity.

Standard Terminal Automation A-04 Terminal This program reflects the long-term approach to improving the FAA’s

Replacement System (STARS) automation capabilities in the terminal environment. STARS will deploy a new automation system that uses a modern, commerciallyopen architecture that solves current capacity problems and supports future demands.

Traffic Management System (TMS) A-05 Airport, Terminal, En

Route, This program develops and deploys integrated hardware and soft

Oceanic ware to accommodate modern computing and communications

technology and provides an open-systems architecture for future

functions. TMS will also develop and deploy collaborative decisionmaking and decision support tools for resolving NAS congestion.

This program, also referred to as the Air Traffic Management (ATM)

Program, will maximize air traffic throughput, minimize air traffic

delays, and establish a reliable, serviceable automation platform.

En Route Software Development A-06 En Route/Oceanic The program provides the necessary support for the continuing

development, integration, and implementation of NAS en route

software changes to correct operational problems and provide

systems enhancement.

Flight Service Automation System (FSAS) A-07 Flight Service Stations The FSAS replaces the FSAS model 1-full capacity (M1FC) and

integrates M1FC functions with the integrated graphic weather

display system (IGWDS) and the direct user access terminal system

(DUATS). This will provide a flight service specialist with automated

advancements that improve weather and Notice to Airmen

(NOTAM) briefings and simplify flight plan filing.

Oceanic Automation Program (OAP) A-10 Flight Service Stations, The OAP will provide an automation infrastructure including oceanic

En Route/Oceanic flight data processing, a computer-generated situation display, and

a strategic conflict probe for alerting controllers to potential conflicts

hours before they occur. Ultimately, controllers will be able to grant

more fuel-efficient flexible routes, which will significantly reduce fuel

costs and delays.

Oceanic Air Traffic Automation 021-140 En Route, R,E&D This project aims to increase oceanic air traffic capacity and

efficiency without degrading safety. Research and development in

this project will lay the foundation for new F&E initiatives leading to

the introduction of free flight in oceanic airspace.
100 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1997 ACE PLAN

Table 6-5. (continued)

Decision Support System Programs

CIP/R,E&D Facility/Civil Aviation System Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Component(s) Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

Center Terminal Radar Approach F-01, A-05 Airport, Terminal This program develops the prototype of the center terminal radar

Control (TRACON) Automation approach control facility automation system (CTAS). CTAS provides

System (CTAS) Prototype operational prototypes of the traffic management advisor (TMA)

and final approach spacing tool (FAST) at air route traffic control

center (ARTCC) and TRACON pairs.

Advanced Traffic Management 021-110 Flight Service, Airport, The ATMS has been reconstructed to focus on building collaborative

System (ATMS) Terminal, En Route decision making and decision support tools that will allow FAA traffic

flow managers to work cooperatively with industry in responding to

NAS congestion conditions.

Surface Movement Advisor (SMA) 021-200 Airport The SMA will interface with and improve other NAS management

systems and coordinate surface activities with ATC, the airlines, and

airport operators through an unprecedented sharing of operationally-critical surface movement information.

Traffic Alert and Collision (TCAS) 022-110 Aircraft/Aircrew, Terminal, This project will develop and assist in implementing an independent

EnRoute airborne collision avoidance capability. TCAS will reduce midair

collision risks and increase capacity by aiding simultaneous approaches to parallel runways and pilot-maintained in-trail spacing

via the improved cockpit display capability.

Aviation System Capacity Planning 024-110 Airport, Terminal, En Route The program supports development of an overall capacity strategy;

the conduct, measurement, and assessment of airports and technologies; and development and application of electronic tools that

aid in the formulation of that strategy to reduce delays, increase the

number of operations per hour and to decrease maintenance and

operating costs.

Airport Pavement Technology 051-120 Airport, R,E&D Specific projects will be carried out to develop an integrated

method for pavement design that will reduce pavement design and

construction costs, minimize pavement failures, lower the costs of

maintenance, and reduce pavement downtime and aircraft delay

costs. The program will also develop a new pavement design procedure based on layered-elastic theory to support U.S. aircraft

manufacturer’s efforts to introduce new aircraft.

Airborne Information for Lateral NASA Airport, Aircraft/Aircrew AILS’s goal is to enable ”airborne technology assisted approaches”

Spacing (AILS) to safely reduce lateral spacing requirements during IMC. It will

provide crew with information on nearby traffic comparable to that

available in VMC.
AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A:

It is important to note that Denver International Airport replaced Denver Stapleton International in 1995. Therefore, the

data for 1994 and 1995 reflects the enplanements and operations for Denver Stapleton International.

Table A-1. .............................................................................................. A-2

Airport Operations and Enplanements,

1994, 1995 and 1996

Table A-2. .............................................................................................. A-5

Airport Enplanements, 1996 and Forecast 2011

Table A-3. .............................................................................................. A-8

Total Airport Operations, 1996 and Forecast 2011

Table A-4. ............................................................................................ A-11

Growth in Enplanements From 1995 to 1996

Table A-5. ............................................................................................ A-14

Growth in Operations From 1995 to 1996

Table A-6. ............................................................................................ A-17

Growth in Operations and Enplanements
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 2

1. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1996 enplanements.

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 1 30,920,837 31,611,635 32,174,494 883,480 892,330 909,186

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 2 25,466,184 27,349,930 30,651,427 699,400 747,105 772,597

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 3 24,932,412 26,146,785 28,247,301 687,627 716,293 764,002

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 4 25,784,347 26,947,281 27,361,201 831,135 873,510 869,831

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 5 16,396,063 16,887,347 18,325,018 430,380 436,907 442,281

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 6 14,437,381 15,722,329 16,077,377 550,194 576,609 546,487

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 7 15,768,233 14,979,616 15,237,496 546,305 487,225 454,234

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 8 14,059,556 14,332,130 15,003,739 352,494 345,263 360,511

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 9 12,801,476 13,990,302 14,967,807 479,738 498,887 531,098

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 10 12,398,247 13,517,238 14,577,015 507,698 522,634 544,363

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 11 12,183,593 13,019,859 14,295,208 488,347 508,077 479,625

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 12 13,910,543 13,446,484 14,204,288 441,997 428,703 443,431

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 13 11,119,554 12,714,579 13,496,561 466,639 516,021 517,352

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 14 11,370,792 12,301,110 13,382,706 454,441 466,916 483,570

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 15 12,071,084 11,954,568 12,250,552 478,660 478,253 462,507

George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH 16 10,257,228 11,494,226 11,912,957 352,385 375,246 391,939

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 17 10,453,014 10,584,116 11,791,816 344,213 343,609 341,942

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 18 10,216,020 11,188,640 11,741,706 345,052 382,100 397,591

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 19 11,076,779 11,072,604 11,264,391 357,116 376,224 374,965

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 20 10,025,080 10,473,627 10,725,530 471,128 474,338 457,054

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 21 10,244,717 10,387,115 10,323,763 335,539 346,869 342,618

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 22 9,817,880 9,986,599 10,108,915 435,433 452,900 447,436

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 23 8,190,014 8,662,126 9,813,187 343,807 349,699 373,815

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 24 8,447,261 8,849,175 9,073,360 402,845 409,148 406,121

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 25 6,614,065 7,095,874 8,782,063 333,832 358,203 393,523

Washington National Airport DCA 26 7,494,656 7,380,226 7,227,361 316,790 316,404 309,754

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 27 6,295,539 6,626,050 6,841,862 215,215 228,740 243,595

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 28 6,119,984 6,595,515 6,554,638 286,392 296,932 270,156

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 29 5,926,142 5,675,105 6,229,896 263,541 261,617 272,782

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 30 4,792,017 5,454,342 6,060,665 277,000 301,785 305,964

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 31 5,600,138 5,713,037 6,039,746 296,201 311,279 330,439

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 32 5,076,463 5,333,077 5,429,955 260,485 268,097 291,029

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 33 5,074,130 4,679,592 5,191,494 233,044 238,108 236,342

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 34 4,939,263 5,050,689 5,025,689 174,598 183,082 186,273

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 35 4,357,995 4,692,493 4,971,749 198,274 207,518 196,405

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 36 3,884,422 4,720,940 4,809,148 470,901 502,952 516,498

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 37 3,985,712 4,335,906 4,778,998 298,220 270,519 278,941

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 38 3,896,277 4,215,624 4,579,094 345,534 356,294 363,945

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 39 4,046,580 4,278,735 4,476,761 254,570 268,575 254,351

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 40 3,885,030 4,133,169 4,186,698 167,375 177,383 163,210

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 41 3,914,188 3,925,461 3,965,391 236,683 245,603 252,254

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 42 3,252,526 3,521,360 3,577,067 509,220 493,391 474,976

Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1994, 1995, and 19961

Airport Enplanements Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY94 FY95 FY96 FY94 FY95 FY96
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 3

1. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1996 enplanements.

Dallas-Love Field DAL 43 3,381,024 3,418,261 3,505,076 217,331 208,768 220,651

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 44 3,081,854 3,170,445 3,477,759 237,937 245,541 235,940

Sacramento Int’l Airport SMF 45 2,829,433 3,308,376 3,460,728 149,053 177,010 174,117

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 46 4,200,995 3,915,839 3,433,435 295,558 278,957 226,274

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 47 2,963,038 3,066,256 3,283,997 238,277 238,315 258,265

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 48 2,997,170 3,079,572 3,235,874 220,914 199,114 202,254

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 49 3,224,834 3,234,261 3,188,397 158,635 158,302 153,924

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 50 2,778,074 2,805,286 3,133,068 223,633 204,100 211,434

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 51 4,612,034 3,216,256 3,096,367 283,713 214,011 227,816

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 52 2,541,173 2,691,092 3,042,339 161,190 151,603 154,234

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 53 2,462,833 2,652,309 2,808,852 192,040 201,409 215,055

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 54 2,721,921 2,687,516 2,804,201 216,480 205,104 202,875

Kahului Airport OGG 55 2,627,961 2,763,401 2,801,737 176,209 178,602 183,046

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 56 2,351,391 2,519,357 2,667,513 163,180 176,382 160,752

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 57 2,459,175 2,527,447 2,662,988 213,602 209,939 199,584

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 58 2,372,003 2,471,234 2,464,662 194,264 184,366 184,843

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 59 793,546 1,125,562 2,316,084 239,885 206,192 227,201

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 60 1,938,706 1,989,677 2,088,515 64,849 67,026 71,231

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 61 2,079,106 2,104,169 1,894,953 215,641 217,768 283,611

Guam Int’l GUM 62 1,186,577 1,407,688 1,838,771 68,912 59,928 61,156

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 63 1,886,666 1,816,518 1,823,174 142,821 142,786 136,725

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 64 1,815,826 1,861,059 1,808,991 157,984 151,905 140,226

Louisville Int’l Airport SDF 65 1,537,249 1,787,115 1,764,275 179,921 178,646 173,152

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 66 1,561,999 1,713,680 1,753,331 249,729 238,024 245,929

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 67 1,614,178 1,680,562 1,733,087 146,759 149,275 151,828

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 68 1,171,790 1,462,172 1,710,151 154,154 160,039 159,974

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 69 1,523,862 1,576,745 1,647,923 198,332 186,512 199,383

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 70 1,351,492 1,494,645 1,631,997 122,615 119,701 114,767

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 71 1,800,052 1,628,842 1,551,792 145,221 153,646 148,404

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 72 1,766,208 1,846,943 1,448,177 157,401 173,259 143,661

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 73 1,682,705 1,423,899 1,372,199 141,861 135,793 139,079

Birmingham Airport BHM 74 1,093,971 1,229,411 1,351,333 161,638 165,295 160,728

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 75 1,204,474 1,273,827 1,269,245 173,126 169,312 163,341

Boise Air Terminal BOI 76 924,648 1,063,795 1,253,019 163,306 166,499 179,843

Lihue Airport LIH 77 1,115,834 1,160,951 1,233,555 92,542 94,439 104,782

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 78 1,296,388 1,249,038 1,213,888 189,372 190,053 177,267

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 79 1,115,875 1,146,240 1,203,305 66,821 72,057 73,110

Providence Green State Airport PVD 80 1,199,822 1,122,944 1,078,836 123,195 133,679 119,355

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 81 1,101,461 1,096,129 1,078,592 153,589 153,119 146,105

Albany County Airport ALB 82 1,098,976 1,055,983 1,003,412 158,658 150,986 132,928

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 83 1,079,073 1,026,957 994,271 158,677 153,066 145,512

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 84 1,238,248 1,174,318 991,908 154,481 151,248 148,343

Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1994, 1995, and 19961

Airport Enplanements Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY94 FY95 FY96 FY94 FY95 FY96
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 4

1. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1996 enplanements.

