Aviation Capacity Enhancement

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Prepared by:

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of System Capacity

Washington, DC 20591

DOT/FAA/ASC-95-01 Los Angeles International Airport

I am pleased to present to the aviation community the 1995 Aviation Capacity Enhancement

Plan. The plan is an important part of the Federal Aviation Administration and Department

of Transportation efforts to improve the Nation’s transportation system.

The principal goals of the aviation system capacity program are to ensure that: airspace and

airport capacity continue to grow to meet user needs cost effectively; capacity resources are

fully utilized to meet traffic demand and eliminate capacity related delays; and airport

capacities in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) approach capacities in visual

meteorological conditions (VMC).

Improving aviation system capacity is a continuing dynamic process that evolves as user needs

change and technology advances. The plan attempts to identify and facilitate actions that can

be taken by both the public and private sectors to prevent projected growth in delays while, at

the same time, remain flexible and practical to accommodate future change.

The Plan is intended to be a comprehensive “ground-up” view of aviation system requirements

and development, starting at the airport level and extending to terminal airspace, en route

airspace, and traffic flow management.

System capacity must continue to grow in order to enable the air transportation industry to

enhance the level of service quality and allow airline competition to continue. In the

12 years since airline deregulation, airfares have declined. Both the quality and cost of air

service are strongly tied to aviation system capacity and will continue to show favorable trends

only if aviation system capacity continues to grow to meet demand.

This plan supports the FAA Strategic Plan, which is consistent with the Secretary of

Transportation’s National Transportation Policy.

David R. Hinson

Administrator

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Office of the Administrator 800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

16. Abstract

15. Supplementary Notes

Technical Report Documentation Page

8. Performing Organization Report No.

DOT/FAA/ASC-95-1

1995 Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

ASC-1

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA

JIL Information Systems, Arlington, VA

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of System Capacity

Washington, DC 21591

This report resulted from a collaborative effort by the Office of System Capacity, other FAA organizations,

the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, and JIL Information Systems.

A comprehensive review of Federal Aviation Administration programs intended to improve

the capacity of the National Air Transportation System. The Plan describes the extent of capacity

and delay problems currently associated with air travel in the U.S. and outlines various planned and

ongoing FAA projects with the potential to reduce the severity of the problems in the future. The

major areas of discussion are:

1) Airport Development

2) Airport Capacity

3) Airspace Capacity

4) New Instrumant Approach Procedures

5) Technology for Capacity Improvement

Civil Aviation

Airport Capacity

Aviation Capacity

Aviation Delay Reduction

Document is available to the public through the

National Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA 22161

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 252

12-31-95
iv

Preface 1995 ACE Plan
1995 ACE Plan Preface

v

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 — Introduction ........................................................................ 1-1

1.1 ................. The Need for Aviation System Capacity Improvement .................................... 1-1

1.2 ................. Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan............................................................... 1-4

1.3 ................. Level of Aviation Activity ................................................................................. 1-5

1.3.1 ...........Activity Statistics at the Top 100 Airports ........................................................ 1-5

1.3.2 ...........Traffic Volumes in Air Route Traffic Control Centers ...................................... 1-7

1.4 ................. Delay ............................................................................................................... 1-11

1.4.1 ...........Sources of Delay Data ..................................................................................... 1-11

1.4.2 ...........Delay by Cause ................................................................................................ 1-12

1.4.3 ...........Delay by Phase of Flight ................................................................................. 1-13

1.4.4 ...........Identification of Delay-Problem Airports ....................................................... 1-14

1.4.5 ...........Identification of Forecast Delay-Problem Airports ......................................... 1-16

1.5 ................. The FAA Strategic Plan and the NAS Architecture .......................................... 1-16

1.5.1 ...........System Capacity Goals and Objectives ........................................................... 1-19

Chapter 2 — Airport Development .......................................................... 2-1

2.1 ................. Delay and the Need for Airport Development .................................................. 2-1

2.2 ................. New Airport Development................................................................................ 2-2

2.3 ................. Development of Existing Airports — Airport Capacity Design Teams ............ 2-4

2.3.1 ...........Airport Capacity Design Teams — Recommended Improvements .................. 2-4

2.3.2 ...........Airport Capacity Design Teams — Potential Savings Benefits ......................... 2-7

2.4 ................. Construction of New Runways and Runway Extensions .................................. 2-9

2.5 ................. Airport Tactical Initiatives ............................................................................... 2-15

2.6 ................. Terminal Airspace Studies ............................................................................... 2-16

2.7 ................. Regional Capacity Design Teams .................................................................... 2-16

2.8 ................. Airport Capacity Design Team Updates ......................................................... 2-16

Chapter 3 — New Instrument Approach Procedures .............................. 3-1

3.1 ................. Independent Parallel Approaches Using the

Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) ...................................................................... 3-3

3.2 ................. Independent Parallel Approaches Using the

Final Monitor Aid (FMA) with Current Radar Systems .................................... 3-4

3.3 ................. Independent Parallel Approaches to Triple and

Quadruple Runways Using Current Radar Systems........................................... 3-5

3.4 ................. Simultaneous Operations on Wet Intersecting Runways................................... 3-6

3.5 ................. Improved Operations on Parallel Runways

Separated by Less Than 2,500 Feet.................................................................... 3-7

3.6 ................. Dependent Approaches to Three Parallel Runways .......................................... 3-8

3.7 ................. Simultaneous (Independent) Converging Instrument Approaches ................... 3-9
vi

Preface 1995 ACE Plan

3.8 ................. Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches ............................................. 3-11

3.9 ................. Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)/

Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) for Separation Assistance ....... 3-12

Chapter 4 — Airspace Development ........................................................ 4-1

4.1 ................. New York Airspace Capacity Project ................................................................. 4-3

4.1.1 .............. Liberty East Reconfiguration and Rerouting .................................................... 4-4

4.1.2 .............. Resectorization of New York ARTCC (ZNY) Area D.......................................... 4-5

4.1.3 .............. Stewart Area Airspace Redesign ....................................................................... 4-6

4.1.4 .............. Potential Traffic Growth at Newburgh/Stewart International Airport.............. 4-7

4.2 ................. Jacksonville Airspace Capacity Project .............................................................. 4-9

4.2.1 .............. The Proposed Palatka moa/atcaa Realignment ................................................. 4-9

4.2.2 .............. Rainbow Area Airway ..................................................................................... 4-10

4.2.3 .............. Proposed ACMI Thunder Area Airway ............................................................ 4-11

4.2.4 .............. Orlando Approach Control Airspace Modification......................................... 4-12

4.2.5 .............. Jacksonville Center Proposed Airspace Redesign Alternative ......................... 4-13

4.3 ................. Atlanta Center Airspace Capacity Project ....................................................... 4-14

4.4 ................. Miami Center Airspace Capacity Project ........................................................ 4-16

4.5 ................. Studies in Progress........................................................................................... 4-17

Chapter 5 — Technology for Capacity Improvement .............................. 5-1

5.1 ................. Airport Surface Capacity Technology ............................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 ...........Airport Surface Traffic Automation Program (ASTA) ........................................ 5-2

5.2 ................. Terminal Airspace Capacity Technology ........................................................... 5-3

5.2.1 ...........Terminal atc Automation (TACTA) .................................................................... 5-3

5.2.1.1 ..... Converging Runway Display Aid/Controller Automated Spacing Aid ............ 5-4

5.2.1.2 ..... Center-TRACON Automation System ............................................................... 5-4

5.2.2 ...........Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) ..................................................................... 5-6

5.2.3 ...........Precision Approach and Landing Systems ........................................................ 5-6

5.2.4 ...........Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) Applications ................. 5-8

5.2.5 ...........Wake Vortex Program ....................................................................................... 5-9

5.2.6 ...........Terminal Area Surveillance System ................................................................... 5-9

5.3 ................. En Route Airspace Capacity Technology ........................................................ 5-10

5.3.1 ...........Automated En Route Air Traffic Control (AERA) ........................................... 5-11

5.3.2 ...........Oceanic Automation Program (OAP) .............................................................. 5-11

5.3.3. .......... Communications and Satellite Navigation ...................................................... 5-12

5.3.3.1 ..... Aeronautical Data Link Communications ...................................................... 5-13

5.3.3.2 ..... Satellite Navigation ......................................................................................... 5-13

5.4 ................. Traffic Flow Management ............................................................................... 5-14

5.4.1 ...........Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) .............................................. 5-14

5.4.2 ...........Operational Traffic Flow Planning (OTFP) ...................................................... 5-16

5.5 ................. System Planning, Integration, and Control Technology ................................. 5-17

5.5.1 ...........National Simulation Capability (NSC) ............................................................. 5-17

5.5.2 ...........Analysis Tools .................................................................................................. 5-18

5.5.2.1 ..... Airport Network Simulation Model (AIRNET) ............................................... 5-18

5.5.2.2 ..... Airport and Airspace Simulation Model (SIMMOD) ....................................... 5-19
1995 ACE Plan Preface

vii

5.5.2.3 ..... Airfield Delay Simulation Model (ADSIM) and

Runway Delay Simulation Model (RDSIM) ...................................................... 5-19

5.5.2.4 ..... The Airport Machine ...................................................................................... 5-19

5.5.2.5 ..... National Airspace System Performance Analysis Capability (NASPAC) .......... 5-20

5.5.2.6 ..... Sector Design Analysis Tool (SDAT) ................................................................ 5-20

5.5.2.7 ..... Terminal Airspace Visualization Tool (TAVT) .................................................. 5-21

5.5.2.8 ..... Graphical Airspace Design Environment (GRADE) ........................................ 5-21

5.6 ................. Vertical Flight Program ................................................................................... 5-22

Chapter 6 — Summary ............................................................................. 6-1

Summary ........................................................................................................... 6-1

Appendix A — Aviation Statistics .............................................................A-1

Appendix B — Airport Diagram Directory ............................................... B-1

Appendix C — Airport Capacity Design Team Program .......................... C-1

Appendix D — New Runway and Runway Extension Construction.........D-1

Appendix E — Diagrams of the Remaining Top 100 Airports.................. E-1

Appendix F — Glossary............................................................................. F-1

Appendix G — Index ............................................................................... G-1
viii

Preface 1995 ACE Plan

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Growth in Gross Domestic Product and Domestic Passenger Enplanements ........ 1-2

Figure 1-2. Top 100 Airports Based on 1994 Passenger Enplanements .................................... 1-6

Figure 1-3. Continental Air Route Traffic Control Centers ...................................................... 1-8

Figure 1-4. Operations at ARTCCs .......................................................................................... 1-9

Figure 1-5. Airports Exceeding 20,000 Hours of Annual Delay in 1994 and 2004,

Assuming No Capacity Improvements.................................................................. 1-18

Figure 2-1. Airport Capacity Design Teams in the United States ............................................. 2-6

Figure 2-2. New Runways or Runway Extensions Planned or Proposed

Among the Top 100 Airports ................................................................................ 2-10

Figure 2-3. New Runways or Extensions Planned/Proposed Among the Airports

Forecast to Exceed 20,000 Hours of Annual Aircraft Delay in 2004 .................... 2-11

Figure 3-1. Independent Parallel Instrument Approaches

Using the Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) .......................................................... 3-3

Figure 3-2. Parallel Instrument Approaches Using the Final Monitor Aid (FMA) .................... 3-4

Figure 3-3. Triple and Quadruple Parallel Approaches.............................................................. 3-5

Figure 3-4. Simultaneous Operations on Wet Intersecting Runways ........................................ 3-6

Figure 3-5. Independent and Dependent Parallel Approaches .................................................. 3-8

Figure 3-6. Triple Approaches: Dual Parallels and One Converging ......................................... 3-9

Figure 3-7. TCAS/CDTI for Separation Assistance ................................................................... 3-12
1995 ACE Plan Preface

ix

List of Tables

Table 1-1. Distribution of Delay Greater Than 15 Minutes by Cause ................................... 1-13

Table 1-2. Average Delay by Phase of Flight ......................................................................... 1-14

Table 1-3. Delays of 15 Minutes or More Per 1,000 Operations

at the Top 100 Airports ......................................................................................... 1-15

Table 1-4. 1994 Actual and 2004 Forecast Air Carrier Delay Hours ..................................... 1-17

Table 2-1. Major New Airports — Planning Studies or Under Construction ......................... 2-3

Table 2-2. Status of Airport Capacity Design Teams ............................................................... 2-5

Table 2-3. Summary of Capacity Design Team Recommendations ......................................... 2-8

Table 2-4. New and Extended Runways Planned or Proposed .............................................. 2-12

Table 3-1. Candidate Airports for Independent Parallel Approaches Using the

Final Monitor Aid (FMA) ........................................................................................ 3-4

Table 3-2. Candidate Airports for Independent Parallel Approaches to Triple

and Quadruple Runways ......................................................................................... 3-5

Table 3-3. Candidate Airports for Simultaneous Operations on Wet Intersecting Runways ... 3-6

Table 3-4. Candidate Airports for Improved Operations on

Parallel Runways Separated by Less Than 2,500 Feet ............................................. 3-7

Table 3-5. Candidate Airports for Dependent Approaches to Three Parallel Runways ........... 3-8

Table 3-6. Candidate Airports for Independent Converging Approaches................................ 3-9

Table 4-1. Summary of Airspace Improvement Alternatives Analyzed. ................................... 4-2
x

Preface 1995 ACE Plan
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 – 1

1.1 The Need for Aviation System Capacity

Improvement

In 19941, 23 airports each exceeded 20,000 hours of annual

flight delays. With an average aircraft operating cost of about

$1,6002

 per hour of delay, this means that each of these 23

airports incurred at least $32 million dollars in annual delay

costs. By 2004, the number of airports that will exceed 20,000

hours of annual delay is projected to grow from 23 to 29, unless

capacity improvements are made.3

 The purpose of this plan is

to identify and facilitate actions that can be taken to prevent

the projected growth in delays. These actions include:

• Airport Development.

• New Air Traffic Control Procedures.

• Airspace Development.

• New Technology.

For four consecutive years, the number of flights exceeding

15 minutes of delay has declined. After a decrease of just over

24 percent from 1990 to 1991, flights exceeding 15 minutes of

delay decreased 6 percent in 1992, 2 percent in 1993, and 10

percent in 1994. The forecast for 29 airports exceeding 20,000

hours of annual delay in 2004 is eleven less than the 40 airports

predicted four years ago for the year 2000. These and other

delay statistics reflect four years of declining or almost static

aviation activity.

Prior to 1994, U.S. economic growth had averaged only

1.9 percent annually during the 1990s. This included a three

quarter recession in 1990/1991, which slowed economic growth

Chapter 1

Introduction

1. 1994 data is used throughout this plan due to the fact that, at publicaiton

time, 1995 data was not verified and available.

2. 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, the latest data available.

3. For a listing of airports exceeding 20,000 hours of annual delay, see

Table 1-4 and Figure 1-5.

In 1994, 23 airports each exceeded 20,000 hours of annual

flight delays. With an average

aircraft operating cost of about

$1,600 per hour of delay, this

means that each of these 23

airports incurred at least $32 million

dollars in annual delay costs.

For four consecutive years, the

number of flights exceeding 15

minutes of delay has declined.
Chapter 1 – 2

Chapter 1: Introduction 1995 ACE Plan

to only 0.8 percent over the 2-year period. The recession was

followed by a very weak recovery (1.7 percent growth in 1992),

whose slow pace was generally recognized as unprecedented in

postwar U.S. history. However, the U.S. economy has now

grown for 14 consecutive quarters, with real growth averaging

3.2 percent in 1993 and 3.7 percent in 1994.

This stronger economic activity had a major impact on the

demand for aviation services. U.S. commercial air carrier

passenger enplanements, which had averaged only 1.5 percent

annual growth during the preceding 4 years, were up 8.2

percent in 1994, the largest growth since 1987. Air carrier

revenue passenger miles were up 5.5 percent in 1994, the

strongest growth since 1986.

Over the next twelve years, the economy is expected to

sustain a moderate rate of growth averaging 2.5 percent.4 Gross

Domestic Product (GDP) is a significant indicator of business

activity, which, in turn, drives aviation activity. Figure 1-1

illustrates the historical growth in GDP and commercial air

carrier domestic passenger enplanements since 1989 and the

anticipated growth through 2006.

4. FAA Aviation Forecasts, Fiscal Years 1995-2006, FAA-APO-95-1, March

1995. The economic projections used in developing the FAA Baseline

Aviation Forecasts for the period 1995 to 2000 was provided by the

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). For the period 2001 to 2006, the economic scenario uses consensus

growth rates of the economic variables prepared by DRI/McGraw-Hill, Inc.,

Evans Economics, Incl., and the WEFA Group.

19891990

1991

19921993

1994

19951996

1997

19981999

2000

2001

20022003

2004

20052006

2,600

3,100

3,600

4,100

4,600

5,100

5,600

6,100

6,600

7,100

7,600

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Gross Domestic Product (billion of 1987 $)

Enplanements (000)

Fiscal Year

Enplanements-Domestic (000)

Gross Domestic Product

Enplanements-Total (000)

Figure 1-1. Growth in Gross Domestic Product and Domestic Passenger

Enplanements, 1989 to 2006
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 – 3

According to FAA aviation forecasts, air carrier domestic

passenger enplanements are expected to increase at an average

annual rate of 4.0 percent between 1995 and 2006, and domestic air carrier aircraft operations are forecast to increase at an

average annual rate of 1.9 percent during the same twelve-year

period. The higher growth predicted for passenger

enplanements relative to aircraft activity is the result of

significantly higher load factors, larger seating capacity for air

carrier aircraft, and longer passenger trip lengths. International

air carrier passenger enplanements are forecast to increase at an

annual rate of 5.8 percent, and regional/commuter airline

passenger enplanements are expected to grow 6.6 percent

annually.

Although the current delay forecasts continue to project

serious delays in the absence of capacity improvements, the

message contained in succeeding chapters is positive. For

example, a great deal is being done to improve capacity and

reduce delays through new construction projects at airports and

recent enhancements in Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures.

Airspace capacity design projects are being undertaken to study

the terminal airspace associated with delay-impacted airports

across the country. In addition, there are many emerging

technologies in the areas of surveillance, communications, and

navigation that will further improve the efficiency of new and

existing runways and of terminal and en route airspace.

In fact, these capacity-producing improvements are frequently interrelated; changes in one often require changes in

the others before all the potential capacity benefits can be

realized. Resolving the problem of delay requires an integrated

approach that develops capacity improvements throughout the

aviation system, while at the same time maintaining or improving the current level of aviation safety. Improvements in capacity — constructing new runways and taxiways, installing

enhanced facilities and equipment, applying new technologies

— generally require long lead times. We must start preparing

now for improvements that take 5 to 10 years to plan, develop,

and implement.

Although the current delay forecasts

continue to project serious delays in

the absence of capacity improvements, the message contained in

succeeding chapters is positive.
Chapter 1 – 4

Chapter 1: Introduction 1995 ACE Plan

1.2 Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

The Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan is an important

part of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department

of Transportation (DOT) efforts to improve the Nation’s transportation system. The Secretary of Transportation’s National

Transportation Policy (NTP) describes the enormity of the

Nation’s transportation infrastructure needs and sets as a major

theme the need to maintain and expand the national transportation system. The Federal Aviation Administration Strategic

Plan, based on the NTP, provides the goals and objectives

towards which the FAA is working. The FAA Operational

Concept supports the broad policies and strategies of the

Strategic Plan by creating a concept of operations. The concept

of operations is the basis for developing the NAS architecture.

The architecture provides the structure for specific actions and

projects in the numerous operating-level plans which affect the

NAS. The FAA Operational Concept delineates the operational

capabilities that must be in place to achieve an operating vision

of the future in 2010. The NAS architecture represents the road

map to 2010. The Air Traffic Service Plan takes a close-in look

and provides a description of services between now and 2000.

The NAS architecture links the Operational Concept, the Air

Traffic Service Plan, and input from the user community,

including the operational concepts of free flight, and adds the

necessary structure to make capital investment decisions. The

Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan describes capacity and

delay reduction measures necessary to support growth in the

National Airspace System.

The Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan is also linked to

other FAA operating-level plans. In particular, it addresses

requirements for research, for facilities and equipment, and for

airport improvements that can be funded from the FAA’s

Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Each of these areas is

addressed in a major FAA plan. The Research, Engineering, and

Development (RE&D) Plan is used to determine which systems

and technologies the FAA should use to accomplish agency

goals and objectives. The RE&D Plan includes the research

needed to validate the new instrument approach procedures

detailed in Chapter 3. The Capital Investment Plan (CIP)

provides a framework for investment in the facilities and

equipment needed to improve the National Airspace System

(NAS). The CIP funds the technological improvements described in Chapter 5. The National Plan of Integrated Airport

Systems (NPIAS) presents airport improvement projects nationwide that are eligible for AIP funding. Among these are projects

to build new airports and to improve existing airports to inThe Secretary of Transportation’s

National Transportation Policy

(NTP) describes the enormity of the

Nation’s transportation infrastructure

needs and sets as a major theme

the need to maintain and expand

the national transportation system.

The Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan describes capacity and

delay reduction measures necessary to support growth in the

National Airspace System.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 – 5

crease capacity and safety. These projects are discussed in

Chapter 2.

The Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan identifies the

causes of delay and quantifies its magnitude. The plan catalogues and summarizes programs that have the potential to

enhance capacity and reduce delay. Within the plan, these

programs have been organized into broadly related categories

that, in turn, parallel chapter development: Airport Development, New Instrument Approach Procedures, Airspace Development, and Technology for Capacity Improvement.

1.3 Level of Aviation Activity

1.3.1 Activity Statistics at the Top 100

Airports

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

1994 passenger enplanements, are shown in Figure 1-2.5 These

100 airports accounted for over 94 percent of the 555.3 million

passengers that enplaned nationally in 1994.

In 2010, 995 million domestic and international passengers

are forecast to enplane at these airports.6 This represents a

projected growth in enplanements of nearly 79 percent over the

16 year period of the forecast, an average annual rate of growth

of more than 7 percent.

In 1994, over 26 million aircraft operations occurred at the

top 100 airports. By 2010, operations are forecast to grow to

approximately 34 million at these airports, a projected growth

in operations of nearly 30 percent.

Operations data for 1992, 1993, and 1994 and enplanement

data for 1992, 1993 and 1994, as well as forecasts of operations

and enplanements for 2010 for the top 100 airports, are included in Appendix A.

5. The top 100 airports were chosen based on 1994 passenger enplanements

as listed in the FAA’s annual report, Terminal Area Forecasts.

6. Based on data in the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecasts, FY92, FY93, and FY94

operations and enplanement data for the top 100 airports, a forecast for the

year 2010, and the percentage growth that the forecast represents are shown

in Appendix A, as well as a ranking by percentage growth in operations and

enplanements.
Chapter 1 – 6

Chapter 1: Introduction 1995 ACE Plan Cuba Florida Puerto Rico HNL KOA OGGITO LIH ANC ABQ ATL AUS BDL BHM BNA BOI BOS BUF BUR BWI GSP CHS CLE CLT CMH COS CVG DAL DAY DCA DEN DFW DSM DTW ELP EWR FLL GRR GSO HOU IAD IAH ICT IND JAX LGA LAS LAX LBB JFK LIT MAF MCI MDT MCO MDW MEM MIA MKE MSP MSY OAK OKC OMA ONT ORD ORF PBI PDX PHL PHX PIT PVD RIC RDU RNO ROC RSW SAN SAT SDF SEA SFO SJC SLC SMF SNA SRQ STL SYR TPA TUL TUS TYS ALB GEG SJU PWM STT ISP SAV CAE BGR

Figure 1-2. Top 100 Airports Based on 1994 Passenger Enplanements
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 – 7

1.3.2 Traffic Volumes in Air Route Traffic

Control Centers (ARTCCS)

Air traffic volume statistics for FY94 show that instrument

flight rules (IFR) operations increased at 17 of the 20 Continental United States (CONUS) ARTCCS over FY93. In FY94, the

number of aircraft flying under IFR handled by ARTCCs totaled

38.8 million, an increase of 3.7 percent over 1993 activity

counts.7 The increase at en route centers in the last 10 years (up

18.7 percent) can be atributed to the growth in commercial

aviation activity (up 36.6 percent). The number of commercial

aircraft handled at the centers (26.5 million) increased 5.2

percent in FY94. The number of air carrier aircraft handled

totaled 20.0 million, while the number of commuter/air taxi

aircraft handled totaled 6.5 million (up 5.4 percent). General

aviation and military activity rose 0.8 percent for the year.

Aircraft operations at the centers are expected to grow at an

average rate of 1.9 percent a year between 1994 and 2006.8 In

absolute numbers, center operations are forecast to increase

from 38.8 million aircraft handled in 1994 to 48.9 million in

2006. In 1994, 51.5 percent of the traffic handled at centers

were air carrier flights. This proportion is expected to increase

only slightly to 53.9 percent in 2006.

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

Figure 1-4 compares the number of operations during FY93

and FY94 and provides a forecast for FY06 for each of the 20

CONUS ARTCCS. A breakdown by user group of the traffic

handled by the centers in 1993 and 1994, operations data for

the individual ARTCCS for 1993 and 1994, and forecasts for

2006 are included in Appendix A.

7. Based on FAA’s Forecasts of IFR Aircraft Handled by Air Route Traffic

Control Centers Fiscal Years 1995 - 2006, FAA-APO-95-6, May 1995

8. Based on FAA Aviation Forecasts, Fiscal Years 1995-2006, FAA-APO-95-1,

March 1995
Chapter 1 – 8

Chapter 1: Introduction 1995 ACE Plan ZSE ZOA ZLA ZLC ZDV ZAB ZFW ZHU ZKC ZMP ZAU ZID ZME ZTL ZDC ZOB ZNYZBWZMA ZJX ZNY

Figure 1-3. Continental Air Route Traffic Control Centers
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 – 9

Washington (ZDC)

Seattle (ZSE)

Salt Lake City (ZLC)

Oakland (ZOA)

New York (ZNY)

Minneapolis (ZMP)

Miami (ZMA)

Memphis (ZME)

Los Angeles (ZLA)

Kansas City (ZKC)

Jacksonville (ZJX)

Indianapolis (ZID)

Houston (ZHU)

Fort Worth (ZFW)

Denver (ZDV)

Cleveland (ZOB)

Chicago (ZAU)

Boston (ZBU)

Atlanta (ZTL)

Albuquerque (ZAB)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500

Air Route Traffic Control Centers

Operations (000)

1993

1994

2006

Figure 1-4. Operations at ARTCCs
Chapter 1 – 10

Chapter 1: Introduction 1995 ACE Plan

The busiest ARTCCs in 1994 were: Chicago, Cleveland,

Atlanta, Washington, and Indianapolis. Forecasts for 2006

indicate a change in ranking of the busiest ARTCCs to: Cleveland, Chicago, Atlanta, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis. The

centers with the highest average annual growth rates are Oakland and Jacksonville, which are projected to grow by 3.9 and

2.8 percent respectively. The relatively high growth at these two

centers reflects the projected high growth of domestic traffic

demand in the West and South. Oakland Center is forecast to

experience the largest absolute growth, from 1.6 million aircraft

operations in 1992 to 2.7 million in the year 2005, a 64 percent

increase. This reflects the continuing development and strong

projected growth on trans-Pacific routes.

Busiest ARTCCs in 1994

Forecast Busiest ARTCCs in 2006

ZSE

ZOA

ZLA

ZLC

ZDV

ZAB

ZFW

ZHU

ZKC

ZMP

ZAU

ZID

ZME ZTL

ZDC

ZOB ZNY

ZBW

ZMA

ZJX

ZNY

ZSE

ZOA

ZLA

ZLC

ZDV

ZAB

ZFW

ZHU

ZKC

ZMP

ZAU

ZID

ZME ZTL

ZDC

ZOB ZNY

ZBW

ZMA

ZJX

ZNY

The busiest ARTCCs in 1994 were:

Chicago

Cleveland

Atlanta

Washington

Indianapolis

Forecasts for 2006 indicate a

change in ranking of the busiest

ARTCCs to:

Cleveland

Chicago

Atlanta

Indianapolis

Minneapolis
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 – 11

1.4 Delay9

1.4.1 Sources of Delay Data

Delay can be thought of as another system performance

parameter, an indicator that capacity is perhaps being reached

and even exceeded. Currently, the FAA gathers delay data from

two different sources. The first is through the Air Traffic

Operations Management System (ATOMS), in which FAA

personnel record aircraft that are delayed 15 or more minutes

by specific cause (weather, terminal volume, center volume,

closed runways or taxiways, and NAS equipment interruptions).

Aircraft that are delayed by less than 15 minutes are not recorded in ATOMS.

The second source of delay data is through the Airline

Service Quality Performance (ASQP) data, which is collected, in

general, from airlines with one percent or more of the total

domestic scheduled service passenger revenue and represents

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

taxi-in delays). Actual departure time, flight duration, and

arrival times are reported along with the differences between

these and the equivalent data published in the Official Airline

Guide (OAG) and entered in the Computer Reservation System

(CRS). ASQP delays range from 0 minutes to greater than 15

minutes. In the discussion that follows, “delay by cause” refers

to ATOMS data, and “delay by phase of flight” refers to ASQP

data.

The delay data reported through ATOMS and ASQP are not

without their problems. ATOMS is the official FAA delay reporting system. However, it only reports delays of 15 minutes or

more; it aggregates flight delays, thus making it impossible to

determine if a particular flight was delayed; and it only reports

flight delays due to an air traffic problem (i.e., weather, terminal volume, center volume, closed runways or taxiways, and

NAS equipment interruptions). ASQP only reports on carriers

with at least 1 percent of domestic passenger enplanements for

scheduled air carrier flights. ASQP is used primarily for consumer on-time performance reporting and is under DOT

control.

9. Although no existing delay reporting system is fully comprehensive, this

Plan aims to identify problem areas through available data, such as the

following delay information and the previously mentioned aviation activity

statistics.

Delay can be thought of as another

system performance parameter, an

indicator that capacity is perhaps

being reached and even exceeded.
Chapter 1 – 12

Chapter 1: Introduction 1995 ACE Plan

The FAA is developing an improved aircraft delay data

system to provide a single, integrated source of data to answer

analytical questions about delay at a detailed level. This new

system, the Consolidated Operations and Delay Analysis

System (CODAS), will use Enhanced Traffic Management

System (ETMS), OAG, ASQP, and Aeronautical Radio Incorporated (ARINC) Communications Addressing and Reporting

System (ACARS) data to calculate delay by phase of flight and

will include weather data from the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for analysis purposes. By

combining, comparing, and screening the data from these

sources, a refined data source is created, which can be used for

accurate delay calculations and model validation. CODAS will

not replace ATOMS, which will continue to be the official FAA

delay reporting system.

1.4.2 Delay by Cause

Flight delays exceeding 15 or more minutes, as recorded by

OPSNET, were experienced on approximately 248,000 flights in

1994, a decrease of 10 percent over 1993. Weather was attributed as the primary cause of 75 percent of operations delayed

by 15 minutes or more in 1994, up from 72 percent in 1993.

Terminal air traffic volume accounted for 19 percent of delays

of 15 or more minutes, down from 22 percent in 1993. Table 1-

1 details these and other factors that caused delays of 15 minutes or more and provides a history of this breakdown of delay

by primary cause. With the exception of the split between

terminal and center volume delays, the basic distribution of

delay by cause has remained fairly consistent over the past

seven years.

More than half of all delays are attributed to adverse

weather. These delays are largely the result of instrument

approach procedures that are much more restrictive than the

visual procedures in effect during better weather conditions.

The FAA continues to install new and upgrade existing instrument landing systems (ILSs) to support continued operations

during conditions of reduced visibility. During the past few

years, the FAA has developed new, capacity-producing approach

procedures that take advantage of improving technology while

maintaining the current level of safety. These new procedures,

and a corresponding estimate of the expected increase in the

number of operations per hour, are discussed in Chapter 3.

Flight delays exceeding 15 or more

minutes, as recorded by OPSNET,

were experienced on approximately 248,000 flights in 1994, a

decrease of 10 percent over 1993.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 – 13

Distribution of Delay Greater than 15 Minutes by Cause

Cause 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Weather 67% 70% 57% 56% 65% 65% 72%

Terminal Volume 11% 9% 29% 35% 27% 27% 22%

Center Volume 13% 12% 8% 2% 0% 0% 0%

Closed Runways/Taxiways 4% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

NAS Equipment 4% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2%

Other 1% 1% 1% 4% 3% 3% 3%

Total Operations

Delayed (000s) 356 338 394 393 298 281 276

Percent Change from

Previous Year -15% -5% +17% 0% -24% -6% -2%

1994

75%

19%

0%

2%

2%

2%

248

-10%

1.4.3 Delay by Phase of Flight

Based on ASQP data, Table 1-2 presents the average delay

in minutes by phase of flight. This table shows, for example,

that more delays occur during the taxi-out phase than any other

phase and that airborne delays average 4.1 minutes per aircraft.

To put this in perspective, there were approximately 6,200,000

air carrier flights in 1992.10 With an average airborne delay of

4.1 minutes per aircraft, this means that there was a total of

over 424,000 hours of airborne delay that year, which, at an

estimated $1,600 per hour, cost the airlines $678 million.

Table 1-1. Distribution of Delay Greater Than 15 Minutes by Cause

10. FAA Aviation Forecasts, Fiscal Years 1994-2005, FAA-APO-94-1, March 1994
Chapter 1 – 14

Chapter 1: Introduction 1995 ACE Plan

Table 1-2. Average Delay by Phase of Flight11

Average Delay by Phase of Flight

(minutes per flight)

Phase 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Gate-hold 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0

Taxi-out 7.0 7.2 6.9 6.9 6.9

Airborne 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.1

Taxi-in 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2

Total 14.5 14.8 14.3 14.3 14.2

Mins./Op. 7.3 7.5 7.1 7.1 7.1

1994

1.1

6.8

4.1

2.2

14.2

7.1

11. Gate-hold Delay: The difference between the time that departure of an

aircraft is authorized by ATC and the time that the aircraft would have left

the gate area in the absence of an ATC gatehold.

Taxi-Out Delay: The difference between the time of lift-off and the time

that the aircraft departed the gate, minus a standard taxi-out time established for a particular type of aircraft and airline at a specific airport.

Airborne Delay: The difference between the time of lift-off from the origin

airport and touchdown, minus the computer-generated optimum profile

flight time for a particular flight, based on atmospheric conditions, aircraft

loading, etc.

Taxi-in Delay: The difference between touchdown time and gate arrival

time, minus a standard taxi-in time for a particular type of aircraft and

airline at a specific airport.

Mins/op: Average delay in minutes per operation.

1.4.4 Identification of Delay-Problem

Airports

For CY94, compared to 1993, the number of airline flight

delays of 15 minutes or more decreased at 29 of the 55 airports

at which the FAA collects air traffic delay statistics. Table 1-3

lists the number of operations delayed 15 minutes or more per

1,000 operations from 1990 to 1994 at 51 of these airports.

These delays ranged from nearly 75 per 1,000 operations at

Newark International Airport to 0.21 per 1,000 at Albuquerque International Airport. Three of the top six airports in

delays of 15 or more minutes were in the New York area.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 – 15

Table 1-3. Delays of 15 Minutes or More Per 1,000 Operations

at the Top 100 Airports

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

84.94 67.26 83.48 87.88 74.29

86.79 61.63 55.23 38.32 47.37

32.02 35.32 29.82 33.71 37.65

68.33 41.67 41.23 35.68 35.79

32.26 32.84 34.61 39.23 29.79

45.79 58.13 30.18 23.79 28.46

64.61 47.94 45.40 47.49 26.83

25.24 29.90 14.96 19.54 22.72

35.44 16.87 18.47 18.75 20.85

44.08 22.09 29.90 23.28 19.98

28.94 28.44 26.26 37.92 18.14

7.11 14.80 19.75 9.15 10.96

8.55 23.96 9.68 10.48 10.47

9.57 5.61 11.03 9.34 10.44

7.36 9.01 7.33 6.86 8.43

19.92 9.26 11.24 9.05 6.95

11.23 5.28 5.95 6.38 6.40

30.55 18.85 13.19 6.78 6.09

12.72 12.62 7.86 8.06 5.52

7.32 6.42 8.95 4.72 5.37

17.59 5.99 5.80 3.94 5.15

12.61 9.68 6.19 3.79 4.90

8.55 5.04 8.04 6.86 4.20

31.93 7.87 4.36 7.16 3.52

9.91 6.68 8.16 2.86 3.48

4.81 2.88 4.29 3.88 3.22

15.81 7.09 2.12 2.98 3.10

4.57 5.04 2.74 3.49 2.96

3.05 2.09 3.69 3.77 2.92

3.16 3.73 5.07 3.86 2.79

6.40 10.16 3.03 3.91 2.51

1.34 1.42 1.78 1.94 2.41

2.31 2.98 0.75 1.26 1.82

4.69 1.99 1.58 2.37 1.62

1.71 3.90 2.91 2.72 1.55

2.38 2.00 3.60 1.99 1.25

3.76 2.36 1.96 0.95 1.15

1.20 1.62 1.33 1.24 0.96

2.99 2.43 1.10 1.03 0.79

1.21 0.42 0.31 0.46 0.78

1.48 1.05 0.29 0.29 0.76

11.13 4.29 1.74 0.38 0.72

0.36 0.14 0.56 0.30 0.71

0.78 1.02 2.11 0.57 0.45

1.40 1.50 1.02 0.81 0.39

0.76 0.32 0.20 0.10 0.35

1.96 1.32 0.34 0.74 0.29

1.96 1.09 0.62 0.33 0.21

1.05 0.68 0.69 0.27 0.21

0.41 0.38 0.13 0.19 0.08

0.15 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.03

ID

EWR

LGA

DFW

JFK

BOS

SFO

ORD

STL

PHL

ATL

DEN

LAX

MIA

DCA

IAD

DTW

CVG

SEA

IAH

MCO

BWI

CLT

PIT

MSP

PHX

TPA

MDW

HOU

FLL

SLC

SAN

PDX

MCI

CLE

BNA

RDU

BDL

ONT

MEM

LAS

DAY

SJC

SJU

IND

PBI

SAT

ANC

MSY

ABQ

HNL

OGG

Airport

Newark International Airport

New York LaGuardia Airport

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport

New York John F. Kennedy International Airport

Boston Logan International Airport

San Francisco International Airport

Chicago O’Hare International Airport

Lambert St. Louis International Airport

Philadelphia International Airport

Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport

Denver Stapleton International Airport

Los Angeles International Airport

Miami International Airport

Washington National Airport

Washington Dulles International Airport

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport

Greater Cincinnati International Airport

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Houston Intercontinental Airport

Orlando International Airport

Baltimore-Washington International Airport

Charlotte/Douglas International Airport

Greater Pittsburgh International Airport

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

Tampa International Airport

Chicago Midway Airport

Houston William P. Hobby Airport

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport

Salt Lake City International Airport

San Diego International Lindberg Field

Portland International Airport

Kansas City International Airport

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

Nashville International Airport

Raleigh-Durham International Airport

Bradley International Airport

Ontario International Airport

Memphis International Airport

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport

Dayton International Airport

San Jose International Airport

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport

Indianapolis International Airport

Palm Beach International Airport

San Antonio International Airport

Anchorage International Airport

New Orleans International Airport

Albuquerque International Airport

Honolulu International Airport

Kahului Airport
Chapter 1 – 16

Chapter 1: Introduction 1995 ACE Plan

1.4.5 Identification of Forecast

Delay-Problem Airports

Forecasts indicate that, without capacity improvements,

delays in the system will continue to grow. In 1994, 23 airports

each exceeded 20,000 hours of annual aircraft flight delays.

Assuming no improvements in airport capacity are made, 29

airports are forecast to each exceed 20,000 hours of annual

aircraft flight delays by the year 2004. Table 1-4 lists the airports with 1994 actual and 2004 forecast air carrier delay hours

in excess of 20,000 hours. The current forecast for 29 delayproblem airports in 2004 is eleven less than the 40 airports

predicted in the forecast of three years ago. This reflects the

overall decline in air travel as a result of the recession, and an

economic recovery that has been slower than expected.

Figure 1-5 shows the airports exceeding 20,000 hours of

annual aircraft delay in 1994 and the airports forecast to exceed

20,000 hours of annual aircraft delay in 2004, assuming there

are no capacity improvements.

1.5 The FAA Strategic Plan

and the NAS Architecture —

A Vision for the Year 2010

A vigorous aviation system is essential for United States

economic prosperity, and the entire aviation community must

work together in order to maintain what has become the safest,

most efficient, and most responsive aviation system in the

world. To support this effort, the FAA developed the FAA

Strategic Plan and the NAS.Architecture The two documents

are a foundation for an iterative process to develop, in cooperation with all the users of the national aviation system, a common vision of the future from which to set policies, strategies,

and operational goals for the year 2010.

In the year 2010, more people will be flying, more often, to

more places than ever before. U.S. domestic passenger

enplanements will double, and commuter and regional

enplanements will triple. U.S. airlines will carry more than one

billion passengers annually. Operations by general aviation

aircraft will increase by 44 percent to 43 million flight hours

annually. World revenue passenger miles will increase by 200

percent to reach 3.2 trillion. Larger aircraft sizes and higher

load factors will combine to prevent even larger increases.

Global air cargo revenue ton miles will grow by 136 percent

reaching 130 billion. Helicopters and new tiltrotor and tiltwing
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 – 17

aircraft will play an increasingly important role in providing

short-haul and medium-range passenger service. The market

for new aircraft over the next 20 years will be almost one

trillion dollars, more than double the market over the past 20

years. The challenge for the year 2010 will be to ensure that

flights are conducted with unprecedented levels of safety,

security, and efficiency, while conserving natural resources and

minimizing the effects on the environment.

Table 1-4. 1994 Actual and 2004 Forecast Air Carrier Delay Hours

Atlanta Hartsfield

Boston Logan

Baltimore-Washington

Charlotte/Douglas

Cincinnati

Washington National

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Detroit

Newark

Honolulu

Houston Intercont’l

New York John F. Kennedy

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

ATL

BOS

BWI

CLT

CVG

DCA

DFW

DTW

EWR

HNL

IAH

JFK

LAS

LAX

New York La Guardia LGA

Orlando MCO

Chicago Midway MDW

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

Atlanta Hartsfield

Boston Logan

Charlotte/Douglas

Washington National

Denver Stapleton

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Detroit

Newark

Honolulu

Houston Intercont’l

New York John F. Kennedy

Los Angeles

New York La Guardia

Orlando

Miami

Minneapolis-Saint Paul

Chicago O’Hare

Philadelphia

Phoenix

Pittsburgh

Seattle-Tacoma

San Francisco

St. Louis

ATL

BOS

CLT

DCA

DEN

DFW

DTW

EWR

HNL

IAH

JFK

LAX

LGA

MCO

MIA

MSP

ORD

PHL

PHX

PIT

SEA

SFO

STL

Annual Aircraft Delay in Excess of 20,000 Hours

1994 2004

Memphis MEM
Chapter 1 – 18

Chapter 1: Introduction 1995 ACE Plan

Figure 1-5. Airports Exceeding 20,000 Hours of Annual Delay in 1994 and

2004, Assuming No Capacity Improvements

Source: FAA Office of Policy and Plans

Cuba

Florida

PuertoRico

HNL

ATL

MDW

BOS

CLT

CVG

DFW

DTW

IAH

LAS

LAX

MCO

MEM

MIA

MSP

ORD

PHX

PIT

SEA

SAN

SFO

SLC

STL

LGAJFKEWRPHLBWIDCA

DEN

Airports exceeding 20,000 hours of annual aircraftdelay in 1994 and forecast to exceed 20,000 hoursof annual aircraft delay in 2004(not including Denver Stapleton, which is

to be closed in 1995)Airports forecast to exceed 20,000 hours ofannual aircraft delay in 2004
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 – 19

1.5.1 System Capacity Goals and

Objectives

The FAA Strategic Plan identifies System Capacity as one

of seven strategic issue areas. The principal goals for the aviation system capacity program in Volume II of the FAA Strategic

Plan are to ensure that:

• Airspace, airport, and airside capacity continue to grow

to meet user needs cost effectively.

• Capacity resources are fully utilized to meet traffic

demand and eliminate capacity-related delays.

• Airport capacities in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) equal capacities in visual meteorological

conditions (VMC).

Specific objectives have been developed in the FAA Strategic Plan to support the general goal of the system capacity

program to build aviation system capacity that will minimize

delays and allow fair access for all types of aviation. The FAA

Operational Concept, in turn, lays out specific milestones the

FAA will complete over the next five years to achieve these

objectives.

• System Capacity Measurement — to identify and

define, in concert with the aviation community, standards of success and national capacity indicators that

will better target areas for reducing delay and increasing

capacity.

• Near-Term Capacity Initiatives — to reduce constraints/limitations at the top 40 delay/operationally

impacted airports by timely implementation of system

enhancements and capacity increasing technologies and

procedures.

• ATC Automation — to improve the automated infrastructure through replacement and enhancements in

order to provide the platform for capacity-enhancing

technologies and procedures.

• Traffic Flow Management — to create the necessary

capabilities that will permit the ATC system to ensure

safe separation while imposing minimum constraints on

system users and aircraft movement.
Chapter 1 – 20

Chapter 1: Introduction 1995 ACE Plan

• Oceanic Control — to change, in concert with the

international aviation community, oceanic air traffic

control from its current non-radar control to a tactical

control environment much like current domestic radar

control.

• Weather Forecasting, Detection, and Communication

— to reduce the capacity-impacting consequences of

weather phenomena by improved weather forecasts and

increased accuracy, resolution, and dissemination of

observations both on the ground and in the air.

• Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance (CNS)

and Satellite Navigation — to implement CNS and

satellite navigation capabilities through an aggressive

industry/government partnership that achieves user

benefits in all phases of aviation operations.

• Communications/Data Link — to provide a costeffective communications infrastructure to enhance the

safety and effectiveness of air traffic management

operations.

• Airport Planning — to improve the national airport

planning process by adding a method for prioritizing

projects; by linking the national plan to the grant

program through an Airport Capital Improvement

Program; and by developing the Airport Research,

Engineering, and Development (RE&D) program.

• Human Factors — to implement new automation

technologies and associated functional improvements in

a manner that fully accounts for the proper role of the

human in the system.