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 85 691,307 740,458 917,160 133,954 137,043 137,698

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 86 773,966 801,531 837,568 154,264 151,742 138,020

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 87 862,662 783,290 791,734 147,115 145,886 154,833

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 88 702,798 717,226 760,001 90,802 81,497 90,024

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 89 564,091 613,569 734,820 167,757 177,982 182,186

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 90 859,131 750,803 706,168 151,674 137,517 145,025

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 91 713,752 704,493 691,467 62,526 58,978 59,371

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 92 654,899 663,253 689,864 128,032 136,507 131,598

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 93 610,220 594,641 605,724 104,968 101,944 95,150

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 94 553,897 567,705 599,210 97,509 95,060 95,472

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 95 684,571 658,083 595,720 82,405 83,447 78,161

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 96 561,241 596,761 568,892 108,410 106,544 107,107

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 97 584,601 562,556 564,580 114,162 120,234 115,032

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 98 601,451 565,521 560,144 189,663 188,314 175,750

Dane County Regional MSN 99 525,139 519,563 550,283 156,712 150,458 154,707

Palm Springs Regional Airport PSP 100 479,779 457,423 549,218 92,233 102,072 93,584

Totals:

1994 Enplanements ........................................................... 525,710,572

1995 Enplanements .................................................................................. 546,389,269

1996 Enplanements .........................................................................................................574,580,420

1994 Operations ..................................................................................................................................26,129,620

1995 Operations ................................................................................................................................................... 26,438,349

1996 Operations ..................................................................................................................................................................... 26,567,416

Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1994, 1995, and 19961

Airport Enplanements Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY94 FY95 FY96 FY94 FY95 FY96
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 5

Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1996 and Forecast 20112

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY96 FY2011 % Growth

2. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1996 enplanements.

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 1 32,174,494 49,147,000 52.8

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 2 30,651,427 45,283,000 47.7

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 3 28,247,301 47,077,000 66.7

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 4 27,361,201 49,750,000 81.8

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 5 18,325,018 31,482,000 71.8

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 6 16,077,377 31,675,000 97.0

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 7 15,237,496 22,516,000 47.8

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 8 15,003,739 22,832,000 52.2

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 9 14,967,807 28,324,000 89.2

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 10 14,577,015 15,994,000 9.7

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 11 14,295,208 30,512,000 113.4

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 12 14,204,288 23,089,000 62.5

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 13 13,496,561 23,054,000 70.8

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 14 13,382,706 23,579,000 76.2

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 15 12,250,552 17,181,000 40.2

George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH 16 11,912,957 22,926,000 92.4

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 17 11,791,816 26,609,000 125.7

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 18 11,741,706 19,554,000 66.5

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 19 11,264,391 18,271,000 62.2

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 20 10,725,530 17,401,000 62.2

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 21 10,323,763 15,080,000 46.1

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 22 10,108,915 27,810,000 175.1

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 23 9,813,187 17,622,000 79.6

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 24 9,073,360 16,762,000 84.7

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 25 8,782,063 19,932,000 127.0

Washington National Airport DCA 26 7,227,361 9,207,000 27.4

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 27 6,841,862 11,729,000 71.4

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 28 6,554,638 11,698,000 78.5

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 29 6,229,896 10,310,000 65.5

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 30 6,060,665 11,730,000 93.5

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 31 6,039,746 11,087,000 83.6

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 32 5,429,955 9,755,000 79.7

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 33 5,191,494 10,867,000 109.3

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 34 5,025,689 8,084,000 60.9

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 35 4,971,749 7,847,000 57.8

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 36 4,809,148 8,902,000 85.1

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 37 4,778,998 9,166,000 91.8

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 38 4,579,094 7,918,000 72.9

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 39 4,476,761 7,671,000 71.4

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 40 4,186,698 6,567,000 56.9

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 41 3,965,391 5,816,000 46.7

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 42 3,577,067 7,428,000 107.7
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 6

2. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1996 enplanements.

Dallas-Love Field DAL 43 3,505,076 5,909,000 68.6

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 44 3,477,759 6,620,000 90.4

Sacramento Int’l Airport SMF 45 3,460,728 6,554,000 89.4

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 46 3,433,435 7,145,000 108.1

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 47 3,283,997 6,351,000 93.4

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 48 3,235,874 5,850,000 80.8

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 49 3,188,397 5,181,000 62.5

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 50 3,133,068 6,094,000 94.5

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 51 3,096,367 5,637,000 82.1

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 52 3,042,339 6,292,000 106.8

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 53 2,808,852 5,204,000 85.3

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 54 2,804,201 4,289,000 52.9

Kahului Airport OGG 55 2,801,737 5,057,000 80.5

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 56 2,667,513 4,803,000 80.1

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 57 2,662,988 4,983,000 87.1

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 58 2,464,662 4,997,000 102.7

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 59 2,316,084 4,264,000 84.1

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 60 2,088,515 4,724,000 126.2

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 61 1,894,953 3,476,000 83.4

Guam Int’l GUM 62 1,838,771 3,713,000 101.9

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 63 1,823,174 3,544,000 94.4

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 64 1,808,991 3,461,000 91.3

Louisville Int’l Airport SDF 65 1,764,275 3,270,000 85.3

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 66 1,753,331 3,624,000 106.7

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 67 1,733,087 3,645,000 110.3

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 68 1,710,151 2,989,000 74.8

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 69 1,647,923 3,549,000 115.4

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 70 1,631,997 3,388,000 107.6

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 71 1,551,792 2,259,000 45.6

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 72 1,448,177 2,866,000 97.9

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 73 1,372,199 2,585,000 88.4

Birmingham Airport BHM 74 1,351,333 2,510,000 85.7

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 75 1,269,245 2,560,000 101.7

Boise Air Terminal BOI 76 1,253,019 2,361,000 88.4

Lihue Airport LIH 77 1,233,555 2,103,000 70.5

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 78 1,213,888 2,273,000 87.2

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 79 1,203,305 2,483,000 106.3

Providence Green State Airport PVD 80 1,078,836 2,239,000 107.5

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 81 1,078,592 1,875,000 73.8

Albany County Airport ALB 82 1,003,412 1,785,000 77.9

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 83 994,271 1,354,000 36.2

Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1996 and Forecast 20112

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY96 FY2011 % Growth
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 7

2. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1996 enplanements.

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 84 991,908 1,066,000 7.5

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 85 917,160 1,674,000 82.5

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 86 837,568 1,533,000 83.0

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 87 791,734 1,574,000 98.8

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 88 760,001 1,304,000 71.6

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 89 734,820 973,000 32.4

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 90 706,168 1,302,000 84.4

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 91 691,467 1,288,000 86.3

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 92 689,864 1,313,000 90.3

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 93 605,724 824,000 36.0

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 94 599,210 1,060,000 76.9

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 95 595,720 860,000 44.4

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 96 568,892 749,000 31.7

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 97 564,580 749,000 32.7

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 98 560,144 1,065,000 90.1

Dane County Regional MSN 99 550,283 772,000 40.3

Palm Springs Regional Airport PSP 100 549,218 1,090,000 98.5

Totals:

1996 Enplanements ....................................................................................... 574,580,420

2011 Enplanements ............................................................................................................... 1,002,306,000

Average forecast growth at the top 100 airports for the 15 year period ........................................................................... 78.6

Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1996 and Forecast 20112

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY96 FY2011 % Growth
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 8

Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1996 and Forecast 20113

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY96 FY2011 % Growth

3. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1996 operations.

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 1 909,186 1,105,000 21.5

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 2 869,831 1,368,000 57.3

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 3 772,597 972,000 25.8

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 4 764,002 1,019,000 33.4

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 5 546,487 762,000 39.4

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 6 544,363 581,000 6.7

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 7 531,098 775,000 45.9

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 8 517,352 688,000 33.0

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 9 516,498 612,000 18.5

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 10 483,570 672,000 39.0

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 11 479,625 742,000 54.7

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 12 474,976 615,000 29.5

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 13 462,507 523,000 13.1

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 14 457,054 603,000 31.9

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 15 454,234 590,000 29.9

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 16 447,436 773,000 72.8

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 17 443,431 601,000 35.5

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 18 442,281 628,000 42.0

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 19 406,121 544,000 34.0

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 20 397,591 543,000 36.6

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 21 393,523 695,000 76.6

George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH 22 391,939 631,000 61.0

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 23 374,965 501,000 33.6

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 24 373,815 540,000 44.5

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 25 363,945 552,000 51.7

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 26 360,511 426,000 18.2

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 27 342,618 394,000 15.0

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 28 341,942 572,000 67.3

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 29 330,439 430,000 30.1

Washington National Airport DCA 30 309,754 327,000 5.6

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 31 305,964 434,000 41.8

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 32 291,029 407,000 39.8

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 33 283,611 392,000 38.2

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 34 278,941 344,000 23.3

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 35 272,782 360,000 32.0

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 36 270,156 377,000 39.5

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 37 258,265 335,000 29.7

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 38 254,351 326,000 28.2

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 39 252,254 300,000 18.9

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 40 245,929 271,000 10.2

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 41 243,595 342,000 40.4

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 42 236,342 330,000 39.6
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 9

3. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1996 operations.

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 43 235,940 339,000 43.7

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 44 227,816 279,000 22.5

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 45 227,201 296,000 30.3

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 46 226,274 308,000 36.1

Dallas-Love Field DAL 47 220,651 282,000 27.8

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 48 215,055 276,000 28.3

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 49 211,434 277,000 31.0

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 50 202,875 221,000 8.9

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 51 202,254 262,000 29.5

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 52 199,584 266,000 33.3

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 53 199,383 245,000 22.9

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 54 196,405 262,000 33.4

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 55 186,273 232,000 24.5

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 56 184,843 243,000 31.5

Kahului Airport OGG 57 183,046 234,000 27.8

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 58 182,186 207,000 13.6

Boise Air Terminal BOI 59 179,843 233,000 29.6

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 60 177,267 219,000 23.5

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 61 175,750 177,000 0.7

Sacramento Int’l Airport SMF 62 174,117 247,000 41.9

Louisville Int’l Airport SDF 63 173,152 231,000 33.4

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 64 163,341 191,000 16.9

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 65 163,210 201,000 23.2

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 66 160,752 204,000 26.9

Birmingham Airport BHM 67 160,728 186,000 15.7

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 68 159,974 216,000 35.0

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 69 154,833 184,000 18.8

Dane County Regional MSN 70 154,707 169,000 9.2

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 71 154,234 210,000 36.2

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 72 153,924 193,000 25.4

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 73 151,828 167,000 10.0

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 74 148,404 180,000 21.3

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 75 148,343 174,000 17.3

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 76 146,105 177,000 21.1

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 77 145,512 188,000 29.2

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 78 145,025 155,000 6.9

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 79 143,661 183,000 27.4

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 80 140,226 164,000 17.0

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 81 139,079 167,000 20.1

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 82 138,020 175,000 26.8

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 83 137,698 156,000 13.3

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 84 136,725 181,000 32.4

Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1996 and Forecast 20113

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY96 FY2011 % Growth
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 10

3. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1996 operations.

Albany County Airport ALB 85 132,928 176,000 32.4

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 86 131,598 160,000 21.6

Providence Green State Airport PVD 87 119,355 156,000 30.7

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 88 115,032 130,000 13.0

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 89 114,767 163,000 42.0

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 90 107,107 112,000 4.6

Lihue Airport LIH 91 104,782 152,000 45.1

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 92 95,472 104,000 8.9

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 93 95,150 92,000 -3.3

Palm Springs Regional Airport PSP 94 93,584 106,000 13.3

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 95 90,024 111,000 23.3

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 96 78,161 81,000 3.6

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 97 73,110 99,000 35.4

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 98 71,231 130,000 82.5

Guam Int’l GUM 99 61,156 73,000 19.4

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 100 59,371 74,000 24.6

Totals:

1996 Operations ............................................................................................. 26,567,416

2011 Operations ............................................................................................................................ 35,078,000

Average forecast growth at the top 100 airports for the 15 year period ........................................................................... 29.1

Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1996 and Forecast 20113

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY96 FY2011 % Growth
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 11

Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1995 to 19964

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY95 FY96 % Growth

4. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total enplanments.