• Free Flight — accept and implement the 46 recommendations from RTCA Task Force 3 on Free Flight

Implementation, in collaboration with the users.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 2: Airport Development

Chapter 2 – 1

2.1 Delay and the Need for Airport

Development

Most analysts would agree that the economic recovery is

about complete and that the air transportation industry may

even be showing a profit today. Previously, during the sluggish

economic period of the past several years, air traffic delay

temporarily slipped from newspaper headlines. The number of

flights exceeding 15 minutes of delay declined even while

commercial air carrier domestic passenger enplanements

increased at an annual rate of less than 1 percent. Still, current

forecasts indicate that, without capacity improvements, delays

would increase substantially over the next decade, though at a

somewhat slower pace than in the 1980s.

Even though the FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport

Systems (NPIAS) shows that, with the new improvements

planned, capacity at the majority of the 29 hub airports will be

adequate to meet the forecast growth in demand, there are still

a few problem airports which are predicted to continue to

experience significant delay. These are primarily the large

metropolitan area airports on the east and west coasts, principally in the northeast and in California. At these airports,

planned improvements are not adequate to meet the projected

growth in demand.

While the capacity needed to meet future demand will be

available at most of the Nation’s busiest airports if the improvements planned continue to be funded and built, it remains

essential that the aviation community, both the public and

private sector, continues to work together to ensure these

improvement projects are completed on time. However, the

NPIAS points out that, even though capacity improvements are

planned at the few delay-problem airports, they will not be

enough to meet forecast demand. Delays there will most likely

increase as demand increases.

Airport capacity improvements involve these two priorities:

(a) continue to plan, fund and build the projects to keep pace

with the projected demand for most of the airports in the

country, and (b) renewed emphasis must be given to funding

innovative solutions for the few delay-problem airports in the

Northeast and in California, and elsewhere.

Chapter 2

Airport Development

While the capacity needed to meet

future demand will be available at

most of the Nation’s busiest airports

if the improvements planned continue to be funded and built, it

remains essential that the aviation

community, both the public and

private sector, continues to work

together to ensure these improvement projects are completed on

time.
Chapter 2 – 2

Chapter 2: Airport Development 1995 ACE Plan

The work of the Airport Capacity Design Teams, which is

described in more detail in this chapter, currently emphasizes

the first priority. For the few delay-problem airports of the

Northeast, California and elsewhere, 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 areas which must be systematically explored with a

view toward developing regional airport systems to serve the

expanding needs of these large metropolitan areas.

An FAA report to Congress, Long-Term Availability of

Adequate Airport System Capacity (DOT/FAA/pp-92-4, June

1992), describes the probable extent of airport congestion in

the future, given current trends. The three assessment techniques used in the study all point to a persistent shortfall in

capacity at some of the busiest airports in the country as airport

development lags behind the growing demand for air travel.

The report acknowledges that some of the shortfall may be

corrected by such things as improvements in technology and

demand management. However, a significant gap in airport

capacity will probably remain, and a major increase in the rate

of airport development may be needed, together with measures

to maximize the efficient use of existing capacity, and, in the

longer term, to supplement air transportation with high-speed

ground transportation. Development of new airports and

options to maximize the efficiency of existing airports will be

discussed in this and subsequent chapters.

2.2 New Airport Development

Naturally, the largest aviation system capacity gains result

from the construction of new airports. The Denver International Airport, for example, has increased capacity and reduced

delays not only in the Denver area but, to some extent,

throughout the aviation system. Considering the cost, almost

$3 billion for a new airport like Denver, it remains a challenge

to finance and build others. In addition, the development of

new airports faces environmental, social, and political constraints.

Bergstrom AFB is currently the only major military airfield

being converted for civilian use, designed to replace Robert

Mueller Airport in Austin, Texas. The Austin city council

authorized the issuance of $363 million in airport revenue

bonds to cover the cost of developing Austin-Bergstrom International Airport. This, in combination with investment income, passenger facility charge revenues, and airport system
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 2: Airport Development

Chapter 2 – 3

funds, will provide the financial resources necessary to construct the needed airport facilities. Table 2-1 summarizes other

major new airports that have been considered in various planning studies by state and local government organizations.

Table 2-1. Major New Airports — Planning Studies or Under Construction

Airport

New Denver

Minneapolis-St. Paul

West Virginia

Chicago

Seattle-Tacoma

Boston

Atlanta

Northwest Arkansas

Birmingham,

Alabama

North Carolina

Eastern Virginia

Austin

Phoenix

Purpose Status

Replacement airport for Denver Stapleton

(DEN), which will close. Opened in 1995.

Replacement airport for MSP. Proposal is to

close existing airport.

State legislation was enacted in the Spring of 1996,

dropping the option for a new major air carrier airport.

Minneapolis-St. Paul will be expanded instead.

Western West VA Regional Airport. Replacement

airport for Charleston, Huntington, and Parkersburg. Feasibility study completed.

Supplemental airport.

EA in progress on State of Illinois

preferred alternative (Peotone). Estimated

Supplemental airport.

Feasability study completed. Determined that there

are no feasable sites for supplemental airport

No active plans for a new airport. Emphasis on Based on new studies, MASPORT decided not

to landbank a new airport.

Supplemental airport.

Satellite study by Atlanta Regional

Commission of non-ranked sites completed.

Feasibility study by State of Georgia completed.

Replacement airport for Fayetteville (FYV),

which will remain in operation.

Site selection/AMP/EIS completed. Feasibility

study completed. Record of Decision signed

Replacement airport. Proposal is to close

existing airport.

Site selection completed. Ranked sites and

preferred sites identified by State of Alabama.

Cargo/industrial airport.

An existing airport, Kinston, N.C., was

selected as the prefered site. EIS process

Supplemental airport. Regional study by three Councils of

Governments.

Replace Robert Mueller Airport. Conversion of Bergstrom AFB to civil use.

Regional airport. Preliminary studies completed. There is no

support for establishing a new airport.

completion 8/96.

8/16/94. Land acquisition underway.

underway.

greater use of existing outlying airports.

within the 4 county region.
Chapter 2 – 4

Chapter 2: Airport Development 1995 ACE Plan

2.3 Development of Existing Airports —

Airport Capacity Design Teams

As environmental, financial, and other constraints continue

to restrict the development of new airport facilities in the

United States, an increased emphasis has been placed on the

redevelopment and expansion of existing airport facilities. In

1985, the FAA initiated a renewed program of Airport Capacity

Design Teams at airports across the country affected by delay.

Airport operators, airlines, and other aviation industry representatives work together with FAA representatives to identify

and analyze capacity problems at each airport and recommend

improvements that have the potential for reducing or eliminating delay. The FAA Technical Center’s Aviation Capacity

Branch (ACD-130), which has been involved in airport capacity

simulation modeling since 1978, provides a ready source of

technical expertise.

Aircraft flight delays are generally attributable to one or

more conditions, which include weather, traffic volume, restricted runway capability, and NAS equipment limitations.

Each of these factors can affect individual airports to varying

degrees, but much delay could be eliminated if the specific

causes of delay were identified and resources applied to develop

the necessary improvements to remove or reduce the deficiency.

Since the renewal of the program in 1985, 38 Airport

Capacity Design Team studies have been completed. Currently,

four Capacity Team studies are in progress. Table 2-2 provides

the status of the program at the airports with Airport Capacity

Design Teams, and Figure 2-1 shows the location of each of

these airports.

2.3.1 Airport Capacity Design Teams —

Recommended Improvements

Airport Capacity Design Teams identify and assess various

corrective actions that, if implemented, will increase capacity,

improve operational efficiency and reduce delay at the airports

under study. These changes may include improvements to the

airfield (runways, taxiways, etc.), facilities and equipment

(navigational and guidance aids), and operational procedures.

The Capacity Teams evaluate each alternative to determine its

technical merits. Environmental, socioeconomic, and political

issues are not evaluated here but in the master planning process. Alternatives are examined with the assistance of computer

simulations provided by the FAA Technical Center at Atlantic
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 2: Airport Development

Chapter 2 – 5

City, New Jersey. In their final report, the Capacity Team

recommends certain proposed projects for implementation.

However, it should be noted that the presence of a recommended improvement in a Capacity Team report does not

obligate the FAA to provide Facilities and Equipment (F&E) or

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds. Demands for F&E

and AIP funds exceed the FAA’s limited resources and individual

Capacity Team recommended projects must compete with all

other projects for these limited funds.

Table 2-3 summarizes these recommendations according to

generalized categories of improvements. The Design Teams

have developed more than 500 recommendations to increase

airport capacity. Proposals to build a third or a fourth parallel

runway were recommended by Design Teams at fourteen

airports, proposals to build both a third and a fourth parallel

runway were recommended at seven airports, proposals to build

a new runway and a new taxiway were recommended at seven

airports, proposals to build a new taxiway only were recommended at eleven airports, and proposals to build a new taxiAtlanta Orlando Albuquerque

Dallas/Ft. Worth

Boston Philadelphia Ft. Lauderdale

Las Vegas

Charlotte/Douglas Phoenix Indianapolis

Portland

Chicago Pittsburgh Houston Intercont.

Reno/Tahoe

Detroit Raleigh-Durham Minneapolis-St. Paul

Honolulu Salt Lake City Port Columbus

Kansas City San Antonio Washington-Dulles

Los Angeles San Francisco Oakland

Memphis San Jose St. Louis

Miami San Juan, P.R. New Orleans

Nashville Seattle-Tacoma Eastern Virginia

Cleveland

As of 02-01-96

Airport Capacity Design Team Status

Completed Ongoing

Memphis Update

Miami Update

Items in bold indicate that a Capacity Enhancement

Update Study has recently been completed. Refer to

Section 2.8.

Table 2-2. Status of Airport Capacity Design Teams
Chapter 2 – 6

Chapter 2: Airport Development 1995 ACE Plan

Figure 2-1. Airport Capacity Design Teams in the United States

Cuba

Florida

PuertoRico

SJU

HNL

ATL

BNA

CLE

FLL

IAD

LAX

MCI

MCO

MDW

MEM

MIA

MSY

OAK

ORD

PHL

PHX

PIT

RDU

SAT

SEA

SFO

SJC

SLC

STL

DTW

BOS

CMH

IND

MSP

ABQ

CLT

IAH

RIC PHF

ORF } Eastern Virginia (RIC, ORF, PHF)

CompletedOngoing

LAS

DFW

PDX

Update Study OngoingUpdate Study Completed

An Update Study indicates that a baseCapacity Enhancement Design Team Studyhas been completed.

RNO
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 2: Airport Development

Chapter 2 – 7

way and new third and fourth parallel runways were recommended at five airports. Over half the capacity team reports

have recommended proposed runway extensions, taxiway

extensions, angled/improved exits, or holding pads/improved

staging areas.

The only proposed facilities and equipment improvement

that was recommended in more than half of the airport studies

was the installation or upgrade of Instrument Landing Systems

(ILSs) at one or more runways or runway ends, in order to

improve runway capacity during IFR operations.

The proposed operational improvements that were recommended in half or more of the studies include improved IFR

approach procedures and reduced separation standards for

arrivals. One-third of the studies recommended an airspace

analysis or restructuring of the airspace. Enhancement of the

reliever and general aviation (GA) airport system was recommended at more than half of the airports.

In general, the Capacity Team recommendations demonstrate the FAA’s efforts to increase aviation system capacity by

making the most use of current airports. In the view of the

Airport Capacity Design Teams, the “choke point” most often

is found in the runway/taxiway system. Where possible, the

construction of a third and even a fourth parallel runway has

been proposed. Runway and taxiway extensions, new taxiways,

and improved exits and staging areas have been recommended

to reduce runway occupancy times and increase the efficiency

of the existing runways. In addition to maximizing use of

airport land, airports are making the best use of facilities,

equipment, and procedures to increase arrival capacity during

IFR operations. Equipment is being installed to accommodate

arrivals under lower ceiling and visibility minima, including

ILSs, RVRs, and improved radar, not to mention new and

improved arrival procedures and reduced separation standards

for arrivals, both in-trail and laterally.

2.3.2 Airport Capacity Design Teams —

Potential Savings Benefits

As can be seen from the summary of Capacity Team recommendations in Table 2-3, the typical Capacity Team will

make 20 to 30 recommendations for improvements to reduce

delay at each airport. Because of the large number of specific

improvements, it is virtually impossible to summarize the

expected benefits of each of these recommendations for all the

airports. In many cases, however, the recommended improveIn general, the Capacity Team

recommendations demonstrate the

FAA’s efforts to increase aviation

system capacity by making the most

use of current airports.
Chapter 2 – 8

Chapter 2: Airport Development 1995 ACE Plan

Table 2-3. Summary of Capacity Design Team Recommendations

Airports

Cleveland √ √ √√ √ √ √√ √ √ √ √ √ √

Las Vegas √√√ √ √ √ √

Dallas-Ft. Worth √√ √ √√√ √

Albuquerque √√√√√√ √ √ √ √ √

Atlanta * √ √√ √√√ √√ √ √ √ √

Boston √√√√√ √ √ √ √

Charlotte-Douglas √ √ √ √√ √ √ √ √√ √ √

Chicago Midway √√ √ √ √

Chicago O’Hare √ √ √ √ √ √ √√

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

Fort Lauderdale √√ √√√ √ √√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Honolulu √ √√√ √√ √ √

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

Indianapolis √√√ √ √√ √√√ √ √ √ √

Kansas City √√ √√√√ √√ √ √ √ √

Los Angeles √√√ √√ √ √ √

Memphis √ √√√√ √ √ √ √

Miami √ √√√ √√ √ √ √ √

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

Nashville √√√√√ √ √ √ √√ √ √ √

New Orleans √ √ √ √√ √ √

Oakland √ √ √

Orlando √ √ √ √ √ √ √√ √√ √ √

Philadelphia √ √ √ √ √√√

Phoenix √ √ √√√√ √ √√ √√√ √√√

Pittsburgh √√ √ √ √ √

Raleigh-Durham √√√√ √√ √√ √ √ √√ √ √

St. Louis √ √√√ √√ √ √ √√ √

Salt Lake City √ √√√√ √√√ √√ √√ √

San Antonio √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √√ √ √

San Fransisco √√ √√√√ √ √ √

San Jose √ √√ √

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

Seattle-Tacoma * √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Washington-Dulles √ √√√ √√ √ √ √ √ √ √

Newport News √ √ √ √

Norfolk √ √ √ √ √

Richmond √√ √ √ √ √ √ Recommended Improvements Airfield Improvements Construct third parallel runway Construct fourth parallel runway Relocate runway Construct new taxiway Runway extension Taxiway extension Angled exits/improved exits Holding pads/improved staging areas Terminal expansion Facilities and Equipment Improvements Install/upgrade ILSs Install/upgrade RVRs Install/upgrade lighting system Install/upgrade VOR Upgrade terminal approach radar Install ASDE Install PRM New air traffic control tower Wake vortex advisory system Operational Improvements Airspace restructure/analysis Improve IFR approach procedures Improve departure sequencing Reduced separations between arrivals

Intersecting operations with wet runwaysExpand TRACON/Establish TCA

Segregate trafficDe-peak airline schedulesEnhance reliever and GA airport system

* These recommendations represent options provided in the original Capacity Enhancement Plan for this airport. Since then,

 a Capacity Enhancement Plan Update Study has been completed. Refer to Section 2.8.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 2: Airport Development

Chapter 2 – 9

ments to the airfield represent the biggest capacity gains,

particularly since they frequently incorporate the benefits of

improved procedures and upgraded navigational equipment.

Detailed information on specific delay-savings benefits can be

found in the final reports of the various Airport Capacity

Design Teams.

2.4 Construction of New Runways and

Runway Extensions

The construction of new runways and extension of existing

runways are the most direct and significant actions that can be

taken to improve capacity at existing airports. Large capacity

increases, under both visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument

flight rules (IFR), come from the addition of new runways that

are properly placed to allow additional independent arrival/

departure streams. The resulting increase in capacity is from 33

percent to 100 percent (depending on whether the baseline

airport has a single, dual, or triple runway configuration).

Sixty-two of the top 100 airports have proposed new

runways or runway extensions to increase airport capacity.1

Fifteen of the 23 airports exceeding 20,000 hours of air carrier

flight delay in 19942 are in the process of constructing or

planning the construction of new runways or extensions of

existing runways. If no further improvements are made, of the

29 airports forecast to exceed 20,000 hours of annual air carrier

delay in 2004, 20 propose to build new runways or runway

extensions.

Figure 2-2 shows which of the top 100 airports are planning new runways or runway extensions. Figure 2-3 shows

which of the airports forecast to exceed 20,000 hours of annual

delay in 2004 are planning new runways or runway extensions.

Table 2-4 summarizes new runways and runway extensions

that are planned or proposed at the top 100 airports.The total

anticipated cost of completing these new runways and runway

extensions exceeds $6.0 billion.

1. Airports with runway projects are pictured in Figures 2-2 and 2-3 and

summarized in Table 2-4 with the estimated project cost (to the nearest

million) and an estimated operational date.

2. At a cost of $1,600 in airline operating expenses per hour of airport delay,

20,000 hours of flight delay translates into $32 million per year.

The construction of new runways

and extension of existing runways

are the most direct and significant

actions that can be taken to improve capacity at existing airports.

Sixty-two of the top 100 airports

have proposed new runways or

runway extensions to increase

airport capacity.
Chapter 2 – 10

Chapter 2: Airport Development 1995 ACE Plan

Figure 2-2. New Runways or Runway Extensions Planned or Proposed

Among the Top 100 Airports AUS/BSM

OGG

CLE

CMH

ELP

FLL

LBB

LIT

MAF

MSP

PBI

RIC

SAT

SNA

ORF

Cuba

Florida

PuertoRico

ATL

BNA

BOS

CLT

DFW

DTW

GRR

GSO

GSP

IAH

JAX

MCI

MCO

MEM

MKE

MSY

OKC

PHX

PIT

RSW

SDF

SEA

SRQ

STL

SYR

TPA

TUL

TUS

ALB

BWIIAD

ROC

MIA

CVG

LAS

RDU

GEG

OAK

MDW OMA

DSM

BUF

EWRPHL

SAV

DEN

BOI
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 2: Airport Development

Chapter 2 – 11

Figure 2-3. New Runways or Extensions Planned/Proposed Among the

Airports Forecast to Exceed 20,000 Hours of Annual Aircraft Delay in 2004 MSP Cuba Florida Puerto Rico ATL BOS CLT DFW DTW IAH MCO MEM PHL PHX PIT SEA STL BWI MIA CVG LAS MDW EWR
Chapter 2 – 12

Chapter 2: Airport Development 1995 ACE Plan

Table 2-4. New and Extended Runways Planned or Proposed

Est. Cost Operational

Airport Runway ($M) Date

Albany (ALB) 10/28 extension $5.80 2000

1R/19L parallel $7.50 2010

Atlanta (ATL) 5th E/W parallel commuter $418.00 1999

Austin (BSM) (new airport) (see Bergstrom below) n/a n/a

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

Bergstrom (new Austin) New airport: 2 Rwys, taxi construction $447.00 1998

17L/35R & parallel taxiway $46.00 1998

midfield crossfield taxiways $13.00 1997

air cargo apron $4.00 1996

west runway renovation $10.00 1996

Boise Trace (BOI) Rwy 10L/28R extension $8.00 1998

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

Buffalo (BUF) 14/32 extension & threshold relocation $10.00 1998

Charlotte (CLT) 18W/36W 3rd parallel $70.00 1999

Chicago Midway 4R/22L reconstruction $32.00 1997

Cincinnati (CVG) 18R/36L extension $11.00 1996

Cleveland-Hopkins (CLE) 5L/23R replacement $180.00 1999

5L/23R extension $40.00 2001

Port Columbus (CMH) 10L/28R extension & relocation $22.00 1999

Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) 18L/36R extension $25.00 1999

18R/36L extension $24.00 1997

17L/35R new parallel $300.00 1996

18R/36L new parallel $100.00 2001

17C/35C extension (prev. 17L/35R) $20.00 1997

Denver International (DEN) 16R/34L parallel $75.00 2000

Des Moines (DSM) Rwy 5 extension $21.50 1999

Detroit (DTW) 4/22 parallel $116.50 2001

El Paso (ELP) 8/26 parallel $10.70 n/a

Fort Lauderdale (FLL) 9R/27L extension $270.00 2002

Fort Myers (RSW) 6R/24L parallel $87.00 2000

Grand Rapids (GRR) 18/36 extension/realignment to 17/35 $58.00 1997

Greensboro (GSO) 5L/23R parallel n/a 2010

14/32 extension $15.70 2000

Greer (GSP) 3R/21L parallel $50.00 2015

Rwy 3 2,000 ft. extension $25.80 1999

Rwy 21 1,400 ft. extension $8.30 1996

Houston Intercontinental (IAH) 14R/32L extension $8.00 n/a

8L/26R parallel $44.00 n/a

9R/27L parallel $44.00 n/a

Jacksonville (JAX) 7R/25L parallel $37.00 2000
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 2: Airport Development

Chapter 2 – 13

Est. Cost Operational

Airport Runway ($M) Date

Kahului (OGG) 2/20 extension & strengthen $40.00 1998

Kansas City (MCI) 1L/19R extension $12.00 n/a

Las Vegas (LAS) 1L/19R reconstruction $50.00 1997

Little Rock (LIT) 4L/22R extension & overlay $31.00 1997

Louisville (SDF) 17R/35L parallel $59.00 1997

Lubbock (LBB) 8/26 extension $5.00 2000

Memphis (MEM) 18E/36E new parallel $146.10 1996

18C/36C extend/reconstruct (prev. 18L/36R) $113.70 1999

Miami (MIA) 9N/27N new parallel $149.00 1999

Midland (MAF) 10/28 extension $5.00 2008

Milwaukee (MKE) 7R/25L parallel $5.00 1998

7L/25R realignment $5.00 1996

7L/25R extension n/a n/a

Minneapolis (MSP) 17/35 air carrier $120.00 2002

4/22 extension $40.50 1996

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

2R/20L extension $38.60 2000

New Orleans (MSY) 1L/19R parallel $340.00 2005

10/28 parallel $480.00 2020

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

Norfolk (ORF) 5R/23L parallel $75.00 2005

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

11/29 etension n/a n/a

Oklahoma City (OKC) 17L/35R extension $8.00 2014

17R/35L extension $8.00 2014

17W/35W parallel $13.00 2004

13/31 1,200 ft. NW extension $5.00 2005

Omaha Eppley Field (OMA) 14/32 extension $9.00 1997

Orlando (MCO) 17L/35R 4th parallel $137.00 2002

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

Palm Beach (PBI) 9L/27R extension $8.50 n/a

13/31 extension $1.00 1999

9R/27L extension $0.50 1997

Philadelphia (PHL) 8/26 parallel-commuter $220.00 n/a

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

Phoenix (PHX) 7/25 3rd parallel $88.00 1998

8L/26R extension $7.00 2000

Pittsburgh (PIT) 4th parallel 10/28 $150.00 n/a

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

Table 2-4. New and Extended Runways Planned or Proposed
Chapter 2 – 14

Chapter 2: Airport Development 1995 ACE Plan

Est. Cost Operational

Airport Runway ($M) Date

Raleigh-Durham (RDU) 5R/23L extension & assoc. taxiways n/a 2005

3rd parallel n/a n/a

Richmond (RIC) 16/34 extension $45.00 1997

Rochester (ROC) 4R/22L parallel $10.00 2010

4/22 extension $4.00 2000

10/28 extension $3.20 2000

St. Louis (STL) 14R/32L $250.00 n/a

San Antonio (SAT) 12L/30R reconstruction/extension $20.00 2006

12N/30N new rwy $400.00 n/a

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

Sarasota-Bradenton (SRQ) 14L/32R parallel $10.00 2000+

14/32 extension $5.10 1998

Savannah (SAV) 9L/27R new parallel $15.20 2005

9/27 1,000 ft. extension $5.00 1999

18/36 2,000 ft. extension $3.90 2000

Seattle-Tacoma (SEA) 16W/34W parallel $400.00 2001

Spokane (GEG) 3L/21R $11.00 2001

Syracuse (SYR) 10L/28R $55.00 2000

Tampa (TPA) 18W/36W 3rd parallel $55.00 2000+

9/27 reconstruction & extension n/a 2010+

18L extension n/a 2005+

Tucson (TUS) 11R/29L parallel $30.00 2005

Tulsa (TUL) 18E/36E parallel $115.00 2005

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

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

Total of available costs: $6,472.10

n/a=no data available at press time

Table 2-4. New and Extended Runways Planned or Proposed
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 2: Airport Development

Chapter 2 – 15

In 1992, Colorado Springs completed construction of a

new 13,500 foot parallel runway, and Nashville and Washington Dulles completed runway extensions. In 1993, Detroit

Metropolitan Wayne County completed construction of a new

8,500 foot parallel runway, and runway extensions were completed at Dallas-Fort Worth, San Jose, Kailua-Kono Keahole,

and Islip Long Island Mac Arthur. In 1993, Memphis began

construction of independent parallel runways, and Louisville

Standiford Field began construction of two independent

parallel runways. In 1994, Jacksonville opened the first 6,000

feet of a new parallel runway, and Kansas City completed

construction of a new 9,500 foot independent parallel runway.