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 1 1,125,562 2,316,084 105.8

Guam Int’l GUM 2 1,407,688 1,838,771 30.6

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 3 740,458 917,160 23.9

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 4 7,095,874 8,782,063 23.8

Palm Springs Regional Airport PSP 5 457,423 549,218 20.1

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 6 613,569 734,820 19.8

Boise Air Terminal BOI 7 1,063,795 1,253,019 17.8

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 8 1,462,172 1,710,151 17.0

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 9 8,662,126 9,813,187 13.3

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 10 2,691,092 3,042,339 13.1

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 11 27,349,930 30,651,427 12.1

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 12 2,805,286 3,133,068 11.7

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 13 10,584,116 11,791,816 11.4

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 14 5,454,342 6,060,665 11.1

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 15 4,679,592 5,191,494 10.9

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 16 4,335,906 4,778,998 10.2

Birmingham Airport BHM 17 1,229,411 1,351,333 9.9

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 18 13,019,859 14,295,208 9.8

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 19 5,675,105 6,229,896 9.8

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 20 3,170,445 3,477,759 9.7

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 21 1,494,645 1,631,997 9.2

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 22 12,301,110 13,382,706 8.8

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 23 4,215,624 4,579,094 8.6

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 24 16,887,347 18,325,018 8.5

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 25 26,146,785 28,247,301 8.0

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 26 13,517,238 14,577,015 7.8

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 27 3,066,256 3,283,997 7.1

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 28 13,990,302 14,967,807 7.0

Lihue Airport LIH 29 1,160,951 1,233,555 6.3

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 30 12,714,579 13,496,561 6.2

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 31 717,226 760,001 6.0

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 32 4,692,493 4,971,749 6.0

Dane County Regional MSN 33 519,563 550,283 5.9

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 34 2,652,309 2,808,852 5.9

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 35 2,519,357 2,667,513 5.9

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 36 5,713,037 6,039,746 5.7

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 37 13,446,484 14,204,288 5.6

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 38 567,705 599,210 5.5

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 39 2,527,447 2,662,988 5.4

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 40 3,079,572 3,235,874 5.1

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 41 1,146,240 1,203,305 5.0

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 42 1,989,677 2,088,515 5.0
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 12

Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1995 to 19964

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY95 FY96 % Growth

4. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total enplanments.

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 43 11,188,640 11,741,706 4.9

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 44 14,332,130 15,003,739 4.7

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 45 4,278,735 4,476,761 4.6

Sacramento Int’l Airport SMF 46 3,308,376 3,460,728 4.6

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 47 1,576,745 1,647,923 4.5

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 48 801,531 837,568 4.5

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 49 2,687,516 2,804,201 4.3

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 50 663,253 689,864 4.0

George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH 51 11,494,226 11,912,957 3.6

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 52 6,626,050 6,841,862 3.3

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 53 1,680,562 1,733,087 3.1

Dallas-Love Field DAL 54 3,418,261 3,505,076 2.5

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 55 8,849,175 9,073,360 2.5

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 56 11,954,568 12,250,552 2.5

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 57 10,473,627 10,725,530 2.4

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 58 1,713,680 1,753,331 2.3

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 59 15,722,329 16,077,377 2.3

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 60 4,720,940 4,809,148 1.9

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 61 594,641 605,724 1.9

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 62 5,333,077 5,429,955 1.8

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 63 31,611,635 32,174,494 1.8

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 64 11,072,604 11,264,391 1.7

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 65 14,979,616 15,237,496 1.7

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 66 3,521,360 3,577,067 1.6

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 67 26,947,281 27,361,201 1.5

Kahului Airport OGG 68 2,763,401 2,801,737 1.4

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 69 4,133,169 4,186,698 1.3

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 70 9,986,599 10,108,915 1.2

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 71 783,290 791,734 1.1

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 72 3,925,461 3,965,391 1.0

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 73 1,816,518 1,823,174 0.4

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 74 562,556 564,580 0.4

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 75 2,471,234 2,464,662 -0.3

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 76 1,273,827 1,269,245 -0.4

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 77 5,050,689 5,025,689 -0.5

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 78 10,387,115 10,323,763 -0.6

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 79 6,595,515 6,554,638 -0.6

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 80 565,521 560,144 -1.0

Louisville Int’l Airport SDF 81 1,787,115 1,764,275 -1.3

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 82 3,234,261 3,188,397 -1.4

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 83 1,096,129 1,078,592 -1.6

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 84 704,493 691,467 -1.8
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 13

Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1995 to 19964

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY95 FY96 % Growth

4. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total enplanments.

Washington National Airport DCA 85 7,380,226 7,227,361 -2.1

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 86 1,861,059 1,808,991 -2.8

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 87 1,249,038 1,213,888 -2.8

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 88 1,026,957 994,271 -3.2

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 89 1,423,899 1,372,199 -3.6

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 90 3,216,256 3,096,367 -3.7

Providence Green State Airport PVD 91 1,122,944 1,078,836 -3.9

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 92 596,761 568,892 -4.7

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 93 1,628,842 1,551,792 -4.7

Albany County Airport ALB 94 1,055,983 1,003,412 -5.0

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 95 750,803 706,168 -5.9

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 96 658,083 595,720 -9.5

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 97 2,104,169 1,894,953 -9.9

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 98 3,915,839 3,433,435 -12.3

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 99 1,174,318 991,908 -15.5

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 100 1,846,943 1,448,177 -21.6

Totals:

1995 Enplanements ...................................................................................... 546,389,269

1996 Enplanements .................................................................................................................. 574,580,420

Average forecast growth at the top 100 airports ............................................................................................................. 5.0
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 14

Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1995 to 19965

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY95 FY96 % Growth

5. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total operations.

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 1 217,768 283,611 30.2

Lihue Airport LIH 2 94,439 104,782 11.0

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 3 81,497 90,024 10.5

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 4 206,192 227,201 10.2

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 5 358,203 393,523 9.9

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 6 268,097 291,029 8.6

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 7 238,315 258,265 8.4

Boise Air Terminal BOI 8 166,499 179,843 8.0

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 9 186,512 199,383 6.9

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 10 349,699 373,815 6.9

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 11 201,409 215,055 6.8

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 12 716,293 764,002 6.7

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 13 228,740 243,595 6.5

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 14 498,887 531,098 6.5

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 15 214,011 227,816 6.5

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 16 67,026 71,231 6.3

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 17 311,279 330,439 6.2

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 18 145,886 154,833 6.1

Dallas-Love Field DAL 19 208,768 220,651 5.7

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 20 137,517 145,025 5.5

George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH 21 375,246 391,939 4.4

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 22 345,263 360,511 4.4

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 23 261,617 272,782 4.3

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 24 522,634 544,363 4.2

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 25 382,100 397,591 4.1

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 26 204,100 211,434 3.6

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 27 466,916 483,570 3.6

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 28 428,703 443,431 3.4

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 29 747,105 772,597 3.4

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 30 238,024 245,929 3.3

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 31 270,519 278,941 3.1

Dane County Regional MSN 32 150,458 154,707 2.8

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 33 245,603 252,254 2.7

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 34 502,952 516,498 2.7

Kahului Airport OGG 35 178,602 183,046 2.5

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 36 135,793 139,079 2.4

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 37 177,982 182,186 2.4

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 38 356,294 363,945 2.1

Guam Int’l GUM 39 59,928 61,156 2.0

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 40 892,330 909,186 1.9

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 41 183,082 186,273 1.7

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 42 151,603 154,234 1.7
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 15

Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1995 to 19965

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY95 FY96 % Growth

5. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total operations.

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 43 149,275 151,828 1.7

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 44 199,114 202,254 1.6

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 45 72,057 73,110 1.5

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 46 301,785 305,964 1.4

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 47 436,907 442,281 1.2

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 48 58,978 59,371 0.7

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 49 106,544 107,107 0.5

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 50 137,043 137,698 0.5

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 51 95,060 95,472 0.4

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 52 184,366 184,843 0.3

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 53 516,021 517,352 0.3

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 54 160,039 159,974 0.0

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 55 376,224 374,965 -0.3

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 56 873,510 869,831 -0.4

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 57 343,609 341,942 -0.5

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 58 409,148 406,121 -0.7

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 59 238,108 236,342 -0.7

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 60 205,104 202,875 -1.1

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 61 452,900 447,436 -1.2

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 62 346,869 342,618 -1.2

Sacramento Int’l Airport SMF 63 177,010 174,117 -1.6

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 64 151,248 148,343 -1.9

Washington National Airport DCA 65 316,404 309,754 -2.1

Birmingham Airport BHM 66 165,295 160,728 -2.8

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 67 158,302 153,924 -2.8

Louisville Int’l Airport SDF 68 178,646 173,152 -3.1

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 69 478,253 462,507 -3.3

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 70 153,646 148,404 -3.4

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 71 169,312 163,341 -3.5

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 72 136,507 131,598 -3.6

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 73 474,338 457,054 -3.6

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 74 493,391 474,976 -3.7

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 75 245,541 235,940 -3.9

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 76 119,701 114,767 -4.1

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 77 142,786 136,725 -4.2

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 78 120,234 115,032 -4.3

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 79 153,119 146,105 -4.6

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 80 209,939 199,584 -4.9

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 81 153,066 145,512 -4.9

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 82 576,609 546,487 -5.2

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 83 268,575 254,351 -5.3

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 84 207,518 196,405 -5.4
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 16

Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1995 to 19965

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY95 FY96 % Growth

5. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total operations.

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 85 508,077 479,625 -5.6

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 86 83,447 78,161 -6.3

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 87 101,944 95,150 -6.7

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 88 188,314 175,750 -6.7

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 89 190,053 177,267 -6.7

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 90 487,225 454,234 -6.8

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 91 151,905 140,226 -7.7

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 92 177,383 163,210 -8.0

Palm Springs Regional Airport PSP 93 102,072 93,584 -8.3

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 94 176,382 160,752 -8.9

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 95 296,932 270,156 -9.0

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 96 151,742 138,020 -9.0

Providence Green State Airport PVD 97 133,679 119,355 -10.7

Albany County Airport ALB 98 150,986 132,928 -12.0

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 99 173,259 143,661 -17.1

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 100 278,957 226,274 -18.9

Totals:

1995 Operations ................................................................................................. 26,114,095

1996 Operations ......................................................................................................................... 26,407,065

Average forecast growth at the top 100 airports ........................................................................................................... 1.1
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 17

Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements6

Airport % Growth in Enplanements % Growth in Operations

City-Airport ID FY95-FY96 FY96-FY2011 FY95-FY96 FY96-FY2011

6. At the top 100 airports, listed in alphabetical order by Airport Identifier.

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 5.1 80.8 1.6 29.5

Albany County Airport ALB -5.0 77.9 -12.0 32.4

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC -9.9 83.4 30.2 38.2

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 12.1 47.7 3.4 25.8

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 5.9 85.3 6.8 28.3

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 5.9 80.1 -8.9 26.9

Birmingham Airport BHM 9.9 85.7 -2.8 15.7

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA -12.3 108.1 -18.9 36.1

Boise Air Terminal BOI 17.8 88.4 8.0 29.6

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 2.5 40.2 -3.3 13.1

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF -4.7 45.6 -3.4 21.3

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR -0.3 102.7 0.3 31.5

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI -0.6 78.5 -9.0 39.5

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE -4.7 31.7 0.5 4.6

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS -5.9 84.4 5.5 6.9

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 1.8 79.7 8.6 39.8

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 2.4 62.2 -3.6 31.9

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 11.7 94.5 3.6 31.0

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 105.8 84.1 10.2 30.3

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 23.8 127.0 9.9 76.6

Dallas-Love Field DAL 2.5 68.6 5.7 27.8

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY -15.5 7.5 -1.9 17.3

Washington National Airport DCA -2.1 27.4 -2.1 5.6

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 1.7 47.8 -6.8 29.9

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 1.5 81.8 -0.4 57.3

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 23.9 82.5 0.5 13.3

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 7.0 89.2 6.5 45.9

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP -2.8 91.3 -7.7 17.0

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 5.6 62.5 3.4 35.5

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 10.9 109.3 -0.7 39.6

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 9.2 107.6 -4.1 42.0

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 4.5 83.0 -9.0 26.8

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO -21.6 97.9 -17.1 27.4

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP -1.8 86.3 0.7 24.6

Guam Int’l GUM 30.6 101.9 2.0 19.4

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 1.7 62.2 -0.3 33.6

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 1.0 46.7 2.7 18.9

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 5.7 83.6 6.2 30.1

George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH 3.6 92.4 4.4 61.0

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 19.8 32.4 2.4 13.6

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 9.7 90.4 -3.9 43.7

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP -1.0 90.1 -6.7 0.7
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 18

6. At the top 100 airports, listed in alphabetical order by Airport Identifier.

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 6.0 71.6 10.5 23.3

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 0.4 94.4 -4.2 32.4

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 4.7 52.2 4.4 18.2

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 5.0 106.3 1.5 35.4

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 9.8 113.4 -5.6 54.7

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 8.0 66.7 6.7 33.4

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 1.9 36.0 -6.7 -3.3

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA -0.6 46.1 -1.2 15.0

Lihue Airport LIH 6.3 70.5 11.0 45.1

Little Rock Adams Field LIT -0.4 101.7 -3.5 16.9

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 6.0 57.8 -5.4 33.4

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 11.4 125.7 -0.5 67.3

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT -9.5 44.4 -6.3 3.6

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 4.6 71.4 -5.3 28.2

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 8.6 72.9 2.1 51.7

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 2.3 97.0 -5.2 39.4

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 5.4 87.1 -4.9 33.3

Dane County Regional MSN 5.9 40.3 2.8 9.2

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 8.8 76.2 3.6 39.0

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 1.3 56.9 -8.0 23.2

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 1.9 85.1 2.7 18.5

Kahului Airport OGG 1.4 80.5 2.5 27.8

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 3.1 110.3 1.7 10.0

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 17.0 74.8 0.0 35.0

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT -1.4 62.5 -2.8 25.4

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 1.8 52.8 1.9 21.5

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF -3.6 88.4 2.4 20.1

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 4.3 52.9 -1.1 8.9

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 11.1 93.5 1.4 41.8

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 2.5 84.7 -0.7 34.0

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 7.8 9.7 4.2 6.7

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 1.2 175.1 -1.2 72.8

Palm Springs Regional Airport PSP 20.1 98.5 -8.3 13.3

Providence Green State Airport PVD -3.9 107.5 -10.7 30.7

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 0.4 32.7 -4.3 13.0

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU -3.7 82.1 6.5 22.5

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC -1.6 73.8 -4.6 21.1

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 13.1 106.8 1.7 36.2

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC -2.8 87.2 -6.7 23.5

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 5.0 126.2 6.3 82.5

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 3.3 71.4 6.5 40.4

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 7.1 93.4 8.4 29.7

Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements6

Airport % Growth in Enplanements % Growth in Operations

City-Airport ID FY95-FY96 FY96-FY2011 FY95-FY96 FY96-FY2011
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 19

6. At the top 100 airports, listed in alphabetical order by Airport Identifier.

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 5.5 76.9 0.4 8.9

Louisville Int’l Airport SDF -1.3 85.3 -3.1 33.4

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 4.9 66.5 4.1 36.6

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 8.5 71.8 1.2 42.0

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 10.2 91.8 3.1 23.3

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU -0.5 60.9 1.7 24.5

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 13.3 79.6 6.9 44.5

Sacramento Int’l Airport SMF 4.6 89.4 -1.6 41.9

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 1.6 107.7 -3.7 29.5

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 1.1 98.8 6.1 18.8

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 6.2 70.8 0.3 33.0

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR -3.2 36.2 -4.9 29.2

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 9.8 65.5 4.3 32.0

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 4.5 115.4 6.9 22.9

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 2.3 106.7 3.3 10.2

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 4.0 90.3 -3.6 21.6

Totals:

Average growth at the top 100 airports ............................................. 5.0 ...................................................... 0.1

Average forecast growth at the top 100 airports for the 15 year period ...................... 78.6 .................................................... 29.1

Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements6

Airport % Growth in Enplanements % Growth in Operations

City-Airport ID FY95-FY96 FY96-FY2011 FY95-FY96 FY96-FY2011
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 20
TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B:

This appendix contains current airport diagrams for the top

100 airports.

1

 For those airports that are considering or have

plans for the construction of new runways or extensions to

existing runways, the diagrams show the proposed runway and

runway extension projects indicated in blue. These diagrams are

for illustration only, and should not be used in any way for

airport planning purposes. Accompanying the diagrams is a

brief narrative of construction projects being planned or considered.

1. Based on 1996 passenger enplanements (see Appendix A, Table A-1).

Cuba

Florida

Puerto

Rico

Guam

ABQ

BOI

BUR

COS

DFW DAL

ELP

LAS

LAX

LBB

OAK

ONT

PDX

PHX

RNO

SAN

SEA

SFO

SJC

SLC SMF

SNA

TUS

GEG

ATL BHM

BNA

BUF

GSP

CHS

CLE

CLT

CMH

CVG

DAY

DEN

DSM

DTW

GRR

GSO

IAD

ICT

IND

JAX

LIT

MCI

MDT MDW

MEM

MSP MKE

OKC

OMA

ORD

PIT

RDU

RIC

ROC

SDF STL

SYR

TUL TYS

ALB

BDL

BWI

DCA

EWR

LGA

JFK

ORF

PHL

PVD

ISP

BOS

PWM

KOA

HNL

OGG

ITO

ANC LIH

GUM

AUS

FLL

HOU

IAH

MCO

MIA

MSY

PBI

RSW

SAT

SRQ

TPA

SJU

SAV

CAE

MSN

PSP
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 2

ABQ ... Albuquerque Int’l Airport .........................B-3

ALB .... Albany County Airport .............................B-4

ANC... Anchorage Int’l Airport ............................B-5

ATL .... Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport...................B-6

AUS ... Austin Robert Mueller Airport...................B-7

BDL.... Bradley Int’l Airport ..................................B-8

BHM .. Birmingham Airport .................................B-9

BNA ... Nashville Int’l Airport .............................B-10

BOI .... Boise Air Terminal.................................. B-11

BOS ... Boston Logan Int’l Airport ......................B-12

BSM ... Bergstrom AFB (new Austin) .................. B-13

BUF .... Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport ....................B-14

BUR ... Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport .......B-15

BWI.... Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport .........B-16

CAE ... Columbia Metropolitan Airport ..............B-17

CHS ... Charleston AFB Int’l Airport ....................B-18

CLE .... Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport ..............B-19

CLT .... Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport ...............B-20

CMH .. Port Columbus Int’l Airport ....................B-21

COS ... Colorado Springs Municipal Airport .......B-22

CVG ... Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport ...............B-23

DAL ... Dallas-Love Field ....................................B-24

DAY ... Dayton Int’l Airport ................................B-25

DCA ... Washington National Airport..................B-26

DEN ... Denver Int’l Airport ................................B-27

DFW .. Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport ................B-28

DSM .. Des Moines Int’l Airport .........................B-29

DTW .. Detroit Metropolitan Airport ..................B-30

ELP .... El Paso Int’l Airport.................................B-31

EWR ... Newark Int’l Airport ...............................B-32

FLL ..... Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l Airport .B-33

GEG ... Spokane Int’l Airport ..............................B-34

GRR ... Grand Rapids Kent County Int’l Airport ..B-35

GSO ... Greensboro Int’l Airport .........................B-36

GSP ... Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport .....B-37

GUM .. Guam Int’l Airport ..................................B-38

HNL ... Honolulu Int’l Airport .............................B-39

HOU .. Houston William P. Hobby Airport ..........B-40

IAD .... Washington Dulles Int’l Airport ..............B-41

IAH .... George Bush Int’l Airport .......................B-42

ICT .... Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ...............B-43

IND.... Indianapolis Int’l Airport.........................B-44

ISP ..... Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport.......B-45

ITO .... Hilo Int’l Airport .....................................B-46

JAX .... Jacksonville Int’l Airport ..........................B-47

JFK ..... John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport ..................B-48

KOA ... Kailua-Kona Keahole ..............................B-49

LAS .... Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport ............B-50

LAX.... Los Angeles Int’l Airport .........................B-51

LBB .... Lubbock Int’l Airport ..............................B-52

LGA ... New York LaGuardia Airport .................. B-53

LIH..... Lihue Airport ..........................................B-54

LIT ..... Little Rock Adams Field ..........................B-55

MCI ... Kansas City Int’l Airport ..........................B-56

MCO.. Orlando Int’l Airport...............................B-57

MDT .. Harrisburg Int’l Airport .......................... B-58

MDW . Chicago Midway Airport ........................B-59

MEM .. Memphis Int’l Airport .............................B-60

MIA ... Miami Int’l Airport .................................B-61

MKE ... Milwaukee Int’l Airport.......................... B-62

MSN .. Dane County Regional Airport ...............B-63

MSP ... Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport............B-64

MSY ... New Orleans Int’l Airport .......................B-65

OAK ... Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport .........B-66

OGG .. Kahului Airport .......................................B-67

OKC... Oklahoma City World Airport .................B-68

OMA .. Omaha Eppley Airfield............................B-69

ONT .. Ontario Int’l Airport ...............................B-70

ORD... Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ..................B-71

ORF ... Norfolk Int’l Airport ................................B-72

PBI ..... Palm Beach Int’l Airport .........................B-73

PDX ... Portland Int’l Airport ..............................B-74

PHL .... Philadelphia Int’l Airport ........................B-75

PHX ... Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport .............B-76

PIT ..... Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport...............B-77

PSP .... Palm Springs Regional Airport ................B-78

PVD ... Providence Green State Airport ..............B-79

PWM.. Portland Int’l Jetport ..............................B-80

RDU ... Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport ..................B-81

RIC .... Richmond Int’l Airport .......................... B-82

RNO .. Reno Tahoe Int’l Airport .........................B-83

ROC ... Greater Rochester Int’l Airport................B-84

RSW ... Fort Myers Southwest Regional Airport ..B-85

SAN ... San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field ................B-86

SAT .... San Antonio Int’l Airport ........................B-87

SAV .... Savannah Int’l Airport ............................B-88

SDF .... Louisville Int’l Airport .............................B-89

SEA .... Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport....................B-90

SFO ... San Francisco Int’l Airport ......................B-91

SJC .... San Jose Int’l Airport...............................B-92

SJU .... San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín Int’l Airport .B-93

SLC .... Salt Lake City Int’l Airport.......................B-94

SMF ... Sacramento Int’l Airport .........................B-95

SNA ... Santa Ana/John Wayne Airport ...............B-96

SRQ ... Sarasota Bradenton Airport ....................B-97

STL .... Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport ................B-98

SYR .... Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport................B-99

TPA .... Tampa Int’l Airport .............................. B-100

TUL .... Tulsa Int’l Airport................................. B-101

TUS.... Tucson Int’l Airport ............................. B-102

TYS .... Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport ......... B-103
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 3

ABQ — Albuquerque International Airport

3

26

30

35

12

17

GA Area

Terminal

Cargo

Ramp

ANG Ramp

8

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

21

Control Tower
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 4

28

1

10

19

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

 TOWER

GENERAL AVIATION

 PARKING

NY ANG

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

ALB — Albany County Airport

Construction of an extension to Runway 10/28 is

planned. The estimated cost of

construction is $5.8 million. A

new parallel Runway 1R/19L

is also planned. The estimated

cost is $7.5 million.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 5

ANC — Anchorage International Airport

14

6R

32

24L

24R

6L

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 6

ATL — Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport

A fifth parallel commuter

runway, 6,000 feet long and

approximately 4,200 feet south

of Runway 9R/27L, is under

design. Land acquisition is

ongoing. The runway will

permit triple independent IFR

approaches using the PRM.

The total estimated cost is

$440 million. Construction is

expected to begin in early

1998. The estimated operational date is early 2002.

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

27L

26L

8L

9L

9S

27R 26R

8R

9R

27S

Main

Terminal

Terminal A

Terminal B

Terminal C

Terminal D

Terminal E
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 7

AUS — Austin Robert Mueller Airport

13R

17

13L

31R

31L

35

TERMINAL BUILDING

 FIRE

STATION

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 8

BDL — Bradley International Airport

6

15

33

1

19

24

CONTROL

 TOWER U.S.