The third air carrier runway was opened in 1995 at Salt Lake

City. It is 12,000 feet long and 150 feet wide.

2.5 Airport Tactical Initiatives

The recommendations by Airport Capacity Design Teams

have emphasized constructing new runways and taxiways,

extending existing runways, installing enhanced facilities and

equipment, and modifying operational procedures. These

improvements are normally implemented through established,

long-term procedures. The Office of System Capacity (ASC)

has recently initiated an effort to identify, evaluate, and implement capacity improvements that are achievable in the near

term and will provide more immediate relief for chronic delayproblem airports. Tactical Initiative Teams, made up of representatives from airport operators, air carriers, other airport

users, and aviation industry groups together with FAA representatives, are now being established at selected airports to assess

near-term, tactical initiatives and guide them through implementation.

The first of these Tactical Initiative Teams completed a

study at Los Angeles International Airport with a final report

issued in September 1993. The team evaluated the impact on

the crossfield taxiway system of proposed new gates on the west

side of Tom Bradley International Terminal immediately

adjacent to the taxiway system. The study examined airport

delays and their causes (with and without the expansion of the

west side of the terminal) and evaluated the effect of adding

additional crossfield taxiways to mitigate the delays caused by

the expansion.

A study at New York’s LaGuardia Airport to evaluate the

impact of introducing the Boeing 777-200 folding-wing

aircraft on airfield operations was completed in 1994. In addition to evaluating the effects of the new aircraft on capacity and
Chapter 2 – 16

Chapter 2: Airport Development 1995 ACE Plan

efficiency, the study examined the effects on safety, operating

minimums, air traffic control procedures, and airway facilities.

A study at Orlando International Airport to evaluate the

effects of proposed crossfield taxiways on airfield operations, a

study to determine the effects of taxiway system improvements

at Charlotte/Douglas International Airport, and a second study

at Los Angeles International Airport to assess the impact of

proposed remote commuter aircraft aprons on airfield operations were completed in 1995.

2.6 Terminal Airspace Studies

When an Airport Capacity Design Team study is completed, an airport has a recommended plan of action to increase

its capacity. This plan will do little good, however, if the airspace in the vicinity of the airport cannot handle the increase in

traffic. For this reason, the Office of System Capacity has

developed a program of airspace capacity design team studies of

the terminal and en route airspace associated with delayproblem airports across the country. Generally, these studies are

intended to follow Airport Capacity Design Team studies. The

first of these Terminal Airspace Studies was completed at San

Bernadino International Airport (the former Norton Air Force

Base). Studies are underway at Tampa International Airport,

Salt Lake City International Airport, and Minneapolis St. Paul

International Airport.

2.7 Regional Capacity Design Teams

Looking beyond the individual airport and its immediate

airspace, the Office of System Capacity is planning a series of

Regional Capacity Design Team studies. These regional studies

will analyze all the major airports in a metropolitan or regional

system and model them in the same terminal airspace environment. This regional perspective will show how capacity-producing improvements at one airport will affect air traffic operations at the other airports, and within the associated airspace.

The first of these regional studies is planned for the San Francisco Bay area.

2.8 Airport Capacity Design Team Updates

The present Airport Capacity Design Team effort began in

1985. Many of the capacity-producing recommendations made

by these Airport Capacity Design Teams have been imple-
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 2: Airport Development

Chapter 2 – 17

mented or are scheduled for completion, others may need to be

reevaluated, and still others may no longer be appropriate. For

some airports, particularly those with studies completed in the

1980’s, conditions may have changed to a considerable extent,

and a comprehensive new Airport Capacity Design Team study

may be needed to bring the airport up to date. For other airports, changes in one or more of the conditions at the airport

may only require a more limited update. An Airport Capacity

Design Team Update was conducted at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to evaluate the impact of a proposed new

dependent runway on airport operations and to examine the

interaction between operations on the new runway and existing

operations at Boeing Field/King County International Airport.

A second update was recently completed at Hartsfield Atlanta

International Airport. The results of this update study included

recommendations for the construction of a new independent

runway as well as additional high speed runway exits. Additional Airport Capacity Design Team Updates are in progress

at Memphis and Maimi.
Chapter 2 – 18

Chapter 2: Airport Development 1995 ACE Plan
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures

Chapter 3 – 1

Although substantial increases in capacity are best achieved

through the building of new airports and new runways at

existing airports, large projects like these are only completed

after a long-term process of planning and construction. In an

effort to meet the increasing demands on the aviation system in

the near-term, the FAA has initiated improvements in air traffic

control procedures designed to increase utilization of multiple

runways and provide additional capacity at existing airports,

while maintaining or improving the current level of safety in

aircraft operations.

In FY94, more than half of all delays were attributed to

adverse weather conditions. These delays are in part the result

of instrument approach procedures that are much more restrictive than the visual procedures in effect during better weather

conditions. Much of this delay could be eliminated if the

approach procedures used during instrument meteorological

conditions (IMC) were closer to those observed during visual

meteorological conditions (VMC).

During the past few years, the FAA has been developing

new capacity-enhancing approach procedures. These are

multiple approach procedures aimed at increasing the number

of airports and runway combinations that can be used simultaneously, either independently or dependently, in less than visual

approach conditions. “Independent” procedures are so called

because aircraft arriving along one flight path do not affect

arrivals along another flight path. “Dependent” procedures

place restrictions between two arrival streams of aircraft because their proximity to each other has the potential for some

interference. The testing of these new procedures has been

thorough, involving various validation methods, including realtime simulations and live demonstrations at selected airports.

As a result of these development efforts, new technologies

have been implemented and new national standards have been

published that enable the use of these capacity-enhancing

approach procedures:

• Simultaneous (independent) parallel approaches using

the Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) to runways

separated by 3,400 to 4,300 feet — published November 1991. The first PRM was commissioned at RaleighDurham International Airport in June 1993.

Chapter 3

New Instrument Approach Procedures

In an effort to meet the increasing

demands on the aviation system in

the near-term, the FAA has initiated

improvements in air traffic control

procedures designed to increase

utilization of multiple runways and

provide additional capacity at

existing airports, while maintaining

or improving the current level of

safety in aircraft operations.

The testing of these new procedures

has been thorough, involving

various validation methods, including real-time simulations and live

demonstrations at selected airports.
Chapter 3 – 2

Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 1995 ACE Plan

• Improved dependent parallel approaches to runways

separated by 2,500 to 4,299 feet that reduce the required diagonal separation from 2.0 to 1.5 nm —

published June 1992.

• Reduced longitudinal separation on wet runways from

3 to 2.5 nm inside the final approach fix (FAF) —

published June 1992.

• Dependent converging instrument approaches using the

Converging Runway Display Aid (CRDA) — published

November 1992. The ARTS IIIA CRDA software upgrade

is available for installation.

• Use of Flight Management System (FMS) computers to

transition aircraft from the en route phase of flight to

existing charted visual flight procedures (CVFP) and

instrument landing system (ILS) approaches — published December 1992.

• Simultaneous ILS and localizer directional aid (LDA)

approaches — procedures implemented at San Francisco International Airport.

The following sections present a brief description of the

most promising approach concepts currently under development, including their estimated benefits, supporting technology, and candidate airports that might benefit from the new

procedures.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures

Chapter 3 – 3

The FAA has authorized independent (simultaneous) instrument approaches to dual

parallel runways since 1962, doubling the arrival

capacity of an airport when visual approaches

cannot be conducted. The spacing between the

parallel runways was initially required to be at

least 5,000 feet, but was reduced to 4,300 feet in

1974. More than 15 U.S. airports are currently

authorized to operate such independent parallel

instrument approaches. A new national standard

published in November 1991 authorized simultaneous (independent) parallel approaches to

runways separated by 3,400 to 4,300 feet when

the Precision Runway Monitor is in use.

The PRM system consists of an improved

monopulse antenna system that provides high

azimuth and range accuracy and higher data

rates than the current terminal Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) systems. The E-Scan radar

uses an electronic scanning antenna which is

capable of updating an aircraft’s position every

half second. This update rate is an order of

magnitude greater than the current ASR systems.

The PRM processing system allows air traffic

controllers to monitor the parallel approach

courses on high-resolution color displays and

generates controller alerts when an aircraft

blunders off course.

Demonstrations of PRM technology were

conducted at Raleigh-Durham International

Airport in 1989 and 1990 using the E-Scan

radar. The first PRM system (E-Scan) was commissioned at Raleigh Durham International

Airport in June 1993. The second system was

delivered to Minneapolis in 1995. Studies are

being conducted to determine appropriate sites

for the remaining systems.

Simulations were conducted at the FAA

Technical Center in attempts to determine the

minimum runway spacing between triple parallel runways spaced 4,000 and 5,300 feet apart in

1995 and in 1996 using enhanced procedures.

Recommendations on this procedure is expected

in 1996. Simulations were also conducted in

1995 on simultaneous ILS approaches to dual

parallel runways spaced 3,000 feet apart with

one localizer offset 2.5 degrees. This procedure

was recommended in 1995 and a final report

will be completed in 1996. While the results are

pending, if successful, the average capacity gains

expected from the use of these improved approaches would be, at a minimum, 12-17 arrivals per hour.

3.1 Independent Parallel Approaches Using the

Precision Runway Monitor (PRM)

Figure 3-1. Independent Parallel Instrument Approaches

Using the Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) 2,500 - 4,300 ft.

No Transgression Zone (NTZ)
Chapter 3 – 4

Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 1995 ACE Plan

The Final Monitor Aid is a high resolution

color display that is equipped with the controller

alert hardware and software that is used in the

PRM system. The display includes alert algorithms that provide aircraft track predictors; a

color change alert when an aircraft penetrates or

is predicted to penetrate the no transgression

zone (NTZ); a color change alert if the aircraft

transponder becomes inoperative; and digital

mapping.

Studies revealed that using the fma with

current radar systems (4.8 second update rate)

would improve the ability of controllers to

detect blunders, thereby allowing a reduction in

the minimum centerline spacing for independent parallel approaches. Real-time simulations,

utilizing a “miss-distance” of 500 feet to allow

for the possible effects of wake vortex, were

completed at the FAA Technical Center for dual

and triple parallel runways spaced 4,300 feet

apart. Procedures have been published in an FAA

Order. Further simulations will be conducted for

parallel runways spaced 4,000 feet apart. Figure

3-2 illustrates parallel instrument approaches

using the FMA. Table 3-1 lists airports that have,

or plan to have, parallel runways separated by

4,000 feet or more and indicates the average

capacity gains expected from these improved

approaches.

3.2 Independent Parallel Approaches Using the

Final Monitor Aid (FMA) with Current Radar Systems

Table 3-1. Candidate Airports for

Independent Parallel

Approaches Using the

Final Monitor Aid (FMA)

Figure 3-2. Parallel Instrument

Approaches Using the

Final Monitor Aid (FMA)

4,000 ft. or more NTZ

Detroit

Grand Rapids

Little Rock

Memphis

Nashville

Orlando

Phoenix

Pittsburgh

Candidates Among Top 100 Airports

Average Capacity Gain 12-17 Arrivals/Hour
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures

Chapter 3 – 5

Several airports, including Dallas-Fort

Worth, Orlando, and Pittsburgh, are planning

to build parallel runways that will give them the

capability to conduct triple and quadruple

independent parallel approaches. This could

result in as much as a 50 percent increase in

arrival capacity for triple parallel arrivals and a

100 percent increase for quadruple arrivals.

Procedures allowing triple independent

approaches to parallel runways separated by

5,000 feet, at airports with field elevations of

less than 1,000 feet with current radar systems,

3.3 Independent Parallel Approaches to Triple and

Quadruple Runways Using Current Radar Systems

were published in May 1993. Simulations for

development of procedures for quadruple approaches are tentatively planned for the future.

Figure 3-3 illustrates triple and quadruple

parallel approaches. Additional simulations will

be conducted to determine the minimum runway spacing (less than 5,000 feet) for independent parallel approaches to triple and quadruple

runways. Table 3-2 lists airports that have or

plan to have parallel runways separated by 2,500

to 4,300 feet and indicates the average capacity

gains expected from these improved approaches.

Table 3-2. Candidate Airports for

Independent Parallel

Approaches to Triple

and Quadruple Runways

Figure 3-3. Triple and Quadruple

Parallel Approaches

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Denver

Orlando

Pittsburgh

Candidates Among Top 100 Airports

Average Capacity Gain 30 Arrivals/Hour

5,000 ft. or more

5,000 ft. or more

5,000 ft. or more

NTZ

NTZ

NTZ
Chapter 3 – 6

Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 1995 ACE Plan

Currently, simultaneous operations on

intersecting runways require that the runways be

dry. Over the past several years, demonstrations

have been conducted at various airports using

simultaneous operations on wet runways. Due

to the success of these demonstrations, the FAA

has initiated action to establish a national

standard for allowing simultaneous operations

on intersecting wet runways.

Of the top 100 airports, 60 currently conduct simultaneous operations on intersecting

runways. Demonstrations have been ongoing at

Boston Logan, Greater Pittsburgh, and Chicago

O’Hare. Demonstrations are planned at New

York’s Kennedy, Philadelphia, and Miami

International Airports. At O’Hare, increases of

up to 25 percent have been experienced during

wet runway operations.

An FAA team is in the process of formalizing

procedures for these types of operations so that

a national standard for simultaneous operations

on wet intersecting runways can be established.

The target for implementation is 1996.

Figure 3-4 illustrates simultaneous operations

on wet intersecting runways. Table 3-3 lists

airports that are candidates to conduct simultaneous operations on wet intersecting runways.

3.4 Simultaneous Operations on Wet Intersecting Runways

Table 3-3. Candidate Airports for

Simultaneous Operations on

Wet Intersecting Runways

Figure 3-4. Simultaneous Operations on

Wet Intersecting Runways

Boston

Charlotte/Douglas

Chicago O’Hare

Detroit

Miami

Minneapolis-St. Paul

New York (JFK)

New York (LGA)

St. Louis

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

San Francisco

Washington National

Candidates Among Top 100 Airports

Top 13 Candidate Airports
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures

Chapter 3 – 7

Current procedures consider parallel runways separated by less than 2,500 feet as a single

runway during IFR operations. Simultaneous use

of these runways for arrivals and departures is

prohibited. This imposes a significant capacity

penalty at numerous high-density airports. A

recent analysis determined that airports such as

Boston Logan International and Philadelphia

International could achieve delay savings of over

80,000 hours per year if they were able to run

dependent parallel arrivals. Table 3-4 lists

airports that are candidates to conduct improved

operations on parallel runways separated by less

than 2,500 feet.

The FAA’s Wake Vortex Program has been

redefined to focus directly on the safety requirements for arrival and departure operations to

parallel runways separated by less than 2,500

feet. One of the ojectives of the program will be

to determine if there is sufficient evidence

supporting a reduction in the 2,500 foot requirement.

3.5 Improved Operations on Parallel Runways

Separated by Less Than 2,500 Feet

Table 3-4. Candidate Airports for Improved Operations on

Parallel Runways Separated by Less Than 2,500 Feet

Atlanta

Boise

Boston

Chicago Midway

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Des Moines

Detroit

El Paso

Houston Hobby

Houston Intercont’l

Islip

Knoxville

Las Vegas

Long Beach

Los Angeles

Memphis

Midland

Milwaukee

Nashville

New Orleans

New York (JFK)

Newark

Norfolk

Oakland

Oklahoma City

Omaha

Ontario

Orlando

Palm Beach

Philadelphia

Phoenix

Pittsburgh

Providence

Raleigh-Durham

Reno

San Antonio

San Francisco

San Jose

Santa Ana

Seattle-Tacoma

St. Louis

Tucson

Washington Dulles

Candidates Among Top 100 Airports
Chapter 3 – 8

Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 1995 ACE Plan

Procedures have been proposed that would

allow approaches to three parallel runways when

two may be operated independently of each

other because of sufficient spacing and the third

is dependent upon one of the others because of

insufficient spacing. Currently, procedures allow

simultaneous approaches to runways with

centerlines spaced at least 3,400 feet apart,

provided a Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) is

available. However, those airports with spacing

from 2,500 to 3,400 between one set of runways

and 3,400 to 4,300 feet or more between the

other set are limited to dual runway operations.

Real-time simulations will be scheduled in the

future to test proposed procedures that will

allow triple operations using dependent operations between one set of parallels and independent operations between the other set.

Figure 3-5 illustrates independent and dependent parallel approaches, and Table 3-5 lists

airports that are candidates for these improved

approaches.

3.6 Dependent Approaches to Three Parallel Runways

Table 3-5. Candidate Airports for

Dependent Approaches to

Three Parallel Runways

Figure 3-5. Independent and

Dependent Parallel

Approaches

Charlotte/Douglas

Chicago O’Hare

Denver

Detroit

Houston Intercont’l

Orlando

Pittsburgh

Salt Lake City

Washington Dulles

Candidates Among Top 100 Airports

Average Capacity Gain 15 Arrivals/Hour

2,500 ft.

4,300 ft.

1.5 nm separation

NTZ
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures

Chapter 3 – 9

Under VFR conditions, it is common for air

traffic control (ATC) to use converging runways

for independent streams of arriving aircraft. In

1986, the FAA established a procedure for

conducting independent instrument approaches

to converging runways under Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). This procedure

uses non-overlapping Terminal Instrument

Procedures (TERPS) obstacle clearance criteria as

a means of providing required separation for

aircraft in the event of simultaneous missed

approaches to the converging runways. This

procedure assumes that each aircraft, in executing a turning missed approach, can keep its

course within the limits of its respective

“TERPS+3”. When the above conditions are

satisfied, no dependency between the two

aircraft on the converging approaches is required. Hence, the independent nature of the

procedure was established.

The requirement to maintain 3 nm distance

between MAPS ensuring no TERPS overlap,

however, creates restrictions to landing minimums and adds to decision heights. To establish

TERPS+3 approach geometry, the MAPS must be

moved back away from the runway thresholds.

As a result, many runway configurations require

decision heights significantly greater than 700

feet in order to satisfy TERPS+3 criteria. This

restricts the application of the procedure to

operations close to the boundary between visual

flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules

(IFR) and limits the number of airports that

3.7 Simultaneous (Independent) Converging

Instrument Approaches

Table 3-6. Candidate Airports for

Independent Converging

Approaches

Figure 3-6. Triple Approaches:

Dual Parallels and

One Converging

Baltimore

Boston

Charlotte

Chicago Midway

Chicago O’Hare

Cincinnati

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Dayton

Denver

Detroit

Ft. Lauderdale

Honolulu

Houston Hobby

Houston Intercont’l

Indianapolis

Jacksonville

Kansas City

Louisville

Miami

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Nashville

New York (JFK)

New York (LGA)

New Orleans

Newark

Oakland

Omaha

Philadlephia

Pittsburgh

Portland

Providence

Rochester

San Antonio

San Francisco

St. Louis

Washington Dulles

Windsor Locks

Candidates Among Top 100 Airports

Average Capacity Gain 30 Arrivals/Hour

15° - 100°

95°
Chapter 3 – 10

Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 1995 ACE Plan

airline crews to validate findings and required

TERPS surfaces. The CASTWG work focuses on

the use of advanced technology avionics, Flight

Management Systems (FMS), and new procedures to achieve optimal operational minimums.

Following the data collection phase and realtime simulation, flight testing and demonstrations will validate the new standards. The

preliminary analysis of this program’s accomplishments to date, indicates significant benefits

will be realized at several high density airports

in the very near term, with added benefits to

many other airports in the immediate future.

Figure 3-6 illustrates the triple approaches,

with dual parallels and one converging.

Table 3-6 lists airports that are candidates to

conduct these independent converging approaches and indicates the average capacity

gains expected from these improved approaches.

could benefit from the procedure. Finally, the

procedure cannot be used if the converging

runways intersect unless controllers can establish

visual separation, and the ceiling and visibility

are at or above 700 feet and 2 statute miles (SM).

This requirement increases controller work load.

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. This is a multi-discipline work group chartered to analyze and

develop concepts which would result in lower

approach minimums and greater capacity for

converging operations. A systematic engineering

data collection and proof-of-concept testing

effort is underway yielding immediate operational benefits. This effort employs testing in

state-of-the-art flight simulators using qualified
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures

Chapter 3 – 11

Typically, independent converging IFR

approaches using the TERPS+3 criteria are

feasible only when ceilings are above 700 feet,

depending upon runway geometry. As an alternative precision approach procedure, dependent

IFR operations can be conducted to much lower

minimums, usually down to Category I, thus

expanding the period of time during which the

runways can be used. However, to conduct these

dependent operations efficiently, controllers

need an automated method for ensuring that the

aircraft on the different approaches remain

safely separated. Without such a method, the

separation of aircraft would be so large that little

capacity would be gained.

A program was conducted at St. Louis (STL)

to evaluate dependent operations using a controller automation aid called the Converging

Runway Display Aid (CRDA) (also called ghosting or mirror imaging) to maintain aircraft

stagger on approach. The CRDA displays an

aircraft at its actual location and simultaneously

displays its image at another location on the

controllers scope to assist the controller in

assessing the relative positions of aircraft that

are on different approach paths. Results at St.

Louis have shown an increase in arrival rates

from 36 arrivals per hour to 48 arrivals per hour.

National standards for this procedure were

published in November 1992. The CRDA function is implemented in version A3.05 of the

ARTS IIIA system.

The CRDA may also have other applications

(see Section 5.2.1.1). For example, it could be

used at airports with intersecting runways that

have insufficient length to allow hold-short

operations. Insufficient runway length between

the threshold and the intersection with another

runway can be ignored if arrivals are staggered

such that the first one is clear of the intersection

before the second one crosses its respective

threshold.