CUSTOMS

CONNECTICUT ANG

 ARMY

NATIONAL

 GUARD

GA PARKING

GA PARKING

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 9

BHM — Birmingham Airport

18

23

36

5

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 10

BNA — Nashville International Airport

A new Runway 2E/20E is

planned for the future between

1,500 and 3,500 feet from

Runway 2R/20L. In addition,

an extension to Runway

2R/20L is planned.

2R

2L

20R

20L

20C

2C

13

31

Donelson Pike

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

General

Aviation

20E

2E
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 11

BOI — Boise Air Terminal

10L

10R

28L

28R

 FIRE

CENTER

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 12

4L

4R

6

27

33L

15R

22R

22L

33R

15L

Terminal

Control

Tower

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

SOUTH

North

14

32

BOS — Boston Logan International Airport

A new uni-directional

commuter runway (Runway

14/32) 4,300 feet from Runway 15R/33L, an extension of

Runway 15L/33R to 3,500

feet, and a 400-foot extension

of Runway 9 are being studied.

An Environmental Impact

Study is currently in progress

for the new runway.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 13

BSM — Bergstrom AFB (new Austin)

The community has

approved the sale of revenue

bonds for the development of

a new airport. The present

Robert Mueller Airport

cannot be expanded.

Bergstrom Air Force Base

(AFB) was transferred to the

city on October 1, 1993, and

the city is now planning to

construct a new parallel runway and relocate all commercial activity there in 1998. The

total estimated project cost is

$520 million. The city has an

Airport Master Plan under

development. Environmental

studies are in progress by the

Air Force and the city. Since

Robert Mueller Airport will

close upon completion of the

new airport, no capacity

enhancements are planned at

Mueller. Some of the construction projects include a

new Runway 17L/35R and

associated taxiways, new

midfield cross taxiways, a new

air cargo apron, and renovation

of Runway 17R/35L to bring

it up to FAA CAT III standards.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Bergstrom Air Force Base Conversion

Opening Day Layout Plan

as of 1-31-95
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 14

BUF — Greater Buffalo International Airport

23

32

5

14

WEST TERMINAL

EAST TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 15

BUR — Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport

15

25

33

7

 CONTROL TOWER

PASSENGER TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 16

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

15R

15L

33R

33L

22

4

28

10

BWI — Baltimore-Washington International Airport

A new 7,800-foot runway,

Runway 10R/28L, is planned

to be constructed by 2003,

3,500 feet south of Runway

10/28. When Runway

10R/28L is constructed,

Runway 4/22 will be converted

to a taxiway.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 17

CAE — Columbia Metropolitan Airport

23

29

5

11

MAIN TERMINAL

CONTROL TOWER, GADO

U.S. ARMY

FIRE STATION

FBO

RADAR DOME

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 18

CHS — Charleston AFB International Airport

15

21

33

3

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 19

CLE — Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

The Master Plan Update,

Phase 1, is conditionally

approved. The Airport Layout

Plan shows construction of a

new Runway 5W/23W that

would be 10,950 feet long and

150 feet wide. Construction is

expected to be completed in

2000 at a cost of $180 million.

Also included in the development plan is an extension of

the existing Runway 5R/23L

from 7,095 feet to 9,000 feet

at an estimated cost of $40

million and conversion of the

existing Runway 5L/23R to a

parallel taxiway at a cost of $3

million. All of this work is

scheduled for completion in

2005.

Control

Tower

General

Aviation General

Aviation

NASA

36

18

10L

28R

5R

5L

23R

23L

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

Terminal

5W

23W
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 20

CLT — Charlotte/Douglas International Airport

A third parallel 9,000-foot

runway, 3,700 feet west of

Runway 18R/36L, is being

planned. It would permit triple

IFR dependent approaches. An

Environmental Impact Study

is underway and is expected to

be completed by mid 1998.

Construction is expected to

start in late 1998 and be

completed in 2001, at an

estimated cost of $160 million.

18R

18L

36L 36R

Old Terminal

Building

Air Carrier

Building

GA Ramp

U.S. Customs

Control Tower

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Taxiway D

Taxiway C

Taxiway M

Taxiway A

Taxiway E

Taxiway M

Taxiway A

Taxiway M

Taxiway A

Taxiway C

5

23

FBO Area

ANG Ramp

18W

36W

Taxiway to be removed
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 21

CMH — Port Columbus International Airport

The Airport Layout Plan

has been coordinated to show

a third parallel Runway

10S/28S constructed 800 feet

south of the existing Runway

10R/28L. This runway will be

10,250 feet long and 150 feet

wide, with two high speed

exits, a 90 degree exit at the

center, and a 90 degree bypass

taxiway at each end. This

would provide a 3,650 foot

separation between the proposed Runway 10S/28S and

the existing Runway 10L/28R.

With the installation of the

Precision Runway Monitor

(PRM), the existing Runway

10L/28R and the proposed

Runway 10S/28S could be

used for arrival air traffic.

Runway 10R/28L would be

used as the departure runway.

A 1,000 foot extension to

Runwy 28R was completed in

late 1996.

The existing Runway 10L

is being extended 1,000 feet

and will be completed in 1997.

Upon completion, Runway

10L/28R will be 8,000 feet

long and 150 feet wide.

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

10R

10L

28R

23

28L

5

Taxiway F

Taxiway F

Taxiway B

Taxiway B

Taxiway A

Taxiway C

Taxiway C

Taxiway C

Taxiway E

Taxiway E

General Aviation Parking

10S

28S

Sawyer Road

International Gateway

Taxiway B

Taxiway G
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 22

COS — Colorado Springs Municipal Airport

12

17R

30

35L

CONTROL TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

35R

17L
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 23

CVG — Greater Cincinnati International Airport

36L

36R

18L

18R

9

27

Fire

Station

Terminals

International

Terminal

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 24

DAL — Dallas-Love Field

31L

36

31R

13R

13L

18

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

BUILDING

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 25

DAY — Dayton International Airport

24R

18

36

6R

24L

6L

TERMINAL BUILDING

 CONTROL TOWER

 BEACON

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 26

DCA — Washington National Airport

3

36

33

21

18

15

Terminals

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 27

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

16

34

8

26

17L

17R

35R

35L

7

25

Control Tower

DEN — Denver International Airport

Runway 16R/34L is the

last of the six original runways

to be built at the new airport.

It will be separated 2,600 feet

from Runway 16L/34R, and

be 16,000 feet in length. The

runway is expected to be

completed in 2000, at an

estimated cost of $75 million.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 28

DFW — Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport

Proposed 2,000-foot

extensions to all of the

north/south parallel runways

will provide an overall length

of 13,400 feet for each. Environmental assessments for the

extension to Runway

17C/35C, Runway 18L/36R,

and Runway 18R/36L are

expected to be completed in

1997. The estimated cost of

each extension is $25 million.

A terminal expansion program

is underway that will add five

new jet departure gates to the

soughside of Terminal 2W;

provide baggage and passenger

connections to Terminal 2E;

and renovate a portion of

Terminal 2W. The total cost of

this program is approximately

$100 million and is scheduled

for completion in 1999. Construction on the west runway,

Runway 18R/36L, will begin

when warranted by aviation

demand. It could be available

as early as 2003. The estimated

cost is $268 million. It will be

located 5,800 feet west of

Runway 18R/36L (to be

renamed 18C/36C). Runway

18R/36L may be constructed

in phases, with the first phase a

6,000 foot runway located

north of Runway 13R/31L.

The second phase extension to

9,760 feet would intersect and

continue south of Runway

13R/31L. The addition of

Runway 18R/36L will allow

DFW to accomodate quadruple

simultaneous precision instrument approaches.

Control Tower

Fire Station #1

Fire

Station #2 Fire Station #4

31R

13L

17R 18L

31L

13R

18R

36L

36R 36C 35C 35L

35R

17L

2E

2W

3E 4E

17C 18C

West ATCT

East ATCT

Future Terminal

and Taxiway

Redesign

UPS

Ramp

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 29

DSM — Des Moines International Airport

An Environmental Impact

Study was recently completed

on a southwest extension of

Runway 5/23. Construction is

planned to begin in 1997, and

is expected to be completed in

2001. Cost for construction is

estimated at $28 million, with

an estimated additional $20

million for road relocation.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

12L

23

30R

30L

5

12R

CONTROL

 TOWER
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 30

DTW — Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport

A fourth north-south

parallel, Runway 4/22 is

planned. Construction is

expected to begin in 1999 and

should be completed in 2001.

The estimated cost of construction is $116.5 million.

This runway could potentially

permit triple IFR arrivals with

one dependent and one independent pairing. An environmental assessment was submitted in September 1989, and

a record of decision was issued

in March 1990. Land acquisition is currently in progress.

21R

21C

21L

27R 27L

9L

9R

3L

3C

3R

Control

Tower

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

22

4
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 31

ELP — El Paso International Airport

A new parallel Runway

8L/26R is shown on the

current Airport Layout Plan

for the year 2010 plus time

frame. Estimated cost would

be $20-30 million. In addition,

a 1,000 ft. extension to Runway 22 is included in the

currently approved Passenger

Facility Charge for the year

2000. Estimated cost would be

$8 million.

22

8L

26L

26R

8R

4

TERMINAL BUILDING

 U.S. CUSTOMS

FIRE STATION

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 32

EWR — Newark International Airport

An extension to Runway

4L/22R is in the preliminary

planning stage. The estimated

operational date is 2000.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

4L

4R

22R

22L

11

29

Terminals

Control

Tower

North Terminal

General

Aviation
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 33

FLL — Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport

An extension of the short

parallel Runway 9R/27L to

9,000 feet is planned to provide the airport with a second

parallel air carrier runway.

Construction is expected to

begin in 2000. The estimated

cost of construction is $300

million. The anticipated

operational date is 2003. An

EIS is underway and expected

to be completed in 1998.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

27L

31

27R

9L

13

9R

Control

Tower

West

Terminal

North

Terminal

South

Terminal

Taxiway F

Taxiway C

Taxiway A Taxiway A Taxiway A

Taxiway N Taxiway N Taxiway N

Taxiway Z

Taxiway Y

Taxiway D

Taxiway D

Taxiway D

Taxiway C

Taxiway M

Taxiway L Taxiway L

Taxiway H

Taxiway F

Taxiway F

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

Taxiway O

Taxiway Q
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 34

GEG — Spokane International Airport

Future projects include the

construction of a new parallel

Runway 3L/21R. The new

runway will be 8,800 feet long

by 150 feet wide and will be

separated from Runway

3R/21L by 4,300 feet. This

would enable independent

parallel operations, doubling

hourly IFR arrival capacity. The

estimated cost of construction

of the new runway is approximately $11 million. The

runway may be completed by

2010.

3

7

25

21

U.S. CUSTOMS

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 35

GRR — Grand Rapids Kent County International Airport

An extension to 8,500 feet

and realignment for the crosswind Runway 18/36 (17/35) is

under construction. Estimated

cost is $58 million. The runway will provide wind coverage, noise relief, and reduce

winter weather related delays

by providing a second air

carrier runway. Construction is

expected to be complete in

1997. A new 7,000 foot

parallel Runway 8L/26R is

planned for future development. The current 8L/26R

would be converted into a

taxiway at that time.

26L

26R

8L

8R

GENERAL

AVIATION

PARKING

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL TOWER

AIRPORT BEACON

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

17

35
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 36

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

32

5

14

23

CONTROL

 TOWER

 FIRE

STATION

GSO — Greensboro Piedmont Triad International Airport

An extension of Runway

14/32 is planned. It is expected

to be operational by 2004, at a

cost of $27 million. Construction of a new parallel Runway

5L/23R, 5,300 feet north of

Runway 5/23, is also being

planned. It is expected to be

operational by 2020.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 37

GSP — Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport

A new parallel runway,

Runway 3R/21L, is anticipated in 2010 at an estimated

cost of $65 million. Presently,

its planned length is 8,200 feet

with a 4,300 foot separation

from Runway 3/21. This

would potentially double

hourly IFR arrival capacity

Also, an extension of Runway

3L/21R to 11,000 ft is expected to be completed by

1999 at a cost of $34.1 million.

3L

21R

CONTROL

 TOWER

PASSENGER

 TERMINAL

3R

21L

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 38

GUM — Guam International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

6L

6R

24R

24L

CONTROL

 TOWER
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 39

HNL — Honolulu International Airport

26L

8R

8L

26R 22L 22R

4L

Hawaii ANG

Hazardous

Cargo Pad

Control

Tower

Fire

Station

GA

Ramps to

Hickam AFB

Shoreline

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

4R

RB

RB RB

RC

RM

RG

RH

RA

RA RA

C

RT

F

D

C

J

K

A

E E

B B

Y

S

D

B

A X

A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

V

B

M

Fire

Station

A

Pacific Ocean
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 40

HOU — Houston William P. Hobby Airport

Terminal

30L

30R

35

12L

12R

17

22

4

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 41

IAD — Washington Dulles International Airport

Two new parallel runways

are under consideration. A

north-south parallel, Runway

1W/19W, would be located

4,300 feet west of the existing

parallels and north of Runway

12/30. Estimated opening date

is 2009. This could provide

triple independent parallel

approaches, if they are approved. A second parallel

Runway 12R/30L has been

proposed for location 4,300

feet southwest of Runway

12/30. The runway is expected

to be completed by 2010.

19R

19L

12

30

1L

1R

CONTROL TOWER

MIDFIELD TERMINAL RAMP

1,000 ft

5,000 ft
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 42

IAH — George Bush International Airport

An $8 million 2,000-foot

extension to Runway 14R/32L

is planned for the year 2000. A

new Runway 8L/26R is

planned to be parallel to, and

north of, the existing Runway

8/26. Commissioning is

tentatively scheduled for the

year 2002. Runway 8L/26R, in

conjunction with Runways

9/27 and 8/26, has the potential to support triple IFR

approaches, if approved.

Another new runway, parallel

to and south of Runway 9/27,

is also planned in the distant

future. Construction is expected to cost $95 million for

Runway 8L/26R.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

32R

32L

14R

14L

8R

8L

9L

9R

26R 26L

27R

27L

Fire

Station

Control

Tower

Fire

Station
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 43

ICT — Wichita Mid-Continent Airport

19L

32 1R

19R

1L

14

TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 44

IND — Indianapolis International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

32

14

23L

23R

5R

5L

Terminal
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 45

ISP — Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport

28

24

15L

33R

33L

9

10

15R

TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 46

ITO — Hilo International Airport

8

21

3

26

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 47

JAX — Jacksonville International Airport

A new parallel Runway

7R/25L is being planned. It

will be 6,500 feet south of the

existing Runway 7/25, permitting independent parallel IFR

operations and potentially

doubling Jacksonville’s hourly

IFR arrival capacity. Construction is scheduled to begin in

2010, with completion expected in 2011. Estimated cost

of construction is $50 million.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

7

13

31

25

MAIN TERMINAL

7R

25L
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 48

JFK — New York John F. Kennedy International Airport

INTERNATIONAL ARRIVAL

 TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

NORTH

PASSENGER

TERMINAL

13R

13L

31L

31R

4R

22L

22R

4L

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

14

32
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 49

KOA — Kailua-Kona Keahole

17

35

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 50

7R

7L

1L

1R

19L

19R

25R

25L

Control Tower

Main

Terminal

Charter

International

Terminal

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Air

Cargo

TAXIWAY B

TAXIWAY A

TAXIWAY B

A-3

A-3

A-3

A-4

C-6

C-4

TAXIWAY C

TAXIWAY D

TAXIWAY C

TAXIWAY E

Satellite

One

LAS — Las Vegas McCarran International Airport

An upgrade of Runway

1L/19R to accommodate air

carrier aircraft is under construction. This improvement

will significantly increase the

capacity of the airport when

weather conditions require the

use of Runways 1L and 1R or

19L and 19R.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 51

LAX — Los Angeles International Airport

24R 24L

6R

6L

7R 7L

25R 25L

Admin Bldg/Control Tower

FAA Hangar

Bulk Fuel

Storage

X

X

X X

X

Theme

Structure

Twy 61

Twy 75

Twy 48

Twy 49

Twy 50

Twy K

Twy U

N

Twy K - Easterly Extension

Twy T

extension

Twy J

TBIT

Note: Some buildings/structures have been removed for clarity.

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

T-1

T-2

T-3

T-8

T-7

T-6

T-5

T-4
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 52

LBB — Lubbock International Airport

An extension to Runway

8/26 is planned. The start of

construction is scheduled for

2004 and the estimated cost is

$5 million. It is anticipated

that the extension will be

operational in 2005.

26

35L

8

17R

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

 TOWER

GA PARKING

 GA

PARKING

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 53

LGA — New York LaGuardia Airport

31

13

22

04

Control Tower

Passenger

Terminals

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 54

LIH — Lihue Airport

3

35

21

17

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Terminal
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 55

LIT — Little Rock Adams Field

An extension of Runway

4L/22R is underway, and

should be operational in early

1998. The estimated cost of

construction is $31 million.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

22R

36

18

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

 TOWER

4R

4L

22L
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 56

MCI — Kansas City International Airport

In accordance with the

Airport Master Plan, an

extension of Runway 1L/19R

is currently planned. One

additional parallel runway west

of the existing north-south

runway isbeing considered.

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

19R

1L

9

27

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINALS

A

B

C

1R

19L
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 57

MCO — Orlando International Airport

Environmental mitigation

for a fourth north-south

runway, Runway 17L/35R,

began October 10, 1990 and is

ongoing. The runway is expected to be operational in

2002. It will be located 4,300

feet east of Runway 17R/35L.

This may permit triple independent IFR operations. The

estimated cost of construction

of this runway is $137 million.

Also planned is a 1,000 ft.

extension to Runway

17R/35L.

Terminal

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

18L 18R

36L

36R

35L

35R

17L

17R
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 58

MDT — Harrisburg International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

13

31
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 59

MDW — Chicago Midway Airport

Reconstruction of Runway

4R/22L is scheduled to start in

1997, with a projected cost of

$32 million. The project is

expected to be completed that

same year.

13L

4L

4R

31C

31R

22R

22L

Terminal

(expansion

project

underway)

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

13R

31L

13C
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 60

MEM — Memphis International Airport

A new north-south parallel

Runway 18L/36R opened in

mid 1997. It is located 927

feet east of Runway 18C/36C

(old 18L/36R) and 4,327 feet

from Runway 18R/36L, thus

allowing independent parallel

approaches. This increased

hourly IFR arrival capacity by

about 33 percent. A reconstruction and extension of

Runway 18C/36C is under

way. Construction is expected

to be completed by 2000 at a

cost of $103 million.

36L 36C 36R

18L

18C

18R

9

27

FedEx

Cargo

Main

Terminals

ANG

North

ANG

South

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 61

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

27L

27R

30

26

9L

9R

8

12

New Terminal Design

and Mid-field Hold Pad

MIA — Miami International Airport

Construction of a new air

carrier runway, 8,600 feet long

and 800 feet north of existing

Runway 9L/27R, is expected

to start in 1999 and be completed by 2002. The estimated

cost of construction is $180

million. An EIS is expected to

be completed in late 1998.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 62

MKE — Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport

A planned 700 feet extension to Runway 7L/25R is

undergoing environmental

review. Extension of this

runway form 4,100 feet to

4,800 feet will accommodate

commuter aircraft and delay

the need for a third parallel

runway until about the year

2015. Anticipated cost of the

runway extension is approximately $1.9 million, with

construction scheduled to

begin in 1998.

13

19R

19L

31

25L

1R

1L

7L

25R

7R

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 63

MSN — Dane County Regional Airport

A new runway (3/21), is

proposed to be built to provide

additional operational capabilities to direct flights away

from noise sensitive areas. This

will be necessary when Runway 18/36 reaches its limit to

run operations in reverse flow

for noise abatement purposes

during peak operating hours.

Runway 3/21 would replace

Runway 4/22. It is not feasible

to extend 4/22 to have the

same operational capabilities

desired of Runway 3/21. The

estimated cost of construction

is $15 million. An EIS is

underway.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

13

18

8

4

31

26

22

36

Terminal

Control

Tower
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 64

MSP — Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

Construction of the proposed 8,000 feet Runway

17/35, at a cost of $175 million, will reduce the projected

2020 annual delay cost from

$66 million to $38 million.

The runway is expected to be

operational in 2003 and will be

used primarily for departures

to the south and arrivals to the

north.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Southwest

Cargo Apron

Control

Tower

11R

11L

22

29R

4

29L

Hubert H. Humphrey

International Terminal

Main

Terminal

USAF Area N

Minnesota

ANG Area D

Taxiway C

Taxiway M

Taxiway D

Gold

Red

Blue

Green

17

35
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 65

MSY — New Orleans International Airport

A new north-south runway, Runway 18/36, is

planned. This new runway will

be near parallel to the existing

Runway 1/19 and will be

located west of the threshold

of Runway 10, approximately

11,000 feet away from Runway

1/19. This will allow independent parallel operations,

doubling IFR hourly arrival

capacity. Pending environmental approvals, construction

could begin as early as 2000

and be completed in 2005, at

an approximate cost of $400

million. As an alternative to

this north-south runway, the

airport is considering the

construction of an east/west

parallel runway, Runway

10S/28S, 4,300 feet to the

south of existing Runway

10/28, off of present airport

property. The airport is also

constructing a north parallel

east/west taxiway approximately 800 feet north of and

parallel to the existing Runway

10/28, which could later be

converted into a 6,000-foot

commuter and general aviation

runway. The estimated cost of

construction is $34 million,

and the expected operational

date is late 1999.

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

19

28

10

1

10S

28S

18

36
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 66

OAK — Metropolitan Oakland International Airport

An extension to Runway

11/29 is planned for ultimate

development.

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

TERMINAL

CONTROL

TOWER

11

9R

9L

15

33

27R

27L

29
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 67

OGG — Kahului Airport

An extension of Runway

2/20 is being planned. An EIS

is underway, and the extension

could be operational by mid1998, at a cost of $40 million.

5

20

23

2

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 68

OKC — Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Airport

Construction of a new

west parallel runway 1,600 feet

west of Runway 17R/35L is

planned to be operational by

2004. Estimated cost of

construction is $13 million.

Extensions to both

north/south runways, Runways

17L/35R and 17R/35L, are

also planned. The estimated

cost of extending the runways

is $8 million each. Construction of the extension to Runway 17R/35L is expected to

start in 2001 and be completed

by 2014. A 1,200 foot extension to the northwest of

Runway 13/31 is planned as

well. Construction is stated to

begin in 2003, be completed in

2005, and cost $5 million.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

35L

35R

30

17L

17R 12

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINAL

BUILDING

18

36
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 69

OMA — Omaha Eppley Airfield

An extension to Runway

14R/32L was completed

(1,000 feet) in 1996.

18

14R

36

32L

32R

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

 TOWER

 HOT

CARGO

FIRE STATION

FREIGHT

 RAMP

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

14L
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 70

ONT — Ontario International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Terminal

UPS

Ramp

26L 26R

8R

8L

Control Tower

x x

xxxxxxxx

x x

xxx
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 71

ORD — Chicago O’Hare International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft. 4R

32L

9R

14R

27L

22L

36

18

14L

32R

27R

9L

4L

22R
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 72

ORF — Norfolk International Airport

A new air carrier runway,

Runway 5R/23L, was analyzed

by the Eastern Virginia Capacity Design Team. A Master

Plan Update is currently

underway. The runway could

be operational by 2005, at an

estimated cost of $75 million,

providing the airport can

acquire the small amount of

additional land required.

14

5L

32

23R

Main

Terminal

South Terminal

Control

Tower

Air Cargo

Building

23L

5R

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 73

PBI — Palm Beach International Airport

Runway 9L/27R is

planned to be extended 1,200

feet to the west and 811 feet to

the east, for a total length of

10,000 feet. The total estimated project cost is $10

million. The EIS is planned to

be completed in late 1998.

Construction is planned to

start in 1999 and be completed

in 2000.

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

13

31

9L

27R

9R

27L

Terminal

Control

Tower
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 74

PDX — Portland International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

28L

28R

10L

10R

3

21

Control

Tower

Terminal
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 75

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

9L

9R

27L

27R

35

17

PHL — Philadelphia International Airport

A new 5,000-foot parallel

commuter runway, Runway

8/26 is under construction. It

will be located 3,000 feet

north of Runway 9R/27L.