3.8 Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches
Chapter 3 – 12

Chapter 3: New Instrument Approach Procedures 1995 ACE Plan

The display of traffic information on the

flight deck from sources such as Automatic

Dependent Surveillance and tcas offers the

potential for flight crews to assist air traffic

controllers in monitoring and reducing the

spacing requirements during many phases of

flight. Figure 3-7 illustrates one example of this

use of a tcas/cdti. Use of this information should

result in capacity and efficiency improvements

beyond those which are available using only

radar and voice communications.

A TCAS/CDTI feasibility study that was

published in 1991 recommended exploration of

this technology to enhance ATC procedures.

Under the auspices of the FAA/industry Separation Assistance Working Group (SAWG), concepts for the use of tcas procedural applications

were subjected to interactive simulations. Reliability, safety and human factors data was

gathered and explored through the use of full

motion simulators. Procedures were validated in

a simulated environment.

Initial emphasis has been on the use of a

TCAS/CDTI to support oceanic in-trail climbs

(ITC). In this application, the flight crew of an

airplane that is following another along an

oceanic route utilized the surveillance and

display capabilities of the tcas to determine a

minimum safe distance behind the airplane

ahead. Once validated, the flight crew provides

that information to air traffic control and requests clearance to climb to a higher altitude.

This effectively reduces the non-radar in-trail

distance necessary to approve the climb from a

nominal 100 nm to a minimum of 15 nm. In

April 1994, the first two validation flights took

place over the Pacific Ocean. By late summer of

1994, two major U.S. airlines began operational

trials of the itc procedure in the Anchorage and

Oakland Flight Information Regions (FIRs),

with more expected to join the trials by early

1996.

Beginning in early 1996, an in-trail descent

(ITD), an extension of the ITC, will be introduced into Pacific oceanic operations. The

success of the ITC has accelerated software

enhancements to TCAS and serves as a cornerstone in the development of the “free flight”

concept. Further applications that take advantage of TCAS/CDTI capabilities can be expected

to offer additional efficiency and capacity

improvements in the foreseeable future.

3.9 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)/Cockpit Display

of Traffic Information (CDTI) for Separation Assistance

TCAS TRAFFIC DISPLAY

Figure 3-7. TCAS/CDTI for Separation Assistance
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 4: Airspace Development

Chapter 4 – 1

Efforts to expand airport capacity or implement improved

instrument approach procedures will not be completely effective unless the terminal and en route airspace can handle the

increased traffic. Airspace capacity design serves to emphasize

the “system” nature of the delay problem and the need for an

integrated approach that coordinates the development of

capacity-producing alternatives. Airport improvements, enhanced air traffic control procedures, and improvements in

terminal and en route airspace are frequently interrelated —

changes in one require changes in the others before all of the

potential capacity benefits are realized.

Airspace Capacity Studies are one of several programs

underway to improve the efficiency of the airspace system. In a

joint effort among the Office of System Capacity, Air Traffic,

Office of Environment and Energy, and a contractor that

conducts the simulation modeling, 15 Airspace Capacity

Studies have been completed, and two are currently in progress.

Air Traffic, normally at the Regional level, develops the alternatives that will be tested in the simulation runs, and the

proposed alternatives are generally examined in an ARTCCwide context. Where possible, these studies reflect community

involvement and FAA’s responsiveness to community-developed

alternatives.

A variety of computer models have been used to analyze a

broad spectrum of capacity solutions. Since 1986, the Office of

System Capacity has been applying SIMMOD, the FAA’s Airport

and Airspace Simulation Model, to large scale airspace redesign

issues. The first such project was an analysis of the Boston

ARTCC in support of the expansion of that facility’s airspace.

Similar studies were initiated at the Los Angeles, Fort Worth,

and Chicago ARTCCS, studying issues as diverse as

resectorization, special use airspace restrictions, new routings,

complete airspace redesign, and new runway construction.

Computer modeling has been used to quantify delay, travel

time, capacity, sector loading, and aircraft operating cost impacts of the proposed solutions.

Significant solutions to capacity and delay problems have

been identified through airspace design. At Dallas-Ft. Worth,

for example, effects of the Metroplex plan were studied both

with and without new runway construction. Results indicated

an immediate savings from airspace changes alone. The airChapter 4

Airspace Development

Efforts to expand airport capacity

or implement improved instrument

approach procedures will not be

completely effective unless the

terminal and en route airspace can

handle the increased traffic.
Chapter 4 – 2

Chapter 4: Airspace Development 1995 ACE Plan

space design projects completed to date have identified tens of

millions of dollars in delay savings, and the vast majority of the

airspace improvements identified in these studies either have

been or are being implemented.

Table 4-1 summarizes the completed airspace studies by

listing the generalized categories of the various alternatives

studied. The majority of the studies considered new arrival and

departure routes, modifications to ARTCC traffic, and

redefinition of TRACON boundaries among their alternatives.

Two studies, at Denver and Houston-Austin, analyzed a new

airport with its associated airspace, while three studies, at

Kansas City, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Chicago, analyzed new

runways at existing airports. Four of the studies, HoustonAustin, Oakland, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Los Angeles, modeled

military traffic, restricted airspace, special use airspace, or the

interactions of a military airfield with the civilian airport.

The FAA plans to institutionalize these airspace modeling

activities by expanding the capability of its Technical Center in

Atlantic City, NJ. Under the direction of the Office of System

Capacity (ASC), the Technical Center, and soon the National

Simulation Capability (see Section 5.5.1), will provide the FAA

with the resources to conduct studies using a variety of models.

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

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√√√√

√√√

√√√√

√

√

Table 4-1. Summary of Airspace Improvement Alternatives Analyzed.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 4: Airspace Development

Chapter 4 – 3

What follows are excerpts from the last four airspace

studies that were completed. The New York and Jacksonville

Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) include a description of the alternatives analyzed and the results of the analysis.

For the other two studies, Atlanta and Miami ARTCCs, a brief

description of the alternatives is included. It should be noted

that these studies only considered the technical and operational

feasibility of the proposed alternatives. Environmental, socioeconomic, and political issues were outside the scope of the

studies and need to be addressed in future planning activities.

4.1 New York Airspace Capacity Project

The objective of the New York Airspace Capacity Project

was to evaluate the delay and capacity impacts of proposed

operational alternatives aimed at increasing capacity, reducing

delay, and improving the overall efficiency of air traffic operations. The operational area of concern included operations

within the New York Center and portions of Boston, Cleveland, and Washington Centers; and at Newark International,

White Plains/Westchester County, Islip/Long Island

MacArthur, John F. Kennedy International, LaGuardia, Philadelphia International, Newburgh/Stewart International, and

Teterboro Airports.

To meet the objective of the New York Airspace Capacity

Project, four major simulation analysis tasks were completed.

The first task involved analyzing the impact of splitting Liberty

Area’s East Departure position into a high-low operation and

rerouting certain traffic through the new low sector based on

aircraft type and/or destination. The second task entailed

evaluating air traffic operations under the proposed

resectorization of New York Center Area D. The

resectorization plan is aimed at relieving complexity and saturation problems associated with operations in New York

Center’s Sector 75 and involved the realignment of five en

route sectors. The third task was an analysis to evaluate traffic

loading impacts on the Stewart Area sector for three proposed

ceiling realignment options. The fourth task involved an

analysis of proposed new south arrival and south departure

routings for Newburgh/Stewart International Airport to

determine sector traffic loading impacts for potential future

traffic growth.

ZDC

ZOB ZNY

ZBW

ZNY
Chapter 4 – 4

Chapter 4: Airspace Development 1995 ACE Plan

4.1.1 Liberty East Reconfiguration and

Rerouting

The first simulation analysis task involved evaluating the

impacts of splitting New York TRACON Liberty Area’s East

Departure position into a high-low operation. The proposed

operational alternative entails creating a new controller position

and assigning all Liberty East airspace at or below 9,000 feet to

the low operation. In addition to the traffic currently operating

at 9,000 feet and below, additional flights departing to the

northeast would also be rerouted to the new low sector based

on destination and/or aircraft type.

Liberty East sector is situated just northeast of Newark

International, JFK International, LaGuardia, and Teterboro

Airports, northwest of Islip/Long Island MacArthur Airport

and directly above White Plains/Westchester County Airport.

The current Liberty East sector encompasses, at its maximum,

a distance of 35 miles north to south and 45 miles east to west

and abuts portions of New York and Boston Center en route

airspace. The base of Liberty East airspace commences at 7,000

feet and attains its highest altitude at 17,000 feet. Considerable

shelving exists at the lower altitudes where Liberty East interfaces with other New York TRACON sectors.

Proposed airspace changes to Liberty Area’s East Departure

sector entailed the splitting off of all existing Liberty East

airspace at or below 9,000 feet. A new Liberty East low sector

is created from the lower portions of the eastern half of the

existing Liberty East sector. The remaining Liberty East

airspace (referred to as the new Liberty East high sector) is

comprised of the Liberty East airspace at and above 10,000

feet. It was assumed that departures which currently transit

Liberty East airspace at or below 9,000 feet would, under the

reconfigured airspace, be routed at the same existing altitudes,

and therefore, be worked by the new Liberty East low sector

controller.

Ten operational scenarios were simulated for the Liberty

East reconfiguration and rerouting analysis. Nine potential

alternatives were simulated for comparison to the baseline “do

nothing” case (Alternative 0). Alternative 1 entailed

reconfiguration of Liberty East only, without rerouting of any

traffic. For Liberty East Alternatives 2 through 9, various

combinations of flights currently using altitudes at or above

10,000 feet (i.e., in the new Liberty East high sector) were

rerouted to the new Liberty East low sector. Three distance

ranges were used in each scenario as criteria for rerouting traffic
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 4: Airspace Development

Chapter 4 – 5

from new Liberty East high sector to new Liberty East low

sector.

Results of the analysis for Alternative 0, or the “do nothing”

case, show that traffic is projected to increase 19 percent (98

aircraft) by the year 1997 and 34 percent (173 aircraft) for the

year 2003. With current operational conditions requiring

potential airspace realignment and rerouting of traffic for

Liberty East sector, it is most likely that these future traffic

increases projected for Liberty East will result in even greater

workload problems and issues.

Alternative 1 considered reconfiguring Liberty East Departure sector into a high-low operation without rerouting any

traffic. This alternative provided some degree of relief, but a

further redistribution of traffic between new Liberty East high

and new Liberty East low sectors is recommended if a more

equitable balance between the sectors is to be achieved in both

the near and future years. The shift in traffic flows between the

new sectors under Alternatives 2 and 4, when compared to

Alternative 1 results, tends towards a more balanced distribution of traffic between the two new Liberty East sectors

throughout the day. Liberty East departure flights destined for

airports within the 126-175 nautical mile range of the New

York area are pivotal in redistributing traffic from the new

Liberty East high sector into the new Liberty low sector for

purposes of balancing traffic loading. The remaining alternatives show even more improvement in reducing the percentage

of time that the sectors are saturated during the day (the sector

is considered saturated during a 15-minute period if the controller is continuously working the maximum number of

aircraft).

4.1.2 Resectorization of New York ARTCC

(ZNY) Area D

The second task evaluated air traffic operations under the

proposed resectorization of New York Center Area D. The

resectorization plan is aimed at relieving complexity and saturation problems associated with operations in ZNY Area D

Sector 75. To accomplish the proposed operational changes,

significant resectorization of Sector 75 and four other ZNY

Area D sectors was necessary (Sectors 74, 91, 92, and 93). ZNY

Sector 75 is the focal point of the New York Center Area D

resectorization plan. ZNY Area D Sector 75 is located to the

north of Sector 73 and directly abuts Cleveland Center airspace. Except for a small portion located in the northeast

corner, Sector 75 commences at FL180 and extends up to
Chapter 4 – 6

Chapter 4: Airspace Development 1995 ACE Plan

FL600. The northeast portion of Sector 75 encompasses airspace from FL180 up to FL230. Sector 75 lateral airspace varies

in distance from 40 miles north to south to over 100 miles east

to west.

Resectorization of Sector 75 will require a slight extension

of the farthest northwest corner of Sector 75 airspace. The only

other airspace modification to Sector 75 requires raising the

floor from FL180 to FL220. Adjacent Sectors 74 and 93 will

acquire the airspace between FL180 and FL220. With the

realignment of Sector 75, Newark International and LaGuardia

arrivals will be descended to FL220 earlier for hand off to

Sector 74. In addition, all Baltimore traffic will be removed

from Sector 75 to be worked by Sector 93. Elmira,

Binghamton, and Utica arrivals will also be removed from

Sector 75 along with any overflight traffic below FL220. Philadelphia International, Allentown, Lancaster, and Harrisburg

northbound departures will be assigned to Sector 74, thus

bypassing Sector 75.

Results of the analysis show that on the average day, the

resectorization of ZNY Area D would result in daily delay

savings amounting to 13, 35, and 122 hours per day for the

1991, 1997, and 2003 demand levels, respectively. These delay

savings equate to an annual aircraft operating cost savings of

$7.6 million, $20.4 million, and $71.2 million, per respective

year.

The primary goal of the resectorization of ZNY Area D is to

reduce complexity and saturation within Sector 75 by reducing

the level of traffic worked by the ZNY Sector 75 controllers

during busy periods. For the baseline (1991) year, there was a

17 percent decline in Sector 75 daily operations. The reduction

would be 18 percent in 1997 and 18 percent in 2003. By

resectorizing ZNY Area D, Sector 75 would realize substantial

reduction in 15-minute sector occupancy averages throughout

the majority of the day. These declines in sector occupancy

averages result from the traffic rerouted from Sector 75 into

Sectors 74 and 93, plus the reduction in the time aircraft are

worked by Sector 75 due to Sectors 74 and 93 assuming portions of Sector 75 airspace.

4.1.3 Stewart Area Airspace Redesign

The third simulation analysis evaluated air traffic operations under the proposed raising of the ceiling of the southern

portion of the New York TRACON Stewart Area. The proposed

alternatives consist of Stewart Area ceiling altitude changes of

10,000, 14,000, and 17,000 feet. Under these three ceiling
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 4: Airspace Development

Chapter 4 – 7

options, traffic loading is evaluated to determine the additional

traffic which Stewart Area would acquire if the new ceiling

altitudes were implemented.

There are eleven airports located in the Stewart Area with

Newburgh/Stewart International (SWF) and Dutchess County

(POU) accounting for the majority of traffic. Newburgh/Stewart

International Airport is situated 40-50 miles to the north of

Newark International, John F. Kennedy International, and

LaGuardia Airports. Stewart Area encompasses, at its maximum, a distance of 50 miles north to south and 85 miles east to

west. Current Stewart Area ceilings range between 4,000 to

6,000 feet with the northwestern portions of Stewart Area

overlying areas of high terrain. Stewart Area airspace underlies

portions of both New York and Boston Center en route airspace.

By raising the southern portion of the Stewart Area to

10,000 feet, Stewart Area would acquire 329 additional flights

over the busiest periods of the day. This increase in traffic is

over a 200 percent increase above current traffic loading in the

Stewart Area. A ceiling realignment to 14,000 feet for Stewart

Area’s southern portion would result in Stewart Area acquiring

an additional 113 flights above the number attained with the

ceiling realignment at 10,000 feet. Total traffic for Stewart

Area with the 14,000 foot ceiling realignment would increase

to 593 flights during the busiest periods, an increase over the

current traffic level of nearly 400 percent. A 17,000 foot ceiling

in the Stewart Area’s southern portion would further increase

traffic counts for Stewart Area during the busiest periods to a

total of 630 flights.

4.1.4 Potential Traffic Growth at

Newburgh/Stewart International

Airport (SWF)

The fourth task analyzed proposed new arrival and departure routings to the south of Newburgh/Stewart International

Airport to determine traffic loading implications for potential

future traffic growth at SWF. Simulation results were analyzed

to evaluate the impact that additional Newburgh/Stewart

International departure flights would have on ZNY Sectors 39

and 10, and the impact that additional arrival flights to

Newburgh/Stewart International Airport would have on the

new proposed Liberty East high sector.

For the Liberty East high sector scenario, it was assumed

that the Liberty East Departure sector is split into a new high-
Chapter 4 – 8

Chapter 4: Airspace Development 1995 ACE Plan

low operation and that the Stewart Area southeast ceiling is

raised to an altitude allowing new Liberty East high sector to

hand off directly to Stewart Area. For the potential Stewart

Area Airport growth scenarios, two traffic level increases were

simulated for Newburgh/Stewart International Airport south

departures and arrivals. The first traffic level increase (medium

growth) consisted of 30 additional south arrivals and south

departures at Newburgh/Stewart International Airport per day.

The second traffic level increase (high growth) consisted of 60

additional south arrivals and departures per day.

ZNY Sectors 39 and 10 would be impacted by potential

traffic growth at Newburgh/Stewart International Airport due

to traffic utilizing a proposed new south departure route from

SWF. Medium traffic growth could potentially impact early

morning operations for both Sectors 39 and 10. Under high

traffic growth levels at SWF, the early morning traffic flow

increases become quite substantial and sustained in duration

and would most likely result in workload issues for both Sectors 39 and 10.

The proposed new Liberty East high sector would also be

impacted by potential traffic growth at Newburgh/Stewart

International Airport due to traffic utilizing a proposed new

south arrival route to SWF. The new Liberty East high sector

would be slightly impacted during the morning period under

medium traffic growth at SWF. Under the high traffic growth

scenario, new Liberty East high sector would experience

substantial and sustained increases in early morning as well as

afternoon traffic flows, potentially resulting in workload considerations for new Liberty East high sector.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 4: Airspace Development

Chapter 4 – 9

4.2 Jacksonville Airspace Capacity Project

The objective of the Jacksonville Airspace Capacity Project

was to evaluate the capacity and delay impacts of proposed

operational alternatives aimed at increasing capacity, reducing

delay, and improving the overall efficiency of air traffic operations at Jacksonville Center (ZJX), Orlando Approach Control,

Tampa Approach Control, and Orlando International (MCO)

and Tampa International (TPA) Airports. Measures that could

increase capacity and reduce delays were considered solely on a

technical basis. Environmental, economic, social, or political

issues were beyond the scope of the study.

Five major simulation analysis tasks were completed. The

first task involved analyzing the impact on Jacksonville Center

traffic resulting from a proposed reconfiguration of the Palatka

MOA Complex. The second task entailed an evaluation of the

proposed implementation of a jet airway between Charleston

VORTAC (CHS) and Ormond Beach VORTAC (OMN). The third

task was an evaluation of the impact of a similar proposed jet

airway between St. Petersburg VORTAC (PIE) and a point

42 nautical miles (nm) west of Tallahassee VORTAC (TLH). The

fourth task involved an analysis of the impact of raising the

ceiling of Orlando Approach Control in conjunction with

modifying arrival and departure routings. The fifth task entailed an evaluation of an alternative en route airspace design

within Jacksonville Center.

4.2.1 The Proposed Palatka MOA/ATCAA

Realignment

This first task analyzed a proposal to modify the lateral and

vertical limits of the existing Palatka MOAs and redesignating

the airspace above the proposed MOA expansion as ATC Assigned Airspace (ATCAA). In scenarios simulating the proposed

Palatka MOA/ATCAA Complex, the existing Polatka MOAs were

reconfigured to reflect airspace structures extending from 1200

feet AGL (above ground level) up to and including FL430. A

substantial expansion of the lateral boundaries of the existing

airspace was also required.

The proposed Palatka MOA/ATCAA Complex would require

Jacksonville Center to release large portions of several low,

high, and ultra-high sectors for special use operations during

the hours of activation.

The impact of rerouting Jacksonville Center traffic currently overflying the proposed Palatka MOA/ATCAA results in

ZHU

ZID

ZME

ZTL

ZDC

ZMA

ZJX
Chapter 4 – 10

Chapter 4: Airspace Development 1995 ACE Plan

delay and travel time penalties. Delay time increases account

for the majority of the total time penalty realized for the traffic

demand schedules evaluated. In the baseline (1991) case, a total

daily flight time penalty of 4.1 hours per day is realized with

the annual cost penalty equating to $2.4 million. Annual cost

penalties increase to $11.0 million and $120.6 million for the

1997 and 2003 traffic demand levels. This proposed alternative

would substantially reduce airspace previously available for the

vectoring of traffic to relieve congestion. Requiring traffic to be

rerouted around the expanded Palatka MOA Complex,

significantly reduces the flexibility of controllers to utilize

vectors and/or direct routes to expedite traffic movement.

Controllers currently use portions of the airspace to be included

in the proposed Palatka MOA expansion for sequencing of

Orlando Approach Control arrival and departure traffic and

vectoring/direct routing of Jacksonville Center overflight

traffic.

4.2.2 Rainbow Area Airway

The objective of the Rainbow Area Airway analysis was to

evaluate the potential benefits that may be realized by establishing a jet airway between Charleston VORTAC (CHS) and

Ormond Beach VORTAC (OMN). The proposed airway would

traverse airspace currently designated as special use airspace

(SUA), impacting the area commonly known as the “Rainbow

Area.” In addition to acquiring portions of the Rainbow Area,

other requirements necessary to establish the proposed airway

would include: releasing all altitudes for the jet airway from

special use; incorporating any remaining special use airspace

FL180 and above west of the proposed airway boundary and

J79; and releasing special use airspace below FL180 located just

north of OMN to accommodate the descent and vectoring of

arrival traffic into the Orlando terminal area. The proposed

airway would require no change to the physical boundaries of

any existing Jacksonville Center sector structures, but the

usable airspace available for traffic movement within the impacted sectors would be increased. Rerouting of traffic through

any new or additional sectors would not be required.

The implementation of a proposed jet airway between

Charleston VORTAC (CHS) and Ormond Beach VORTAC

(OMN) would reduce flight time and increase available airspace

for improved flexibility and efficiency in the movement of air

traffic. During Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC), the

proposed jet airway would result in daily travel time and delay

savings totaling 1.7, 2.4, and 4.4 hours for the years 1991,
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 4: Airspace Development

Chapter 4 – 11

1997, and 2003, respectively. This delay savings would provide

$1.0 million, $1.4 million, and $2.6 million in cost savings per

traffic demand year. Additional operating cost savings can be

realized with the proposed airway during periods when thunderstorms preclude or reduce the availability of current routes.

In a year where thunderstorm activity was to occur a total of 60

times, lasting an average duration of two hours, the aircraft

operating cost savings realized by having the proposed airway

available would total $13.8 million, $23.8 million, and $56.7

million in years 1991, 1997, and 2003, respectively.

4.2.3 Proposed ACMI Thunder Area Airway

The objective of the ACMI/Thunder Area Airway impact

analysis was to evaluate the potential benefits that may be

realized by establishing an airway between St. Petersburg

VORTAC (PIE) and a point 42 NM west of Tallahassee VORTAC

(TLH). The proposed airway would traverse portions of the

special use airspace designated as the ACMI/Thunder Area. The

analysis involves an evaluation of the potential benefits derived

by overflight traffic from the implementation of the proposed

airway.

The proposed airway would require no change to the

physical boundaries of any existing Jacksonville Center sector

structures, but the usable airspace available for traffic movement within the sectors with the proposed airway would be

increased. Rerouting of traffic through any new or additional

sectors would not be required.

The implementation of a jet airway between St. Petersburg

VORTAC (PIE) and a point 42 nm west of Tallahassee VORTAC

(TLH) would also increase the available airspace for improved

movement of traffic within Jacksonville Center. During VMC,

the proposed jet airway would result in daily travel time and

delay savings totaling 1.6, 2.0, and 6.4 hours for the years 1991,

1997, and 2003, respectively. The delay savings would provide

$1.0 million, $1.2 million, and $3.7 million in cost savings per

traffic demand year.