Land acquisition and hangar

relocation are underway. The

estimated cost is $220 million.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 76

PHX — Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

A new third parallel

runway, Runway 7/25, is

currently under construction

800 feet south of Runway

8R/26L. The planned operational date is September 1999.

Runway 7/25 is being constructed to a length of 7,800

feet. The airport layout plan

proposes an ultimate length of

9,500 feet, but further construction is not scheduled at

this time.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

26R 26L

Control Tower

8R

8L

25

7
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 77

PIT — Greater Pittsburgh International Airport

A recently completed

Master Plan has recommended

that at least two new runways

will be needed within a twenty

year planning period to accommodate projected Baseline

(normal growth) forecast

demands and achieve acceptable aircraft delay times and

associated delay costs. Construction of the two east/west

runways include a northern

parallel and a southern parallel,

with the latter as the preferred

first-build runway. The southern parallel will be located

approximately 4,300 feet south

of existing Runway 10R/28L

and should be operational by

the time the airport reaches

495,000 annual aircraft operations. The northern parallel

runway will be located 1,000

feet north of existing Runway

10L/28R and should be

operational by the time the

airport reaches 522,000 annual

aircraft operations.

Control

Tower

General

Aviation

Area

‹ 10,502 ft. fi

10C

10R

10L

28R

Air Cargo

Facility

28L

28C

14

32

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 78

PSP — Palm Springs Regional Airport

Control

Tower

Terminal

31L

31R

13R

13L

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 79

PVD — Providence Theodore Francis Green State Airport

5R

34

23L

23R

16

5L

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

BUILDING

 FIRE

STATION

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 80

PWM — Portland International Jetport

11

36

29

18

Terminal

Air Carrier Ramp

Control Tower

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 81

Terminal B

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Control Tower

Terminal A

5R

5L

23L

23R

14

General Aviation

National Guard

32

Terminal C

RDU — Raleigh-Durham International Airport

A new 9,500 ft. parallel

runway located approximately

1,050 feet west of existing

Runway 5L/23R is planned for

the future.

Also planned is a 1,500 ft.

runway extension to the south

end of existing Runway

5R/23L, bringing the total

useable length for landings and

takeoffs to 9,000 ft. Construction is expected to be complete

in 2005.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 82

RIC — Richmond International Airport

An extension of Runway

16/34 is under environmental

review.

20

16

34

2

7

25

Control

Tower

Terminal

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 83

RNO — Reno Tahoe International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

16L 16R

34L

34R

25

7

Control Tower
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 84

ROC — Greater Rochester International Airport

Construction of an extension to Runway 10/28 is being

considered. The estimated cost

of construction is $3.2 million.

An extension to Runway 4/22

is also being considered, and is

expected to cost $4 million.

Construction of a new parallel

Runway 4R/22L 700 feet

southeast of Runway 4/22 is

estimated to cost $10 million.

These runway improvements

are anticipated post 2000.

Environmental assessments

have not yet been started for

these projects.

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

10

7

4

25

28

22

CONTROL

 TOWER
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 85

RSW — Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional Airport

Planning has begun for a

new 9,100 foot parallel runway, Runway 6R/24L, 4,300

feet or more southeast of

Runway 6/24. Construction is

expected to begin in 2000. The

new runway should be operational by 2002. The estimated

cost of the project is $80

million. This new runway will

support independent parallel

operations.

CONTROL

 TOWER

6

24

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

6R

24L
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 86

SAN — San Diego International Lindberg Field

27

9

CONTROL

 TOWER

 FIRE

STATION

 EAST

TERMINAL

 WEST

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 87

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

12R

12L

21L

30L

30R

3R

Control

Tower

Terminal

Building

Fire

Station

12N

30N

N N

T T

D

N

D

D D

R R

D

P

X

A A

B

G G

B

B

G

M

R

S J

J H

K

N F

E

SAT — San Antonio International Airport

Reconstruction and extension of Runway 12L/30R for

air carrier operations is being

planned for beyond 2000, as

demand warrants. A third

parallel runway, Runway

12N/30N, is in the long term

planning as well, with a time

frame of 15-20 years.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 88

SAV — Savannah International Airport

A new 9,000-foot parallel

runway, Runway 9L/27R,

approximately 5,000 feet north

of Runway 9/27, is expected to

be constructed in 2020, with

an estimated cost of $20

million.

27

9

36

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

FIRE STATION

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

18

27R

9L
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 89

SDF — Louisville International Airport

Construction is underway

for two new parallel runways,

4,950 feet apart. They will be

numbered Runways 17R/35L

and 17L/35R and will be

10,000 and 8,580 feet long,

respectively. They will replace

Runway 1/19, which will be

closed. The estimated cost of

construction is $59 million for

Runway 17R/35L. Runway

17L/35R is complete, and

Runway 17R/35L is expected

to be completed in 1997. The

two runways will permit

independent parallel IFR

operations.

1

19

11

29

17L

35R

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

17R

35L
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 90

16L

34L

34R

16R

16W

34W

Control

Tower

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

SEA — Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Airport improvements

include a new Runway

16W/34W, 8,500 feet in

length, which will be located

2,500 feet from Runway

16L/34R. Construction is

scheduled to begin in 1997.

The runway will be completed

by 2004 for $585 million.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 91

SFO — San Francisco International Airport

F

F F

W

N

N

P

P

C

C

C

C

C

Q

Q

S S

R

R

R

R

S

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

M

H

H

L L L

E E

E

E

V

J

T

N. Terminal

S. Terminal

GA

USCG

28L

28R

1L

1R

19L

19R

10L

10R

1,000 ft

5,000 ft
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 92

SJC — San Jose International Airport

Environmental documentation is currently being

prepared in support of the

extension of Runway

12L/30R. If this option is

determined to be environmentally acceptable and is adopted

by the sponsor, construction

will begin in 1997.

D

A

A

B B B

E E

C

G

H

I

J

2

2

2

1 1 1

4 4

B B B

A

A

AIR FREIGHT

AIR CARGO

30L

30R

29

12R

12L

11

TERMINAL

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

TERMINAL

Control

Tower
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 93

SJU — San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport

26

28

10

8

Terminal

Area

Control

Tower North Ramp

East

Ramp

South

Center Ramp

Ramp

Cargo Ramp

Kilo

Ramp

North/South Taxiway

Taxiway S

Taxiway L

Taxiway S

Taxiway H A

B

C

D

E

F K

J

I

G

Z

Y

M

X

W

O

N

V

TT U

T

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 94

SLC — Salt Lake City International Airport

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

35

16L

17

32

34R

Terminal

Control

Tower

34L

16R

14
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 95

SMF — Sacramento International Airport

16R

16L

34L

34R

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINALS

 FIRE

STATION

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 96

SNA — Santa Ana/John Wayne Airport - Orange County

An extension of Runway

1L/19R is under consideration.

1L

1R

19R

19L

Terminal

Control Tower

Terminal

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 97

SRQ — Sarasota Bradenton Airport

A new parallel Runway

14L/32R 1,230 feet northwest

of Runway 14/32 is being

planned at an estimated cost of

$10 million. It is expected to

be operational beyond 2002. In

addition, an extension of the

existing Runway 14/32 is

planned at a cost of $5.1

million. It is expected to be

operational beyond 2002.

32

22

4

14

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINAL

X X X X X X X X

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

14L

32R
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 98

STL — Lambert St. Louis International Airport

A new parallel Runway

12R/30L has been recommended in the St. Louis

Airport Master Plan Update.

The new plan calls for a

parallel runway supporting

independent IFR operations.

An EIS is also underway. The

Master Plan Update and the

EIS are anticipated to be

completed in late 1997, and

construction could begin in

1998.

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

12R

6

12L

24

17

30R

30L

31

13
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 99

SYR — Syracuse Hancock International Airport

A new parallel Runway

10L/28R, 9,000 feet long and

separated from the existing

Runway 10/28 by 3,400 feet is

being considered. It would

provide independent parallel

IFR operations, doubling

hourly IFR arrival capacity. The

expected operational date is

2000. The cost of construction

is estimated to be $55 million

for the first phase of the new

runway, which would be 7,500

feet long, including a parallel

taxiway and connections to the

ramp. The final length of the

runway will be 9,000 feet.

10

14

32

28

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

BUILDING

U.S. CUSTOMS

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 100

TPA — Tampa International Airport

A third parallel Runway

18W/36W 9,650 feet long and

700 feet west of Runway

18R/36L is being considered.

An extension of Runway 18L

is also being considered for the

time frame beyond 2005, and

reconstruction and extension

of Runway 27, for the time

frame beyond 2010.

18L

18R

36L

36R

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

TOWER

AIR CARGO

9

27

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

36W

18W
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 101

TUL — Tulsa International Airport

A new parallel runway,

Runway 18L/36R, located

6,400 feet east of the present

18L/36R and 9,600 feet long,

is being considered. The new

runway would permit IFR

triple independent approaches,

if approved, to Runways 18L,

18C, and 18R.

18R

36L

36R

26

18L

 FIRE

STATION

TERMINAL

BUILDING

U.S. CUSTOMS

8

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 102

TUS — Tucson International Airport

An additional parallel air

carrier runway, Runway

11R/29L, has been proposed.

Upon completion of the new

runway, the current Runway

11R/29L, a general aviation

runway, will revert to its

original taxiway status. It is

not anticipated that the sponsor will proceed before 1998.

Current plans call for construction to start in 2003 to be

operational in 2005. The cost

of construction is estimated to

be $30 million.

11R

11L

3

21

29L

29R

TERMINAL

BUILDING

U.S. CUSTOMS

CONTROL TOWER

FIRE STATION

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 103

TYS — Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport

5L

5R

23L

23R

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 104
GLOSSARY

APPENDIX C:

AAC ................... Advanced AERA Concepts

AAP ................... Advanced Automation, FAA

AAS .................... Advanced Automation System

ACARS ............... ARINC Communications Addressing and Reporting

System

ACCC ................. Area Control Computer Complex

ACD ................... Engineering, Research and Development Service, FAA

ACE ................... Airport Capacity Enhancement

ACF .................... Area Control Facility

ADR ................... Automated Demand Resolution

ADS ................... Automatic Dependent Surveillance

ADSIM ............... Airfield Delay Simulation Model

AERA ................. Automated En Route Air Traffic Control

AEX ................... Automated Execution

AF ...................... Airway Facilities

AFB .................... Air Force Base

AGFS .................. Aviation Gridded Forecast System

AGL ................... Above Ground Level

AIP ..................... Airport Improvement Program

AIRNET ............. Airport Network Simulation Model

AIV .................... Aviation Impact Variable

ALP .................... Airport Layout Plan

ALS .................... Approach Lighting System

ALSF-II .............. Approach Light System with Sequenced Flashers and

CAT II modification

AMASS ............... Airport Movement Area Safety System

AMSS ................. Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service

ANA ................... Program Director for Automation, FAA

AND ................... Associate Administrator for NAS Development, FAA

ANG ................... Air National Guard

ANN ................... Program Director for Navigation and Landing, FAA

ANR ................... Program Director for Surveillance, FAA

ANS ................... NAS Transition Implementation Service, FAA

ANW .................. Program Director for Weather and Flight Service

Stations, FAA

AOC ................... Aeronautical Operational Control

AOR ................... Operations Research Service, FAA

APO ................... Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, FAA

APP .................... Office of Airport Planning and Programming, FAA

ARD ................... Research and Development Service, FAA

ARF .................... Airport Reservation Function

ARINC ............... Aeronautical Radio Incorporated

ARSA ................. Airport Radar Surface Area

ARTCC ............... Air Route Traffic Control Center
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX C – 2

ARTS .................. Automated Radar Terminal System

ASC .................... Office of System Capacity and Requirements, FAA

ASCP .................. Aviation System Capacity Plan

ASD ................... Aircraft Situation Display

ASDE ................. Airport Surface Detection Equipment

ASE .................... NAS System Engineering Service, FAA

ASOS .................. Automated Surface Observation System

ASP .................... Arrival Sequencing Program

ASQP.................. Airline Service Quality Performance

ASR .................... Airport Surveillance Radar

ASTA .................. Airport Surface Traffic Automation

ATC ................... Air Traffic Control

ATCAA ............... Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace

ATCSCC ............. Air Traffic Control System Command Center

ATIS ................... Automated Terminal Information Service

ATN ................... Aeronautical Telecommunications Network

ATMS ................. Advanced Traffic Management System

ATO ................... Air Traffic Operations Service, FAA

ATOMS .............. Air Traffic Operations Management System

AWDL ................ Aviation Weather Development Laboratory

AWOS ................ Automated Weather Observing System

AWPG ................ Aviation Weather Products Generator

BRAC ................. Base Realignment Closure Program

CAA ................... Civil Aviation Authority

CAEG ................. Computer Aided Engineering Graphics

CARF ................. Central Altitude Reservation Function

CASA ................. Controller Automated Spacing Aid

CASTWG ............ Converging Approach Standards Technical Working Group

CAT.................... Category

CDTI.................. Cockpit Display of Traffic Information

CFWSU .............. Central Flow Weather Service Unit

CIP ..................... Capital Investment Plan

CNS ................... Communication, Navigation, and Surveillance

CODAS ............... Consolidated Operations and Delay Analysis System

CONDAT ............ CONUS National Airspace Data Access Tool

CONUS ............... Continental United States

CRDA ................. Converging Runway Display Aid

CRS .................... Computer Reservation System

CSD ................... Critical Sector Detector

CTAS .................. Center–TRACON Automation System

CTMA ................ Center Traffic Management Advisor

CTR ................... Civil Tilt Rotor

CVFP .................. Charted Visual Flight Procedures

CW .................... Continous Wave
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY

APPENDIX C – 3

CWSU ................ Center Weather Service Unit

CY ...................... Calendar Year

DA ..................... Descent Advisor

DDAS ................. Daily Decision Analysis System

DEMVAL ............ Demonstration/Validation

DGPS ................. Differential GPS

DH ..................... Decision Height

DLP.................... Data Link Processor

DME .................. Distance Measuring Equipment

DME/P ............... Precision Distance Measuring Equipment

DOD .................. Department of Defense

DOT ................... Department of Transportation

DOTS ................. Dynamic Ocean Tracking System

DSB .................... Double Sideband

DSP .................... Departure Sequencing Program

DSUA ................. Dynamic Special-Use Airspace

DVOR ................. Doppler VOR

ECVFP ............... Expanded Charted Visual Flight Procedures

EDP ................... Expedite Departure Path

EDPRT ............... Expert Diagnostic, Predictive, and Resolution Tool

EFF .................... Experimental Forecast Facility

EIS ..................... Environmental Impact Statement

EOF ................... Emergency Operations Facility

ESP .................... En Route Spacing Program

ETMS ................. Enhanced Traffic Management System

EVAS .................. Enhanced Vortex Advisory System

F&E ................... Facilities and Equipment

FAA .................... Federal Aviation Administration

FAATC ............... Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center

FADE ................. FAA-Airline Data Exchange

FAF .................... Final Approach Fix

FANS .................. Future Air Navigation System

FAST .................. Final Approach Spacing Tool

FBO.................... Fixed Base Operator

FDAD ................. Full Digital ARTS Display

FL ...................... Flight Level

FLOWALTS......... Flow Generation Function

FLOWSIM .......... Traffic Flow Planning Simulation

FMA ................... Final Monitor Aid

FMS ................... Flight Management System

FSD .................... Full-Scale Development

FSM ................... Flight Simulation Monitor

FT ...................... Feet
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX C – 4

FTMI ................. Flight Operations and Air Traffic Management Integration

FY ...................... Fiscal Year

GA ..................... General Aviation

GAO ................... General Accounting Office

GDP ................... Gross Domestic Product

GLONASS ........... Global Orbiting Navigational Satellite System

GNSS.................. Global Navigation Satellite System

GPS .................... Global Positioning System

GRADE .............. Graphical Airspace Design Environment

HARS ................. High Altitude Route System

HIRL .................. High Intensity Runway Lights

HUD .................. Heads-Up Display

HF...................... High Frequency

ICAO .................. International Civil Aviation Organization

IFCN .................. Inter-Facility Flow Control Network

IFR ..................... Instrument Flight Rules

I-LAB ................. Integration and Interaction Laboratory

ILS ..................... Instrument Landing System

IMC ................... Instrument Meteorological Conditions

INMARSAT ......... International Maritime Satellite

IOC .................... Initial Operational Capability

ISSS .................... Initial Sector Suite System

ITS ..................... Intelligent Tutoring System

ITWS.................. Integrated Terminal Weather System

LDA ................... Localizer Directional Aid

LIP ..................... Limited Implementation Program

LLWAS ............... Low Level Wind Shear Alert System

LORAN .............. Long Range Navigation

MA ..................... Monitor Alert

MALSR............... Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with RAIL

MAP ................... Military Airport Program

MAP ................... Missed Approach Point

MASPS ............... Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards

MCAS ................. Marine Corps Air Station

MCF ................... Metroplex Control Facility

MDCRS .............. Meteorological Data Collection and Reporting System

MIT.................... Miles In Trail

MLS ................... Microwave Landing System

MNPS ................. Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications

MOA .................. Military Operations Area

MOPS ................. Minimum Operations Performance Standards

MRAD ................ Milli-Radian

MWP .................. Meteorologist Weather Processor

NAS .................... Naval Air Station
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY

APPENDIX C – 5

NAS .................... National Airspace System

NASP .................. NAS Plan

NASPAC ............. NAS Performance Analysis Capability

NASPALS ............ NAS Precision Approach and Landing System

NASSIM.............. NAS Simulation Model

NATSPG ............. North Atlantic Special Planning Group

NAVAID .............. Navigational Aid

NCF ................... National Control Facility

NCP ................... NAS Change Proposal

NEXRAD ............ Next Generation Weather Radar

NFDC ................. National Flight Data Center

NMC .................. National Meteorological Center

NMCC ................ National Maintenance Coordination Complex

NM .................... Nautical Mile

NOAA ................ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPIAS ................ National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems

NSC ................... National Simulation Capability

NTP ................... National Transportation Policy

NTZ ................... No Transgression Zone

NWS................... National Weather Service

OAG ................... Official Airline Guide

ODALS ............... Omni-Directional Approach Lighting System

ODAPS ............... Oceanic Display and Planning System

ODF ................... Oceanic Development Facility

ODL ................... Oceanic Data Link

OMB .................. Office of Management and Budget

OPTIFLOW ........ Optimized Flow Planning

ORD ................... Operational Readiness Date

ORD ................... Operational Readiness Demonstration

OST.................... Office of the Secretary of Transportation

OTFP ................. Operational Traffic Flow Planning

OTPS .................. Oceanic Traffic Planning System

PADS .................. Planned Arrival and Departure System

PAPI ................... Precision Approach Path Indicator

PCA.................... Positive Control Airspace

PDC ................... Pre-Departure Clearance

PRM ................... Precision Runway Monitor

R&D .................. Research and Development

RE&D ................ Research, Engineering, and Development

RAIL .................. Runway Alignment Indicator Lights

RDSIM ............... Runway Delay Simulation Model

REIL................... Runway End Identifier Lights

RFP .................... Request for Proposal

RGCSP ............... Review of General Concepts of Separation Panel
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX C – 6

RMM .................. Remote Maintenance Monitoring

RMP ................... Rotorcraft Master Plan

RNAV ................. Remote Area Navigation

RNP ................... Required Navigation Performance

RNPC ................. Required Navigation Performance Capability

ROT ................... Runway Occupancy Time

RSLS .................. Runway Status Light System

RTCA ................. Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics

RVR.................... Runway Visual Range

SAR .................... System Analysis Recording

SARPS ................ Standards and Recommended Practices

SATCOM ............ Satellite Communications

SCIA .................. Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches

SDAT.................. Sector Design Analysis Tool

SDRS .................. Standardized Delay Reporting System

SE ...................... Strategy Evaluation

SID ..................... Standard Instrument Departure

SIMMOD ............ Airport and Airspace Simulation Model

SM ..................... Statute Mile

SMARTFLOW..... Knowledge-Based Flow Planning

SMGC ................ Surface Movement Guidance and Control

SMS.................... Simulation Modeling System

SOIR .................. Simultaneous Operations on Intersecting Runways

SOIWR ............... Simultaneous Operations on Intersecting Wet Runways

STAR .................. Standard Terminal Arrival Route

SUA .................... Special Use Airspace

TACAN ............... Tactical Air Navigation

UHF ................... omnidirectional course and distance information

TASS .................. Terminal Area Surveillance System

TATCA ............... Terminal ATC Automation

TAVT .................. Terminal Airspace Visualization Tool

TCA ................... Terminal Control Area

TCAS.................. Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System

TCCC ................. Tower Control Computer Complex

TDP ................... Technical Data Package

TERPS ................ Terminal Instrument Procedures

TFM ................... Traffic Flow Management

TIDS .................. Tower Integrated Display System

TMA .................. Traffic Management Advisor

TMCC ................ Traffic Management Computer Complex

TMS ................... Traffic Management System

TMU .................. Traffic Management Unit

TRACON ............ Terminal Radar Approach Control

TSC .................... Volpe Transportation Systems Center
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY

APPENDIX C – 7

TSO .................... Technical Standard Order

TTMA ................ TRACON Traffic Management Advisor

TVOR ................. Terminal VOR

TWDR ................ Terminal Weather Doppler Radar

USWRP............... U.S. Weather Research Program

VASI ................... Visual Approach Slope Indicators

VF ...................... Vertical Flight

VFR .................... Visual Flight Rules

VHF ................... Very High Frequency

VMC .................. Visual Meteorological Conditions

VOR ................... VHF Omnidirectional Range — course information only

VORTAC ............. Combined VOR and TACAN Navigational Facility

VOT ................... VOR Test

WAAS ................. Wide Area Augmentation System
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX C – 8
SURVEY

APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX D: SURVEY 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX D – 2
1997 ACE PLAN APPENDIX D: SURVEY

APPENDIX D – 3

1997 Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan Questionnaire

 What is your industry affiliation and division:

____ FAA ____________________

____ Airline ____________________

____ Airport ____________________

____ Airport Planning ____________________

____ NASA ____________________

____ Military ____________________

____ Airport Services ____________________

____ Other Gov’t ____________________

____ Trade Organization (e.g., ATA, AOPA, etc.)

____________________

____ University ____________________

____ Professional Society (e.g., AIAA, AAAE, etc.)

____________________

____ Research ____________________

____ Aircraft Manufacturer ____________________

____ Other Industry ____________________

____ Other ____________________

What is your primary use of the Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan?

(Check all that apply)

____ Planning purposes ____ Reference information

____ Background information ____ Project status information

____ Other ____________________

Which of the following Chapters or Appendicies do you use, and do you find them beneficial?

(Please rate them on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being lowest, 5 highest.)

Topic Don’t Use Do Use 1 2 3 4 5

Chapter 1: The National Airspace System ❏ ❏❏❏❏❏❏

Chapter 2: Major Capacity Initiatives ❏ ❏❏❏❏❏❏

Chapter 3: Airport Development ❏ ❏❏❏❏❏❏

Chapter 4: Airspace Development ❏ ❏❏❏❏❏❏

Chapter 5: New Operational Procedures ❏ ❏❏❏❏❏❏

Chapter 6: Capacity Enhancing Technologies ❏ ❏❏❏❏❏❏

Appendix A: Top 100 Airports Data ❏ ❏❏❏❏❏❏

Appendix B: Top 100 Airports Diagrams ❏ ❏❏❏❏❏❏

Appendix C: Glossary ❏ ❏❏❏❏❏❏

Appendix D: Index ❏ ❏❏❏❏❏❏

How often have you received the Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan?

____ Every year ____ Only once or twice in the past

____ Not always ____ Never before

How often do you use the Plan in your work?

____ Weekly ____ About once a year

____ Monthly ____ Never

____ Occasionally during the year

Does the information in the Plan agree with your own local experience?

What important information should the Plan contain that it currently does not?

Cut along dotted line and fold
APPENDIX D: SURVEY 1997 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX D – 4

What format is your copy of the 1997 ACE Plan?

____ Print ____ Electronic, from the CD-ROM

____ Electronic, from the world wide web

In the future, what format would you like to receive the Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan?

____ Print ____ Electronic, from the CD-ROM

____ Electronic, from the world wide web

Address

Name ____________________________________

Company ____________________________________

Address ____________________________________

Address ____________________________________

City ____________________________________

State ____________________________________

Zip Code ____________________________________

Country ____________________________________

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of System Capacity

800 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20591

Attn: 1997 ACE Plan Survey

PLACE

STAMP

HERE