The availability of the proposed jet airway (between PIE

and a point 42 nm west of TLH) to traffic during periods of

thunderstorm activity would also result in significant operating

cost savings. For example, if yearly thunderstorm activity were

to occur a total of 60 times, lasting an average duration of two

hours, the aircraft operating cost savings realized by having the

proposed airway available would total $2.1 million, $7.9 mil-
Chapter 4 – 12

Chapter 4: Airspace Development 1995 ACE Plan

lion, and $25.1 million in years 1991, 1997, and 2003, respectively.

4.2.4 Orlando Approach Control Airspace

Modification

The fourth task was to analyze the impact of raising the

ceiling of the current Orlando Approach Control airspace, in

conjunction with modifying arrival and departure routings.

This scenario was conducted to evaluate possible improvement

of the traffic flow within Jacksonville Center. The proposed

Orlando Approach Control reconfiguration raises the existing

ceiling of the approach control from 12,000 to 14,000 feet,

expanding terminal airspace in order to provide Jacksonville

Center the capability to establish dual jet arrival routes and

segregated jet and turboprop departure routes.

Orlando Approach Control currently provides air traffic

services in the airspace up to 12,000 feet and out to distances of

50 NM from Orlando International Airport. Orlando Approach

Control airspace is located in central Florida and is situated

beneath the common boundary between Jacksonville and

Miami Centers. The primary airports serviced by Orlando

Approach Control include Orlando International (MCO),

Orlando Executive (ORL), and Sanford/Central Florida Regional (SFB) Airports.

To raise the ceiling of Orlando Approach Control from

12,000 to 14,000 feet, airspace would have to be acquired from

the Jacksonville Center low altitude sectors directly above the

current approach control airspace. In conjunction with raising

the ceiling, arrival and departure routes within Orlando Approach Control would also have to be modified.

The Orlando Approach Control Airspace modification

option realized savings in daily delay and flight time during all

three traffic demand levels. The improved efficiency of the en

route system results from traffic entering and departing Orlando Approach Control airspace in a less restricted manner,

and the utilization of the reduced separation standards available

in the expanded terminal environment. Raising the Orlando

Approach Control ceiling from 12,000 to 14,000 feet expands

terminal airspace, providing the capability for Jacksonville

Center to establish both, dual jet arrival routes and segregated

jet and turboprop departure routes. The capability to use dual

arrival and segregated departure routes under the proposed

Orlando Approach Control airspace realignment would result

in daily en route delay and travel time savings amounting to
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 4: Airspace Development

Chapter 4 – 13

3.5, 4.7, and 22.2 hours per day for the 1991, 1997, and 2003

traffic demand levels, respectively. The combined savings

equate to an annual aircraft operating cost savings of $2.0

million, $2.7 million, and $13.0 million, per respective traffic

demand year.

4.2.5 Jacksonville Center Proposed

Airspace Redesign Alternative

The final analysis objective of the Jacksonville Airspace

Capacity project was to assess the impact and potential benefits

of a proposal to modify the floors and ceilings of special sectors

within Jacksonville Center. The analysis of the Jacksonville

Center Airspace Redesign alternative involved simulating en

route airspace operations for existing and proposed sector

configurations. Traffic demand levels for the baseline year

(1991) and future projected traffic levels for years 1997 and

2003 were simulated.

The Jacksonville Center Airspace Redesign alternative

would require airspace realignment for 27 of the 38 en route

sectors. The majority of these airspace changes would involve

floor and/or ceiling realignments. Four Jacksonville Center low

altitude sectors would also require lateral boundary expansions

in order to acquire airspace above adjacent approach controls.

The proposed realignment of the designated Jacksonville

Center sectors would have the effect of redistributing some

existing traffic flows from one airspace structure to another. No

rerouting of existing traffic flows was proposed.

Results from the simulation indicate that the benefits that

may be gained by the realignment of the floors and/or ceilings

of sectors within Jacksonville Center include a more balanced

traffic distribution, improved intra-facility coordination, added

flexibility for the handling of traffic during demand peaks, and

improved efficiency in merging traffic.
Chapter 4 – 14

Chapter 4: Airspace Development 1995 ACE Plan

4.3 Atlanta Center Airspace Capacity

Project

The objective of the Atlanta Center Airspace Capacity

Project was to evaluate the capacity and delay impacts of

proposed operational alternatives aimed at increasing capacity,

reducing delay, and improving the overall efficiency of air traffic

operations within Atlanta Center and at Charlotte (CLT),

Raleigh-Durham (RDU), and Birmingham (BHM) Approach

Controls, and Atlanta, Charlotte/Douglas, and RaleighDurham International Airports and Birmingham Airport.

Seven analysis tasks were studied to meet the objectives of

the Atlanta Center Airspace Capacity Project. Those analysis

tasks are briefly described below.

The first task involved raising the ceiling at Raleigh Approach Control airspace from 10,000 to 12,000 feet. Potential

benefits associated with realigning Raleigh Approach Control

would be a more efficient traffic merging with Washington

Center, a reduction in intra- and inter-facility coordination, an

expansion of approach control airspace for more flexible handling of arrival and departure traffic, and relaxation of departure restrictions. Rerouting of existing traffic flows was not

required under the Raleigh Approach Control ceiling realignment option. However, certain miles-in-trail and speed restrictions currently in effect were relaxed.

The second task involved raising the ceiling at Charlotte

Approach Control from 12,000 to 14,000 feet, at Raleigh

Approach Control from 10,000 to 14,000 feet, and those at

Greensboro and Fayetteville Approach Controls from 10,000

to 12,000 feet. En route corridors were maintained from

11,000 feet and above across Fayetteville and Greensboro

Approach Controls for buzzy and majic arrivals respectively.

Rerouting of existing traffic flows was not required under the

four ceilings realignment option. However, certain miles-intrail and speed restrictions currently in effect were relaxed.

The third task analyzed the impact of moving the boundary

of Washington Center to the west to assume full control of

Raleigh Approach Control and portions of low, high, and

ultra-high altitude sectors in Atlanta Center. Extensive routing

and terminal airspace changes were also proposed to accommodate rotation of the Bedposts/Cornerposts within Raleigh

Approach Control airspace. A second departure gate for Charlotte International Airport southbound jet traffic was also

developed. Other related scenarios within the alternative

evaluated several approach control ceiling realignments.

ZHU

ZID

ZME

ZTL

ZDC

ZMA

ZJX
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 4: Airspace Development

Chapter 4 – 15

The fourth task involved analyzing the impact of moving

the boundary of Atlanta Center to the east along a line crossing

approximately over SBV, RDU, and FAY, with Atlanta Center

possibly acquiring the equivalent of three low altitude sectors

from Washington Center. In this analysis, there was a

redefinition of several en route sectors, establishment of new en

route sectors, and extensive routing and terminal airspace

changes to accommodate rotation of the Bedposts/Cornerposts

within Raleigh Approach Control airspace. A second departure

gate for Charlotte International Airport southbound jet traffic

was also developed. Other related scenarios within this alternative evaluated several approach control ceiling realignments.

The fifth task analyzed the impact of extending the existing

Jet Airway 209 and rerouting certain flights currently entering

Atlanta Center Airspace between the Meridian (MAW) and

Crestview (CEW) VORTACs. The proposed lengthening of J209

required adding a segment to the current airway beginning at

Greenwood VORTAC (GRD) and extending southwest to the

Columbus VORTAC (CSG). Traffic with specific destinations

would be rerouted onto the proposed segment, at a point south

of where current J209 traffic flow is merged. To facilitate the

airway extension, a proposed modification to the current

sectorization within the Atlanta Center high altitude structure,

south of Atlanta VORTAC (ATL), was required.

The sixth task analyzed the impact of eliminating Atlanta

Center’s Birmingham Sector (12) by expanding Rome (01),

West Departure (04), and Maxwell (14) sectors’ boundaries to

encompass airspace and associated traffic within the existing

Birmingham Sector (12). The objective of this task was to

determine the additional traffic which Rome (01), West Departure (04), and Maxwell (14) sectors would acquire under current and future traffic demand levels if Birmingham Sector (12)

was eliminated.

The seventh task evaluated the impact of raising the ceiling

of Birmingham Approach Control from 10,000 to 12,000 feet

and modifying arrival and departure routings in order to establish Arrival and Departure Transition Areas (ATAS/DTAS).
Chapter 4 – 16

Chapter 4: Airspace Development 1995 ACE Plan

4.4 Miami Center Airspace Capacity Project

The objective of the Miami Airspace Capacity Project was

to evaluate the capacity and delay impacts of proposed operational alternatives aimed at increasing capacity, reducing delay,

and improving the overall efficiency of air traffic operations

within Miami Center, at Miami, Orlando, and Tampa Approach Controls, and Miami, Orlando, and Tampa International Airports.

Four analysis tasks were studied to meet the objectives of

the Miami Center Airspace Capacity Project. The analysis

tasks for this project are briefly described below.

The first analysis task evaluated the impact of a proposed

realignment of Miami Center Vero Beach (R3) and Melbourne

(R4) Sectors to accommodate projected near term traffic

growth at Fort Pierce/St. Lucie County International Airport

(FPR). Currently, Vero Beach and Melbourne Sectors are split

horizontally. The proposed realignment laterally realigns the

existing airspace comprising r3/r4, thus establishing new Vero

Beach (R3) and Melbourne (R4) Sectors and segregates vrb/fpr

arrivals from VRB/FPR departures.

The second analysis task analyzed the impact of parallel

airways through the Orlando corridor. The proposed westside

airway would accommodate traffic flying over and west of irq

(Colliers), whereas the eastside airway would accommodate the

remaining J53 air traffic operating at or above FL330. The

establishment of parallel airways would allow relaxation of

current in-trail restrictions currently placed on Miami Center

departures northbound to Jacksonville Center over orl VORTAC.

The third analysis task evaluated a proposal to establish a

new Miami Center Sector R59 by realigning current Miami

Center Bimini High (R40) and Georgetown (R60) sectors. No

rerouting of air traffic was required. The proposed Sector R59

would primarily accommodate overflight traffic at altitude

operating between the mainland U.S. north of Miami Center,

and the Caribbean or South America. The new realigned

Bimini (R40) sector would still accommodate some north/south

overflights as well as the majority of flights that comprise the

traffic to and from the Bahamas and south Florida. The new

realigned Georgetown (R60) would continue to handle north/

south overflights with traffic between south Florida and the

Caribbean or South America comprising the majority of the

traffic.

ZHU

ZTL

ZMA

ZJX
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 4: Airspace Development

Chapter 4 – 17

The fourth analysis task analyzed the effect of establishing

a new airway west of A509/A301 for southbound Miami

Center traffic bound for Cuban airspace. Currently, northbound and southbound traffic are required to share A509/A301.

The proposed new airway would provide separate routes for

Miami area arrivals and departures to and from Cuban airspace.

4.5 Studies in Progress

Currently, the FAA Office of System Capacity has the

following airspace projects underway:

• The West Coast Airspace Modernization Analysis.

This study is intended to optimize the structure of the

airspace encompassed by Los Angeles and Oakland

ARTCCs and their internal Approach Controls. The

objective is to ensure that the aviation industry receives

maximum service as a result of the Agency’s investment

in the large TRACON technology being fielded in California. Particular emphasis will be placed on the analysis of coastwise traffic between the areas served by SCT

and NCT.

• The Chicago MetroPlex Airspace Analysis. This study

will compare up to three potential airspace structures to

be operated by the new expanded Chicago TRACON.

Specifically, the projected study addresses critical

capacity and delay problems involving Chicago Center

and portions of Minneapolis, Cleveland, Indianapolis,

and Kansas City Centers; Chicago and Milwaukee

TRACONs, and O’Hare International, Midway, and

Milwaukee/General Mitchell International Airports.
Chapter 4 – 18

Chapter 4: Airspace Development 1995 ACE Plan
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement

Chapter 5 – 1

There are many technological initiatives underway which

promise to improve the capacity of an airport, its surrounding

terminal airspace, and the en route airspace. When considered

individually, the primary focus of a large number of technologies and projects might be other than capacity enhancement,

however, these technologies are significant steps in the right

direction. The impact of each initiative will be enhanced by an

integrated approach to capacity improvement that results in

effective coordination of the various programs. At a national

level, this integration will be accomplished through the activities of the National Simulation Capability described in Section

5.5.1.

Section 5.1 covers technologies applicable to airport surface

operations. Section 5.2 discusses programs that apply to the

adjacent terminal airspace and directly support the approach

procedure improvements discussed in Chapter 3. Section 5.3

discusses technologies applicable to the en route airspace,

including oceanic airspace. Section 5.4 addresses capabilities

that will support traffic flow managers, both national and local,

in maintaining a planned, systematic flow of air traffic. Section

5.5 covers technologies and programs that support planning

and integration of the above programs, as well as technologies

that will make changes and improvements to the National

Airspace System (NAS) easier and more efficient to implement.

The summaries included in this chapter are meant to be

general descriptions of technologies and projects, currently

underway or under development, which promise to increase

system capacity. Many of these projects are also listed in the

FAA’s RE&D Plan.

5.1 Airport Surface Capacity Technology

Taxiway interference, separation at intersections, departure

sequencing, and the like, all contribute to surface-related flight

delays. The Airport Surface Traffic Automation System (ASTA)

will provide automation designed to make ground operations

safer and more efficient.

Low-visibility procedures and equipment requirements

have now been defined in Advisory Circular 120-57A, Surface

Movement Guidance and Control Systems. In collaboration

Chapter 5

Technology for Capacity Improvement

There are many technological

initiatives underway which promise

to improve the capacity of an

airport, its surrounding terminal

airspace, and the en route airspace.

The impact of each initiative will be

enhanced by an integrated approach to capacity improvement

that results in effective coordination

of the various programs.
Chapter 5 – 2

Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 1995 ACE Plan

with the All Weather Operations Panel of ICAO, operational

requirements are being developed for advanced concepts and

automation supporting airport surface movement. The ICAO

effort is expected to lead to system performance requirements

for automation, communications, navigation, and surveillance.

The airport surface traffic automation (ASTA) research program

is providing the technical research necessary to define performance. The international coordination will provide the operational requirements for improved surface movement by 1997.

5.1.1 Airport Surface Traffic Automation

Program (ASTA)

The purpose of the ASTA program is to increase aviation

safety by reducing runway incursions and surface collisions in

the airport movement area and to provide controllers with

automated aids to reduce delays and improve the efficiency of

surface movement.

The ASTA program comprises five elements: a runway

status light system, a surveillance data link, aural and visual

warnings, data tags, and a traffic planner. The program will

develop an enhanced surface safety system using the Airport

Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE-3) primary ground sensor

radar, Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS), Global

Positioning System (GPS), Airport Movement Area Safety

System (AMASS), and other technologies. ASTA will provide

controllers with automatically generated alerts and cautions as

well as data tags to identify all aircraft and special vehicles on

the airport movement area in all-weather conditions. ASTA will

also include a traffic planner that will improve the routing of

aircraft on the taxiways and reduce taxi delay times. Future

enhancements will include the Cockpit Display of Traffic

Information (CDTI) for traffic on the surface. This is expected

to be integrated with a CDTI capability for airborne traffic. The

ASTA program examines the roles and responsibilities of controllers, pilots, and ground vehicle operators when operating on

the airport.

The AMASS is an automation enhancement to the ASDE-3

primary ground sensor radar that provides an initial safety

capability on runways and connecting taxiways. After determining that a group of ASDE-3 radar returns make up a target,

the AMASS then analyzes that target’s position and motions

with respect to other targets and the defined airport operational

configuration to determine if there are any conflicts among

targets or with defined operations. If there are conflicts, a

The purpose of the ASTA program is

to increase aviation safety by

reducing runway incursions and

surface collisions in the airport

movement area and to provide

controllers with automated aids to

reduce delays and improve the

efficiency of surface movement.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement

Chapter 5 – 3

verbal and graphic alert is given to the controllers in the tower

cab. The AMASS also has an interface with the Automated

Radar Terminal System (ARTS) in order to include airborne

aircraft on final approach in the check for conflicting target

operations on the airport surface. All airports slated to receive

ASDE-3/AMASS equipment will also receive ASTA.

The ASTA program will share information with the Terminal Air Traffic Control Automation (TATCA) program to create

an interrelated runway incursion prevention and surface traffic

management system. When completed, the ASTA program will

provide an all-weather, automated capability that allows for

safer, higher capacity airport operations.

5.2 Terminal Airspace Capacity Technology

There are a number of programs that will improve the

capacity of an airport’s surrounding terminal airspace. The

Precision Runway Monitor was discussed in Chapter 3 in

connection with procedures for improved landing capabilities at

airports with multiple runways. The Global Positioning System

(GPS) will make precision approach procedures available at

more runways at more airports by significantly reducing the

siting and frequency congestion problems associated with ILS.

The Center-TRACON Automation System will complement

the above systems by aiding the controller in merging traffic as

it flows into the terminal area. It will also support enhanced air

traffic throughput and avoid undesirable bunching and gaps in

the traffic flow on the final approach path. This system and the

Converging Runway Display Aid have been combined into the

Terminal ATC Automation Program. Finally, the Traffic Alert

and Collision Avoidance System has the potential to expand

beyond its current role of providing airborne collision avoidance as an independent system. It has the potential to reduce

aircraft spacing in a variety of situations, leading to increased

capacity.

5.2.1 Terminal ATC Automation (TACTA)

The purpose of the Terminal ATC Automation Program

(TACTA) is to develop automation aids to assist air traffic

controllers and Traffic Management Unit (TMU) coordinators

in enhancing the terminal area air traffic management process

and to facilitate the early implementation of these aids at busy

airports. The TACTA program consists of two projects: the

Converging Runway Display Aid (CRDA)/ Controller AutoThe purpose of the Terminal ATC

Automation Program (TACTA) is to

develop automation aids to assist

air traffic controllers and Traffic

Management Unit (TMU) coordinators in enhancing the terminal area

air traffic management process and

to facilitate the early implementation

of these aids at busy airports.
Chapter 5 – 4

Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 1995 ACE Plan

mated Spacing Aid (CASA) and the Center-TRACON Automation System (CTAS). Longer-term TACTA activities include the

integration of traffic flow management tools with other air

traffic control systems and cockpit automation capabilities.

5.2.1.1 Converging Runway Display Aid/

Controller Automated Spacing Aid

The CRDA displays an aircraft at its actual location and

simultaneously displays its image at another location on the

controller’s scope to assist the controller in assessing the relative

positions of aircraft that are on different approach paths. The

CRDA function is now implemented in version A3.05 of the

ARTS IIIA system.

Actual operations have shown that CRDA is effective in

increasing capacity by allowing multiple runways to be used

simultaneously under IFR. At St. Louis, the FAA has conducted

a demonstration of this tool to measure its effect on dependent

precision converging approaches in near Category I minimums.

Results from field testing at St. Louis have shown an increase

in arrival rates from 36 arrivals per hour to 48 arrivals per hour,

an increase of 33 percent. National standards for CRDA were

published in November 1992. Other airports such as Philadelphia International, Boston Logan International, Washington

Dulles International, and Greater Cincinnati International are

using or developing a use for CRDA.

While the original purpose of CRDA was to support specific

procedures for converging approaches, other procedures can be

supported by CRDA automation or a variant of that technology.

The Controller Automated Spacing Aid (CASA) project is

developing these other applications. In general, these new

applications support the synchronizing of aircraft in separate

streams of traffic. The applications range from support for

more effective merging of aircraft in the terminal area prior to

the approach phase, to support for taking full advantage of

available runway geometry with asymmetrical staggered approaches.

5.2.1.2 Center-TRACON Automation System

Approaches to major terminal areas represent one of the

most complex and high-density environments for air traffic

control. Arrivals approach from as many as eight directions,

with jet arrivals descending from high altitudes while other

traffic enters from low altitudes. It is difficult for controllers to

The CRDA displays an aircraft at its

actual location and simultaneously

displays its image at another

location on the controller’s scope to

assist the controller in assessing the

relative positions of aircraft that are

on different approach paths.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement

Chapter 5 – 5

foresee how traffic from one approach path will ultimately

interact with traffic from other approach paths. This results in

traffic arriving either in bunches, which leads to higher controller workload and increased fuel burn to maintain separation, or

with significant gaps, which in turn reduces airport capacity.

Speed and space restrictions in the terminal area add to the

difficulty of maintaining an orderly flow to the runway. Visibility and wind shifts, variations in aircraft mix, wake vortex

considerations, missed approaches, runway changes or closings,

all add to the difficulty of controlling traffic efficiently and

safely in the terminal airspace.

CTAS is designed to improve system performance (e.g.,

efficiency, capacity, reduce controller workload), while maintaining at least the same level of safety present in today’s

system, by helping the controller smooth out and coordinate

traffic flow efficiently. The earliest CTAS product is the Traffic

Management Advisor (TMA). TMA resides in both the ARTCC

and TRACON environments. The TMA determines the optimum

sequence and schedule for arrival traffic, and coordination

between air traffic control facilities such as a Center and a

TRACON is managed via the TMAS for the respective facility.

Other CTAS products are the Final Approach Spacing Tool

(FAST) for the TRACON and a Descent Advisor (DA) for the

ARTCC. FAST aids TRACON controllers in merging arrival traffic

into an efficient flow to the final approach path and also supports controllers in efficiently merging missed approach and

pop-up traffic into the final approach stream. DA assists ARTCC

controllers in meeting TMA arrival times efficiently while

maintaining separation.

A CTAS functionality under concept exploration is Expedite

Departure Path (EDP). EDP is intended to accurately model

aircraft ascent up to cruise altitude. Ultimately this knowledge

can be used in the terminal and en route environments to

interleave departing aircraft into the existing flow of en route

aircraft.

Each of the major components of CTAS, TMA, FAST and DA

will be assessed in an operational environment at one or more

development sites prior to limited national deployment. Operational assessment of TMA began in 1993 and will continue in

1997. Operational assessments of FAST and DA will begin in

1994 and continue through 1995. Longer-term CTAS activities

focus on integration of terminal automation with other ATC

automation tools and cockpit automation activities.

CTAS is designed to improve system

performance (e.g., efficiency,

capacity, reduce controller

workload), while maintaining at

least the same level of safety

present in today’s system, by

helping the controller smooth out

and coordinate traffic flow

efficiently.
Chapter 5 – 6

Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 1995 ACE Plan

5.2.2 Precision Runway Monitor (PRM)

Significant capacity gains can be achieved at airports with

closely-spaced parallel runways if the allowable runway spacing

for conducting independent parallel instrument approaches can

be reduced. (The benefits associated with reduced spacing are

discussed in Section 3.1.) Current criteria allow independent

approaches to parallel runways separated by 4,300 feet or more.

This standard was established based, in part, on the surveillance update rate and accuracy of the airport surveillance radars

(ASRs), and the terminal Automated Radar Terminal System

(ARTS) capabilities. Analysis and demonstrations have indicated that the separation between parallel runways could be

reduced if the surveillance update rate and the radar display

accuracy were improved, and special software was developed to

provide the monitor controller with alerts. Conventional

airport surveillance radars update the target position every

4.8 seconds.

The FAA fielded engineering models of the PRM system to

investigate the reduction in separation associated with these

improvements. The PRM consists of an improved antenna

system that provides high azimuth and range accuracy, and

higher update rates than the current terminal ASR, a processing

system that monitors all approaches and generates controller

alerts when an aircraft appears to be entering the “no transgression zone” (NTZ) between the runways, and a high resolution

display system. The E-Scan PRM uses an electronically scanned

antenna that is capable of updating aircraft positions every half

a second.

Further efforts are continuing to develop ATC procedures

and surveillance/navigation requirements to support independent approaches to dual, triple, and quadruple parallel runways

spaced as low as 3,000 feet apart. Five electronically scanned

antenna systems are under procurement.

5.2.3 Precision Approach and Landing

Systems

The Instrument Landing System (ILS) has provided dependable precision approach service for many years. However,

inherent characteristics of the ILS cause difficulties in congested

terminal areas. Of particular concern from an air traffic perspective is the long straight-in flight path required by ILS.

Although not a major concern for isolated airports without

obstruction problems, for closely spaced airports, ILS finals

Significant capacity gains can be

achieved at airports with closelyspaced parallel runways if the

allowable runway spacing for

conducting independent parallel

instrument approaches can be

reduced.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement

Chapter 5 – 7

often create conflicts because flight paths may cross in ways

that preclude separation by altitude. In these configurations,

the airports become interdependent (i.e., preferred operations

cannot be conducted simultaneously at the affected airports),

causing delays and constraining capacity. In areas such as New

York, the curved approach capability provided by either the

Microwave Landing System (MLS) or the Global Positioning

System (GPS) will provide a solution to the interdependency of

proximate airports.

MLS was designed to solve ILS difficulties in the terminal

area. In the meantime, various implementations of GPS have

shown promise as precision approach and landing systems in

research and development flight tests. A GPS system will be

based on the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) Global Positioning System augmented with ground reference stations and

possible additional satellites to provide the accuracy, integrity,

continuity, and availability of service required of a precision

landing system. GPS will provide many of the same capabilities

as MLS at a lower cost. Therefore, MLS systems will be phased

out as soon as the GPS is available to provide equivalent service.

In general, the remote area navigation (RNAV) capability

with wide-area coverage provided by GPS will result in more

flexibility in the terminal airspace. RNAV will permit the design

of instrument approach procedures that more closely approximate traffic patterns used during VMC. Typically these result in

shorter flight paths, segregation of aircraft by type, reduction of

arrival and departure gaps, and avoidance of noise-sensitive

areas.

GPS will also enable the FAA to provide precision approach

capability for runways at which an ILS could not be used due to

ILS localizer frequency-band congestion or fm radio transmitter

interference. For example, it is already difficult to add ILS

facilities in congested areas such as Chicago and New York.

It may be possible to achieve lower minimums with GPS

than can be achieved with ILS at some sites. Moreover, GPS will

relieve surface congestion resulting from restrictions caused by

ILS critical area sensitivity to reflecting surfaces such as taxiing

and departing aircraft.

Use of GPS for missed approach guidance may help support

development of approach procedures for converging runways

and triple runway configurations. Use of GPS for departure

guidance will help ease airspace limitations and restrictions on

aircraft operations due to noise abatement requirements.

GPS does not provide the accuracy, integrity, availability and

continuity of service necessary for NAS navigation and landing

requirements. To provide this capability, a network of precisely

GPS will provide many of the same

capabilities as MLS at a lower cost.

Therefore, MLS systems will be

phased out as soon as the GPS is

available to provide equivalent

service.
Chapter 5 – 8

Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 1995 ACE Plan

located monitors, reference stations and master control stations

is being implemented in the Wide Area Augmentation System

(WAAS). WAAS will provide a precision approach service capability and is intended as the primary means of navigation and

precision approach when fully implemented. The satellite

navigation system could lead to the phase-out of existing NAS

ground equipment when fully implemented while maintaining

or improving existing service levels. In addition, the GPS based

systems have the potential for new navigation and landing

services not currently supported. To further improve accuracy

and integrity, other augmentations are also planned such as the

local area augmentation system (LAAS) to provide high levels of

accuracy, continuity, and availability for Category II/III operations.

5.2.4 Traffic Alert and Collision

Avoidance System (TCAS)

Applications

TCAS is an airborne system that operates independently of

ground-based ATC radars to surveil nearby transponderequipped aircraft and provides relative position and altitude (if

an encoder is present) information to the pilot. The TCAS II

system, mandated for use in large, passenger carrying airplanes,

provides additional information to the pilot in the form of

vertical advisory maneuvers when the collision avoidance logic

senses the potential for a collision. Since December 1994, the

TCAS II system has been installed on all large, passenger carrying airplanes that are operating in and to the United States.

Although the primary role of TCAS is to avoid collisions,

the capabilities inherent in its design offer the potential to

improve the overall efficiency and safety of routine flight

operations. Under the guidance of an FAA/industry Separation

Assistance Working Group (SAWG), candidate TCAS applications were explored and an Oceanic In-Trail Climb (ITC)

procedure was developed. The ITC enables the flight crew of an

airplane that is following another along an oceanic route to

utilize the surveillance and display capabilities of the TCAS to

request a climb clearance from Air Traffic Control. This effectively reduces the non-radartrail distance necessary to approve

the climb from a nominal 100 nm to a minimum of 15 nm.

Inlate summer of 1994, two major U.S. airlines began operaTCAS is an airborne system that

operates independently of groundbased ATC radars to surveil nearby

transponder-equipped aircraft and

provides relative position and

altitude (if an encoder is present)

information to the pilot.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement

Chapter 5 – 9

tional trials of the ITC procedure in the Anchorage and Oakland Flight Information Regions (FIRs).

Recognized as a cornerstone in the concepts of Free Flight

and cooperative air traffic control, the ITC procedure is expected to lead to further applications and enhancements to the

TCAS system. Such applications may include reduced departure

and arrival spacing, reduced visual approach minima, and intrail self monitoring.

5.2.5 Wake Vortex Program

A better understanding of wake-vortex strength, duration,

and movement could result in the reduction of aircraft separation criteria. Revised wake-vortex separation criteria may

increase airport capacity by 12 to 15 percent in instrument

meteorological conditions (IMC), thereby enhancing airspace

use and decreasing delays.

Several vortex detection and measurement systems will be

deployed at selected airports to monitor wake-vortex strength,

transport characteristics, and decay. Wake vortex data obtained

from these airports will be combined with data from tower flyby tests already completed to provide a basis for reviewing

existing separation standards and recommending modifications

to those standards.

Plans include cockpit simulations to determine if separation

standards for heavy aircraft operating behind heavy aircraft can

be reduced from four miles in trail to three miles. This will be

followed by examining the separation for large-behind-large

and issues relating to closely spaced runways, departure delays,

and departure sequencing which would interconnect with

terminal automation.

5.2.6 Terminal Area Surveillance System

Although air traffic incidents may occur during any phase

of flight, the largest percentage occur during takeoff and landing. Currently, there are many airports without surveillance

radars, and the airport surveillance radar being procured by the

FAA, the Airport Surface Detection Equipment-3 (ASDE-3),

will not be available at all airports due to cost considerations. It

is important, therefore, to develop affordable sensors to provide

a reliable surveillance source for terminal operations and to

Revised wake-vortex separation

criteria may increase airport capacity by 12 to 15 percent in instrument

meteorological conditions (IMC),

thereby enhancing airspace use

and decreasing delays.
Chapter 5 – 10

Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 1995 ACE Plan

support automation development and airport capacity initiatives.

Requirements for a new terminal area surveillance radar

have been identified and include modular, cost-effective primary and secondary radar systems with application for flexible,

high capacity data links, improved surveillance accuracy, improved runway monitoring, improved wind shear detection and

dissemination, and improved wake vortex tracking. Efforts will

focus on adapting commercial technology in order to develop a

radar that meets the validated requirements in a cost-effective

manner.

5.3 En Route Airspace Capacity Technology

En route airspace congestion is being identified increasingly

as a factor in restricting the flow of traffic at certain airports.

One cause of en route airspace congestion is that ATC system

users want to travel directly from one airport to another at the

best altitude for their aircraft, and hundreds of aircraft have

similar performance characteristics. Therefore, some portions

of airspace are in very high demand, while others are used very

little. This non-uniform demand for airspace translates into the

need to devise equitable en route airspace management strategies for distributing the traffic when demand exceeds capacity.

Initiatives designed to reduce delays, match traffic flow to

demand, and increase users’ freedom to fly user-preferred routes

are underway.

Automated En Route Air Traffic Control (AERA) is a longterm evolutionary program that will increasingly allow aircraft

to fly their preferred routes safely with a minimum of air traffic

control intervention. The Advanced Traffic Management

System (ATMS) will allow air traffic managers to identify in

advance when en route or terminal weather or other factors

require intervention to expedite and balance the flow of traffic.

The need for increased efficiency in oceanic airspace is also

being addressed. Initiatives that improve the control of this

airspace, particularly the more accurate and frequent position

reporting resulting from Automatic Dependent Surveillance

(ADS) using satellite technology, will make it possible to effect

significant reductions in oceanic en route spacing.

Other means of improving en route airspace capacity

include reducing the vertical separation requirements at altitudes above FL290 to allow more turbojet aircraft to operate

along a given route near their preferred altitudes and reducing

the minimum in-trail spacing to increase the flow rate on

airways.

Automated En Route Air Traffic

Control (AERA) is a long-term

evolutionary program that will

increasingly allow aircraft to fly their

preferred routes safely with a

minimum of air traffic control intervention.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement

Chapter 5 – 11

5.3.1 Automated En Route Air Traffic

Control (AERA)

AERA is a collection of automation capabilities that will

support ATC personnel in aircraft conflict detection and resolution of problems along its flight path in coordination with

traffic flow management. AERA will help increase airspace

capacity by improving the ATC system’s ability to manage more

densely populated airspace. AERA will also improve the ability

of the ATC system to accommodate user preferences. When the

most desirable routes are unavailable because of congestion or

weather conditions, AERA will assist the controller in finding

the open route closest to the preferred one.

Laboratory facilities for the AERA program were established

in 1987. This laboratory has been used for prototyping and

analyzing systems and concepts to develop operational and

specification requirements, as well as supporting technical

documentation. Initial algorithmic and performance

specifications were completed in 1991. These specifications

were updated in 1992 to reflect the transition strategy adopted

to implement AERA capabilities. This strategy will minimize

disruption of on-going operations and encourage effective

assimilation of AERA capabilities by the controller work force.

In 1993, AERA was integrated into the En Route Automation Strategic Plan, which describes how en route automation

programs will be incorporated into the National Airspace

System over the next 7 to 10 years. Detailed implementation

plans are being prepared to bring an initial AERA operational

test capability to the field in late 1995 and to implement initial

controller use of the AERA capabilities in late 1997. Full AERA

capabilities are planned for initial use in the year 2000.

AERA concepts are being introduced in project planning

and development for oceanic system automation, traffic flow

management, and integration of en route and terminal ATC. In

more advanced AERA applications, the integration of groundbased ATC and cockpit automation will be investigated to fully

exploit the potential for computer-aided interactive flight

planning between controller and pilot.

5.3.2 Oceanic Automation Program (OAP)

In the Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) System,

the information generated by an aircraft’s onboard navigation

system is automatically relayed from the aircraft, via a satellite

data link, to air traffic control facilities. The automatic position

AERA is a collection of automation

capabilities that will support ATC

personnel in aircraft conflict detection and resolution of problems

along its flight path in coordination

with traffic flow management.
Chapter 5 – 12

Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 1995 ACE Plan

reports will be displayed to the air traffic controller in nearly

real time. This concept will revolutionize ATC in the oceanic

areas that are beyond the range of radar coverage. Currently

oceanic ATC is largely manual and procedural and operates with

very little, and often delayed, information. It depends upon

hourly reports transmitted via High Frequency (HF) voice

radio, which is subject to interference. Because of the uncertainty and infrequency of the position reports, large separations

are maintained to assure safety. These large separations effectively restrict available airspace, and cause aircraft to operate on

less than optimal routes.

ADS will be a part of an OAP to support transoceanic flights

over millions of square miles of Pacific and Atlantic airspace.

The OAP will provide an automation infrastructure including

oceanic flight data processing, a computer-generated situation

display, and a strategic conflict probe for alerting controllers to

potential conflicts hours before they would occur. The Oceanic

Display and Planning System (ODAPS) became operational in

the Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) in

1989 and in the New York ARTCC in 1992. Real-time position

reporting via ADS and a limited set of direct pilot-controller

data link messages will be added to the system in 1996, and a

complete set of pilot-controller data link messages will be

available.

The new Oceanic Automation Program will provide

benefits to airspace users in efficiency and capacity. The improved position reporting will allow better use of the existing

separation standards. Air traffic management will be able to

begin the process of reducing those standards, thereby increasing the manageable number of aircraft per route. Using the

strategic conflict probe, controllers will be able to evaluate

traffic situations hours into the future. Ultimately, controllers

will be able to grant more fuel-efficient flexible routes, which

will have a significant impact on fuel costs and delays.

5.3.3. Communications and Satellite

Navigation

New technology enhancements in communications, navigation, and surveillance provide the basis for dramatic improvements in aviation system performance, including improved

safety, reduced delay, increased capacity, and greater efficiency.

These three functional areas represent key elements of the air

traffic management infrastructure.

The new Oceanic Automation

Program will provide benefits to

airspace users in efficiency and

capacity. The improved position

reporting will allow better use of the

existing separation standards.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement

Chapter 5 – 13

5.3.3.1 Aeronautical Data Link

Communications

Data link services should relieve congestion on voice communications channels and provide controllers with an ability to

handle more traffic during peak periods while providing pilots

with unambiguous information and clearances. This benefit has

been demonstrated by the delivery of pre-departure clearances

via data link.

Data link applications are being developed based on inputs

from the air traffic and aviation user communities. These

applications include weather products, en route, terminal, and

tower ATC communications, and other aeronautical services.

The Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN) allows

use of many data link sub-networks (e.g., satellite, Mode S,

VHF, etc.) in a way that is transparent to the users.

Domestic standards are being developed with RTCA while

the international standards are being developed with ICAO. The

en route, terminal, and tower ATC services are being developed

and evaluated by a team of air traffic controllers. The operational aspects and benefits of data link applications will be

verified using contractor and FAA Technical Center test beds.

Pilot inputs will be gathered by connecting cockpit simulators

and live aircraft to the test beds during evaluations.

5.3.3.2 Satellite Navigation

Efforts are underway to augment the Department of

Defense’s Global Positioning System (GPS) to support civil

aviation navigation requirements. Procedures and standards are

being developed for oceanic and domestic en route, terminal,

non-precision approach, precision approach, and airport surface

navigation. Satellite ranging signals currently provide threedimensional position, time, and velocity information that can

be used as a supplemental means of navigation for civil users

down to non-precision approach. This technology, supplemented to improve system accuracy, availability, and integrity,

will eventually provide aircraft the ability to fly direct paths

instead of being confined to specific routes, thus providing for

more efficient use of airspace. GPS will also allow for increased

capacity through reduced separation minimums and provide an

accurate position reporting system without separate surveillance systems.

Data link applications are being

developed based on inputs from the

air traffic and aviation user communities. These applications include

weather products, en route, terminal, and tower ATC communications,

and other aeronautical services.

Efforts are underway to augment

the Department of Defense’s Global

Positioning System (GPS) to support

civil aviation navigation requirements.
Chapter 5 – 14

Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 1995 ACE Plan

With the declaration of GPS initial operational capability

(IOC) in December 1993, the DOD agreed to sustain levels of

signal availability and accuracy to meet basic federal radio

navigation requirements. Furthermore, the Joint DOD/Department of Transportation (DOT) Task Force Report, released in

December 1993, gave the FAA authority to implement a widearea integrity and availability enhancement to support expanded civil navigation operations. With demonstrated improvements in position accuracy, GPS may prove capable of

providing an all-weather landing service by the turn of the

century.

5.4 Traffic Flow Management

The development of improved capabilities to support

national and local traffic flow managers has received increasing

attention in recent years, and a number of efforts are underway

to aid in fielding effective and well designed enhancements to

the Traffic Flow Management (TFM) System. Two of the most

prominent such efforts are the Advanced Traffic Flow Management System (ATMS) and the Operational Traffic Flow Planning (OTFP) Program. Both of these efforts will focus on

formulating and developing improvements for the TFM system

in consultation with aviation system users, including both the

automation infrastructure and the associated air traffic procedures necessary to implement the operational capability.

5.4.1 Advanced Traffic Management

System (ATMS)

The purpose of the ATMS effort is to research automation

tools to minimize the effects of NAS overload on user preferences without compromising safety. This is accomplished by:

• Monitoring the demand on and capacity of ATC resources.

• Developing alternative strategies to balance demand

and capacity to prevent critical entities from being

overloaded.

• Coordinating and implementing strategies to assure

maximum use of critical resources when a demand/

capacity imbalance is predicted or detected.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement

Chapter 5 – 15

Automation tools shown to be beneficial through the ATMS

research and development program will be implemented and

fielded for operational use in the Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS).

The Aircraft Situation Display (ASD) was the first capability developed by ATMS. The ASD generates a graphic display

that shows current traffic and flight plans for the entire NAS.

The ASD is currently deployed at the Air Traffic Control

System Command Center (ETMS) and all ARTCCs and at

selected TRACONs and Canadian locations. The ASD data has

also been provided to commercial air carriers and air taxi

operators, and they are using these data to aid in their operations management and planning.

The ASD has helped increase system capacity in several

ways. It allows traffic management specialists to observe approaching traffic across ARTCC boundaries. This has allowed

the reduction or elimination of many fixed miles-in-trail

restrictions (and the resultant delay of aircraft) that were in

effect prior to the deployment of ASD. It assists traffic management specialists in planning arrival flows for airports that are

close to ARTCC boundaries, resulting in smoother arrival flows

and better airport utilization. It allows traffic management

specialists to detect and effect solutions to certain congestion

problems, such as merging traffic flows, well in advance of

problem occurrence and even before the aircraft enter the

ARTCC where the congestion problem will occur. Small adjustments to traffic flows made early can avoid large delays associated with last-minute solutions.

The second capability developed by ATMS was the Monitor

Alert, which predicts traffic activity several hours in advance. It

compares the predicted traffic level to the threshold alert level

for air traffic control sectors, fixes, and airports, and highlights

predicted problems. It will aid in detecting congestion problems further in advance, enabling solutions to be implemented

earlier. The Monitor Alert has recently been implemented at

the ATCSCC, all ARTCCS, and several TRACONs.

Four future capabilities that are being developed through

ATMS are Automated Demand Resolution, Dynamic Special

Use Airspace, Strategy Evaluation, and Automated Execution.

Automated Demand Resolution will examine problems predicted by Monitor Alert and suggest several alternative problem resolutions. The suggested resolutions are planned to

respond to each problem without creating conflicts or additional problems. Dynamic Special Use Airspace will provide

automation to allow consideration of actual and scheduled

military operations in the national flow management decision
Chapter 5 – 16

Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 1995 ACE Plan

making process. Strategy Evaluation will provide a tool to

evaluate alternative flow management strategies. Automated

Execution will generate and distribute facility and aircraftspecific directives to implement selected strategies.

In addition to domestic flow management capabilities,

research is being conducted for oceanic flow management

capabilities. Track Generation will define a set of tracks for a

prescribed region of airspace. Track Advisory will advise oceanic traffic managers of the most efficient tracks available to

individual aircraft approaching the track system. Oceanic

Traffic Display will assist the oceanic traffic manager in routing

aircraft. Further development will concentrate on the integration of domestic and oceanic capabilities.

5.4.2 Operational Traffic Flow Planning

(OTFP)

Increasing congestion, delays, and fuel costs require that the

FAA take immediate steps to improve airspace use, decrease

flight times and controller workload, and increase fuel

efficiency. To achieve these objectives the FAA Operational

Traffic Flow Planning program will develop near-term, operational traffic planning models and tools. The program will

provide software tools to plan daily air traffic flow, predict

traffic problems and probable delay locations, assist in joint

FAA-user planning and decision-making, and generate routes

and corresponding traffic flow strategies which minimize time

and fuel for scheduled air traffic. Benefits include improved

aviation safety, airspace use, system throughput, and route

flexibility. Working directly with commercial aviation interests

and other FAA facilities, the Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC) can predict problem areas before they

occur and generate alternative reroutings and flow procedures.

Overall system capacity will be increased over that of the

present fixed route and rigid preferred route systems, resulting

in increased fuel efficiency, shorter travel times, and reduced

delays. Controller workloads will decrease from users’ participation in a planned, systematic flow of traffic.

Increasing congestion, delays, and

fuel costs require that the FAA take

immediate steps to improve airspace use, decrease flight times

and controller workload, and

increase fuel efficiency. To achieve

these objectives the FAA Operational Traffic Flow Planning program

will develop near-term, operational

traffic planning models and tools.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement

Chapter 5 – 17

5.5 System Planning, Integration, and

Control Technology

The following sections describe technologies that support

planning to integrate various improvements into the NAS. Both

operational improvements and new technologies need to be

evaluated so that they can be developed and implemented

effectively, ensuring the interoperability of the elements of the

NAS. A large number of models and other technologies will

support this integration effort. The National Simulation Capability (NSC), for example, will horizontally integrate many of

these new technologies in a laboratory environment. The

National Airspace System Performance Analysis Capability

(NASPAC) will help identify of demand/capacity imbalances in

the NAS and provide a basis for evaluating proposed solutions

to those imbalances. Computer-graphics tools, such as the

Sector Design Analysis Tool and the Terminal Airspace Visualization Tool, will allow airspace designers to quickly and effectively develop alternative airspace sectors and procedures. They

will also reduce the time and effort required to implement

these alternatives.

5.5.1 National Simulation Capability

(NSC)

The NSC aids and supports the RE&D and systems engineering missions of the FAA by horizontally integrating the

various RE&D program elements across the National Airspace

System (NAS) environment. The capability to integrate emerging ATC subsystems during the conceptual stage of each project

allows early validation of requirements, identification of problems, development of solutions to those problems, and demonstration of system capabilities. It also permits early injection of

human factors and system user inputs into the concept formulation process. The net result is a reduction of risk in the

development of products for the NAS, faster infusion of new

technology, earlier acceptance of new NAS concepts by system

users, and greater efficiency in performing the RE&D and

systems engineering missions. The ASTA, CTAS, TCAS, AERA,

ATMS, OTFP, Aeronautical Data Link Communications, Terminal Area Surveillance System, and Aviation Weather programs are all actively involved in horizontal system simulations

in the NSC.

The NSC aids and supports the

RE&D and systems engineering

missions of the FAA by horizontally

integrating the various RE&D program elements across the National

Airspace System (NAS) environment.
Chapter 5 – 18

Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 1995 ACE Plan

The NSC is a unique capability that will exploit the latest

simulation technology. Horizontal integration brings together

diverse system components such as terminal automation, en

route automation, oceanic air traffic control, aircraft flight

management systems, and mixes of aircraft types and performance in a flexible, interchangeable, and dynamic simulation

environment. It provides an ability to assess the suitability and

capability of emerging ATC system components before production investment decisions are made. The NSC permits the

evaluation of new operational concepts, human interfaces, and

failure modes in a realistic, real-time, interactive ATC environment capable of simulating new or modified systems at forecast

traffic levels. Simulation capabilities will be expanded through

an interface with various remote research centers that possess

nationally unique facilities and expertise.

5.5.2 Analysis Tools

A large and growing repertoire of analytical, simulation,

and graphical tools and models are being developed and used to

help understand and improve the NAS. Some of the more

prominent of these are briefly described in the following sections.

The principal objectives of computer simulation models

currently in use and under development are to identify current

and future problems in the NAS caused by demand/capacity

imbalances and to construct and evaluate potential solutions.

All of the models rely on a substantial amount of operational

data to produce accurate results. The principal models being

developed and in use today are described below.

5.5.2.1 Airport Network Simulation Model

(AIRNET)

AIRNET is a PC-based tool that is designed to assess the

impact of changes in airport facilities, operations, and demand.

It is a planning tool that can assess the effects of those changes

on passenger costs, noise contours, airports, airlines, and aircraft. It addresses macro trends and interactions for use in

policy planning and economic analysis.

The principal objectives of computer simulation models currently in

use and under development are to

identify current and future problems

in the NAS caused by demand/

capacity imbalances and to construct and evaluate potential solutions.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement

Chapter 5 – 19

5.5.2.2 Airport and Airspace Simulation

Model (SIMMOD)

SIMMOD simulates both airports and airspace in a selected

geographic area. It aids in the study of en route air traffic,

terminal air traffic, and ground operations. It is capable of

calculating capacity and delay impacts of a variety of operating

alternatives, including runway configurations, airspace routes,

sectorization, and separation standards. It is a planning tool for

evaluating operational alternatives involving the coordination

of airport configurations with airspace configurations. SIMMOD

has been used in airspace design studies around major airports.

Improvements to SIMMOD include better output displays,

automated data-acquisition capability, and a workstation

version of the model.

5.5.2.3 Airfield Delay Simulation Model

(ADSIM) and Runway Delay

Simulation Model (RDSIM)

The Airfield Delay Simulation Model (ADSIM) calculates

travel time, delay, and flow rate data to analyze components of

an airport, airport operations, and operations in the adjacent

airspace. It traces the movement of individual aircraft through

gates, taxiways, and runways. The Runway Delay Simulation

Model (RDSIM) is a sub-model of ADSIM. RDSIM limits its

scope to the final approach, runway, and runway exit.

5.5.2.4 The Airport Machine

The Airport Machine is a PC-based interactive model with

graphics that is used to evaluate proposed changes to airfield

and terminal configurations, schedules, and aircraft movement

patterns. This model has been used in studies of a number of

major airports. Its primary output is extensive data on delays to

aircraft movement.

The Airfield Delay Simulation

Model (ADSIM) calculates travel

time, delay, and flow rate data to

analyze components of an airport,

airport operations, and operations

in the adjacent airspace.
Chapter 5 – 20

Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 1995 ACE Plan

5.5.2.5 National Airspace System

Performance Analysis Capability

(NASPAC)

The NASPAC Project provides a long-term analysis capability to assist the FAA in developing, designing, and managing

the Nation’s airspace on a system-wide level through the

application of operations research methods and computer

modeling. The focal point of the NASPAC Project is the NASPAC

Simulation Modeling System (SMS). The NASPAC SMS is a

simulation of the entire NAS used to estimate flight delays by

modeling the progress of individual aircraft as they move

through the nationwide network of airports, en route sectors,

routes, navigation fixes, and flow control restrictions. The

model has been used to study the current and projected performance of the NAS and to study system improvements such as

new airports, new runways, and airspace changes, as well as

projected demand changes such as the creation of new air

carrier hubs and the introduction of civil tiltrotor flights in the

Northeast Corridor.

5.5.2.6 Sector Design Analysis Tool (SDAT)

The SDAT is an automated tool to be used by airspace

designers at the 20 Air Route Traffic Control Centers

(ARTCCs) to evaluate proposed changes in the design of airspace. This computer model allows the user to input either the

current design or the proposed replacement. It also allows the

user to interactively make changes to the design shown graphically on the computer screen.

The model allows the user to play recorded traffic data

against either the actual design or the proposed replacement. It

also allows the user to modify traffic data interactively in order

to evaluate alternative designs under postulated future traffic

loading. The model computes measures of workload and

conflict potential for the specified sector or group of sectors.

This will allow designers to obtain a better balance in workload

between sectors, reducing controller workload and increasing

airspace capacity. The model will also be useful for facility

traffic flow managers, for it will display cumulative traffic flows

under either historic or anticipated future traffic loading.

The development of the SDAT has been underway for

approximately two years. Procedures for extracting and displaying (in 2D and 3D) all the requisite data from available FAA

data files and computing the expected demand for separation
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement

Chapter 5 – 21

assurance actions,sector traffic loading, and aircraft operating

cost have been developed. The development of a fully capable

controller workload model is underway. SDAT is being field

tested at 13 sites, with expanded deployment planned for FY97.

In addition, a version for terminal area design is under development.

5.5.2.7 Terminal Airspace Visualization Tool

(TAVT)

Terminal airspace differs from en route airspace in that it

tends to have a more varied mix of aircraft and user types, more

complicated air traffic rules and procedures, and wider variation

in flight paths. A major redesign of terminal airspace currently

requires extensive coordination and a task force effort lasting

many months or even years. The purpose of the TAVT prototype is to explore the potential for computer-based task force

assistance to support a more rapid evaluation of alternatives.

The TAVT prototype displays a three-dimensional representation of the airspace on a large computer screen to allow the

user/operator to view the airspace from any perspective. It also

provides an easy-to-use interface that permits the user to

modify the airspace according to permissible alternatives. The

results of this effort are being evaluated for incorporation into

the specifications of a follow-on terminal airspace design tool

based on SDAT.

5.5.2.8 Graphical Airspace Design

Environment (GRADE)

GRADE is a computer graphics tool for displaying, analyzing, and manipulating airspace design and other aviation

related data. Radar data (from both ARTS and SAR) are stripped

from their recording media and loaded into GRADE’s underlying relational database along with the appropriate airspace

geometries, terrain maps, National Airspace System (NAS) data,

descriptions of routes, and any other data required in the

analysis. GRADE can then be used to test proposed terminal

instrument procedures (TERPS), standard terminal arrival routes

(STARS) and standard instrument departures (SIDS), airspace

design changes, and instrument approach procedures.

GRADE can display radar data in three dimensions, along

with the attendant flight plan information, for any given time

slice. GRADE also includes a set of algorithms designed to
Chapter 5 – 22

Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 1995 ACE Plan

measure interactions between the radar data and any other

elements of the database. These measurements can then be

displayed and compared as histograms. GRADE provides a high

quality, three-dimensional presentation, is relatively easy to use,

and can be quickly modified to facilitate the comparison of

existing and proposed airspace designs and procedures.

GRADE is currently limited to airspace design applications,

but could easily be adapted to other applications, such as noise

analysis, interaction with existing airport and airspace computer simulation models, accident/incident investigation (particularly for aircraft without flight data recorders), and training

in lessons learned and alternate air traffic control techniques.

5.6 Vertical Flight Program

The General Aviation and Vertical Flight (VF) Program

will provide a safer and more efficient use of the National

Airspace System for the general aviation industry by identifying, initiating, and performing research activities to safely

introduce critical technologies applicable to general aviation

and vertical flight needs and requirements. Research and

development efforts will focus on air traffic system design and

advanced operational procedures; heliport/vertiport/intermodal

design and planning; aircraft/aircrew certification, training, and

human factors; and emerging technological applications. The

program will continue to focus on improving the safety,

affordability, and efficiency of general aviation and vertical

flight avionics and operations and increasing NAS capacity by

developing low cost air and ground infrastructures and procedures to permit safe operations under both visual and instrument flight conditions.

Air infrastructure research will focus on the ability to

conduct all-weather and IFR operations at heliports and

vertiports in terminal airspace without interfering with fixedwing traffic flow. Future IFR helicopter research will also focus

on an intermodal environment for helicopter IFR operations

that can benefit the transportation of goods, services, and

people in U.S. and international countries as well. Much of the

initial work relating to emerging technologies will be done

through simulation and validated with actual flight test data as

the aircraft become available.

The General Aviation and Vertical

Flight (VF) Program will provide a

safer and more efficient use of the

National Airspace System for the

general aviation industry by identifying, initiating, and performing

research activities to safely introduce critical technologies applicable to general aviation and

vertical flight needs and requirements.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement

Chapter 5 – 23

Ground infrastructure research will provide RE&D into

heliport and vertiport design and planning issues, including the

terminal area facilities and ground-based support systems that

will be needed to implement safe, all-weather, 24-hour flight

operations. Developing obstacle avoidance capabilities is a

critical design-related effort. Research will include applying

lessons learned from detailed accident and rotorcraft operations

analyses. Simulations will be used to collect data, analyze

scenarios, and provide training to facilitate safe operations.

These benefits include enhancing public safety services through

applications of low altitude communications and surveillance

technology.

Aircraft/aircrew research will also develop minimum

performance criteria for visual scenes and motion-based simulators; evaluate state-of-the-art flight performance for cockpit

design technology; develop improved training techniques

employing expert decision making, and develop crew and

aircraft performance standards for display and control integration requirements. Research will also be conducted to develop

certification standards vor both conventional and advance

technology VF aircraft.
Chapter 5 – 24

Chapter 5: Technology for Capacity Improvement 1995 ACE Plan
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 6: Summary

Chapter 6 – 1

The Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan is intended to

be a comprehensive “ground-up” view of aviation system

requirements and development, starting at the airport level and

extending to terminal airspace, en route airspace, and airspace

and traffic flow management. The first step in this problemsolving exercise is problem definition.

This plan defines the capacity problem in terms of flight

delays, rather than dealing with a more abstract “definition of

capacity.” While it is relatively simple to compute an airport’s

hourly throughput capacity (the number of flight operations

which can be handled under IFR or VFR for a given runway

operating configuration), that throughput can change each

hour as weather, aircraft fleet mix, and runway configurations

change. Annualizing airport capacity is thus a difficult task.

In 1994, 23 of the top 100 airports each exceeded 20,000

hours of airline flight delays. If no improvements in capacity

are made, the number of airports which could exceed 20,000

hours of annual aircraft delay in the year 2004 is projected to

grow from 23 to 29.

While it is common for demand to exceed hourly capacity

at some airports, there are ways of accommodating that demand. For example, air traffic management can regulate departures and slow down en route traffic, so flights are shifted into

times of less congestion. However, this is only a temporary

solution, because, as traffic increases at a given airport, there

will be fewer off-peak hours into which flights might be

shifted.

There are several techniques under investigation to manage

demand at delay-problem airports. One is to improve the

reliever and general aviation (GA) airport system so that small

aircraft prefer to use them. There could be significant reduction

in flight delays if a percentage of small/slow aircraft operations

shifted to reliever airports. However, some of the forecast

delay-problem airports have a low percentage of small aircraft

operations. Those airports are largely “relieved,” and a further

reduction in the operations of small/slow aircraft would be of

marginal significance in the reduction of flight delays.

Having first identified forecast delay-problem airports, this

Plan next attempts to document planned or technologically

feasible capacity development at those airports. The FAA coChapter 6

Summary
Chapter 6 – 2

Chapter 6: Summary 1995 ACE Plan

sponsors Airport Capacity Design Team Studies at major

airports to assess how airport development and new technology

could “optimize” capacity on a site-specific basis.

Moving from “the ground up,” this Plan identifies new

terminal airspace procedures which will increase capacity for

existing or new runway configurations. Of the top 100 airports,

8 could benefit from independent parallel approaches using the

Final Monitor Aid (FMA) with current radar systems, 4 could

benefit from independent parallel approaches to triple and

quadruple runways using current radar systems, 13 could

benefit from simultaneous operations on wet intersecting

runways, 45 could benefit from improved operations on parallel

runways separated by less than 2,500 feet, 9 could benefit from

dependent approaches to three parallel runways, and 38 could

benefit from independent converging approaches. Demonstration programs have been completed or are underway for these

new approach procedures.

Some of the new approach procedures and airport capacity

projects require new technology and new systems and equipment. This Plan outlines the progress of FAA RE&D and F&E

programs currently under way to provide that new technology.

Many of the technology programs are designed to reduce

the capacity differential between IFR and VFR operations.

Delays attributable to weather (resulting in large part from the

difference in VFR and IFR separation standards) accounted for

75 percent of all flights delayed 15 minutes or more in 1994.

Significant gains in capacity may be achieved with the use of

new electronic guidance and control equipment if two or three

flight arrival streams can be maintained in IFR, rather than

being reduced to one or two arrival streams. These programs

are the Precision Runway Monitor (PRM), Converging Runway

Display Aid (CRDA), Triple and Quadruple Instrument Approaches, and the Global Positioning System (GPS).

Some of the new technology programs are designed to

provide more information to air traffic controllers, such as the

Center-TRACON Automation System (CTAS), or to pilots, such

as the Traffic Alert Collision and Avoidance System (TCAS),

with improved visual displays and non-voice communications.

Those programs may not show as large an increase in capacity

as those programs providing multiple flight arrival and departure streams, but they are significant nonetheless.

Some of the technology programs are designed to improve

the efficiency of aircraft movement on the airport surface. The

Airport Surface Traffic Automation (ASTA) program, for

example, will expedite surface movement while reducing the

number of runway incursions.
1995 ACE Plan Chapter 6: Summary

Chapter 6 – 3

Some of the technology programs are computer simulation

tools to help in airfield and airspace analysis. For example, the

Airport and Airspace Simulation Model (SIMMOD), National

Airspace Performance Analysis Capability (NASPAC), Sector

Design Analysis Tool (SDAT), and Terminal Airspace Visualization Tool (TAVT) will help in the evaluation of various

alternatives. Some technology programs are designed to “optimize” the aviation system through better planning and improved prediction capability in a laboratory environment such

as the National Simulation Capability (NSC).

The “ground up” view encompasses en route airspace. This

Plan outlines programs designed to increase en route airspace

capacity, including Automated En Route Air Traffic Control

(AERA), Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS),

Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS), and Oceanic Display and Planning System (ODAPS).

Airspace Capacity Design Team projects have been established to analyze and optimize airspace procedures. Projects

have been accomplished in Los Angeles, Dallas-Ft. Worth,

Chicago, Kansas City, Houston/Austin, Oakland, New York,

Jacksonville, Miami, and Atlanta. Results summaries are

included in this plan.

From a “ground up” view, after optimizing existing airport

capacity, terminal airspace procedures, and en route airspace

capacity using new technology, the next level is adding “supplemental” airports for additional aviation system capacity.

“Supplemental” airports are existing or new commercial service

airports that could provide relief for delay-problem airports.

The largest capacity gains come from building new airports

and new or extended runways at existing airports. One such

project was the construction of a new international airport at

Denver. Construction began in late 1989. In 1992, Colorado

Springs completed construction of a new parallel runway, and

Nashville and Washington Dulles completed runway extensions. In 1993, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County completed

construction of a new parallel runway, and runway extensions

were completed at Dallas-Fort Worth, San Jose, Kailua-Kono

Keahole, and Islip Long Island Mac Arthur. In 1993, Memphis

began construction of an independent parallel runway and

Louisville Standiford Field began construction of two independent parallel runways. In 1994, Kansas City completed construction of a new independent parallel runway. Salt Lake City

opened its third air carrier runway in 1995.

Of the top 100 airports, 62 have proposed new runways or

extensions to existing runways. Of the 23 delay-problem

airports in 1994, 15 are in the process of constructing or plan-
Chapter 6 – 4

Chapter 6: Summary 1995 ACE Plan

ning the construction of new runways or extensions to existing

runways. Of the 29 delay-problem airports forecast for the year

2004, 20 propose to build new runways or runway extensions.

The total anticipated cost of completing these new runways

and runway extensions exceeds $6.0 billion.

While much has been done and more is planned to increase

system-wide capacity, it should be noted that the FAA’s resources are limited. The demand for Facilities and Equipment

(F&E) and Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds far

exceeds availability. However, the FAA will continue to explore

innovative methods of increasing system capacity.

System capacity must continue to grow in order to enable

the air transportation industry to maintain the same level of

service quality and allow airline competition to continue. In the

dozen years since airline deregulation, real air fares have declined. Both the quality and cost of air service are strongly tied

to aviation system capacity and will continue to show favorable

trends only if aviation system capacity continues to grow to

meet demand.
Aviation Capacity Enhancement

Appendices

1995 ACE Plan Appendix A: Aviation Statistics

Appendix A – 1

Appendix A

Aviation Statistics

Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1992, 1993 and 1994.......... A-2

Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1994 and Forecast 2010 ............................... A-5

Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1994 and Forecast 2010 ........................... A-8

Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1993 to 1994 ................................. A-11

Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1993 to 1994 ...................................... A-14

Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements ....................................... A-17

Table A-7. Total IFR Aircraft Handled at ARTCCs ............................................... A-22

Figure A-1. Traffic Handled by ARTCCs, FY93 and FY94 ...................................... A-20

Figure A-2. Traffic Handled by ARTCCs, FY94 and Forecast FY06 ....................... A-21
Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix A – 2

Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1992, 1993, and 19941

Airport Enplanements Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY92 FY 93 FY94 FY92 FY93 FY94

1. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1994 enplanements.

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 1 29,977,166 30,252,671 30,549,625 838,093 851,865 883,480

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 2 25,714,727 25,143,882 25,514,422 763,372 789,183 831,135

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 3 20,154,271 22,279,277 25,364,630 611,889 658,414 699,400

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 4 22,942,945 23,019,470 24,457,010 678,398 681,845 687,627

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 5 15,259,820 15,183,917 16,146,552 424,829 423,404 430,380

Denver Stapleton Int’l Airport DEN 6 14,489,862 15,032,318 15,755,747 499,001 552,238 546,305

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 7 12,587,420 13,691,750 14,561,222 486,222 527,545 550,194

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 8 13,457,175 12,960,386 13,627,089 328,528 351,205 352,494

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 9 12,002,142 12,413,976 13,564,615 403,978 431,944 441,997

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 10 10,991,691 11,408,450 12,666,331 413,544 460,009 479,738

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 11 10,958,285 11,273,726 12,397,443 487,615 520,403 507,698

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 12 9,883,375 10,282,461 12,321,672 407,668 439,393 488,347

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 13 10,974,082 11,067,239 11,789,385 482,582 495,347 478,660

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 14 11,224,612 11,002,537 11,425,428 413,725 365,195 357,116

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 15 10,639,116 10,865,387 11,410,274 404,243 442,341 454,441

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 16 10,476,861 9,673,790 11,084,346 429,473 441,142 466,639

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 17 9,989,092 10,258,281 10,531,965 294,387 327,199 344,213

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 18 9,853,796 9,635,072 10,192,077 337,279 335,071 335,539

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 19 8,773,365 8,843,265 10,138,818 346,180 339,968 345,052

Houston Intercontinental Airport IAH 20 8,977,522 9,378,643 10,118,565 320,243 352,340 352,385

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 21 9,099,577 8,450,749 9,978,607 466,351 446,315 471,128

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 22 9,350,221 9,040,795 9,743,873 421,903 419,581 435,433

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 23 7,898,926 7,985,716 8,352,442 377,033 390,736 402,845

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 24 6,510,026 6,873,589 8,094,932 316,783 324,595 343,807

Washington National Airport DCA 25 7,350,639 7,552,956 7,553,357 312,014 316,762 316,790

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 26 5,780,241 5,998,493 6,613,563 304,214 306,811 333,832

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 27 5,923,072 5,833,845 6,277,920 214,844 209,267 215,215

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 28 4,397,927 4,330,738 5,987,160 265,844 261,674 286,392

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 29 4,793,304 4,807,050 5,890,451 229,470 240,425 263,541

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 30 5,351,969 5,204,382 5,473,123 287,111 277,483 296,201

Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l FLL 31 4,109,796 4,335,601 5,267,460 204,183 217,786 233,044

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 32 4,275,301 4,305,049 5,059,209 237,216 247,502 260,485

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 33 3,488,096 4,125,162 4,845,429 269,445 280,263 277,000

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 34 4,939,336 4,849,312 4,562,270 289,462 294,066 283,713

San Juan Luis Muìoz Marîn Int’l SJU 35 4,192,629 4,359,528 4,524,337 205,560 180,567 174,598

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 36 3,697,822 3,845,223 4,347,493 176,754 184,848 198,274

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 37 5,068,030 4,667,875 4,261,810 302,030 318,886 295,558

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 38 2,029,154 2,688,126 4,032,093 184,000 189,755 254,570

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 39 3,472,459 3,250,227 3,969,405 342,918 312,405 298,220

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 40 3,958,537 3,737,696 3,966,916 344,655 337,608 345,534

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 41 4,008,376 4,073,080 3,915,653 242,999 239,634 236,683

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 42 3,194,132 3,465,242 3,888,728 419,233 439,214 470,901
1995 ACE Plan Appendix A: Aviation Statistics

Appendix A – 3

1. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1994 enplanements.

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 43 3,353,301 3,351,524 3,886,126 137,373 141,384 167,375

Dallas-Love Field DAL 44 2,944,999 3,117,194 3,374,457 212,049 212,854 217,331

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 45 2,769,936 2,861,867 3,281,861 557,442 494,378 509,220

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 46 3,042,508 3,039,228 3,178,766 152,935 152,914 158,635

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 47 3,139,736 2,971,961 3,051,267 247,553 238,789 237,937

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 48 2,626,486 2,731,804 2,989,398 211,601 209,567 220,914

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 49 2,730,976 2,791,944 2,950,234 210,063 219,305 238,277

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 50 2,552,734 2,575,203 2,813,709 162,995 169,272 149,053

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 51 2,358,548 2,453,287 2,759,950 224,598 217,049 223,633

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 52 2,514,095 2,458,672 2,747,903 225,784 230,903 216,480

Kahului Airport OGG 53 2,385,649 2,492,404 2,597,947 179,808 173,002 176,209

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 54 1,859,191 2,233,912 2,539,035 161,839 162,441 161,190

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal AUS 55 2,169,135 2,263,168 2,461,562 186,796 188,026 192,040

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 56 2,157,207 2,192,294 2,421,191 202,286 198,529 213,602

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 57 1,913,912 2,065,167 2,363,029 214,361 207,460 194,264

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 58 2,326,590 2,279,198 2,310,816 175,109 166,889 163,180

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 59 2,207,769 2,150,031 2,262,242 236,719 218,279 215,641

Fort Myers SW Florida Regional RSW 60 1,692,442 1,765,317 1,923,630 62,578 66,004 64,849

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 61 1,340,963 1,323,935 1,889,410 146,436 129,683 142,821

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 62 1,702,205 1,752,724 1,813,373 159,710 151,284 157,984

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 63 1,652,888 1,542,765 1,799,528 136,043 142,136 145,221

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 64 924,267 924,014 1,765,586 130,026 126,446 157,401

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 65 1,261,896 1,242,831 1,687,526 138,084 134,564 141,861

Oklahoma City Airport OKC 66 1,543,566 1,517,153 1,609,280 163,336 142,492 146,759

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 67 1,254,597 1,252,877 1,574,478 235,309 228,877 249,729

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 68 1,036,889 1,120,238 1,529,744 156,083 155,941 179,921

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 69 1,459,558 1,452,482 1,499,641 196,835 188,009 198,332

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 70 922,609 1,045,450 1,314,183 124,506 122,350 122,615

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 71 1,181,284 1,156,295 1,257,907 194,764 188,072 189,372

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 72 1,099,107 1,033,601 1,230,863 149,879 132,234 154,481

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 73 1,044,502 1,092,665 1,200,138 162,439 171,399 173,126

Providence Green State Airport PVD 74 1,155,961 1,111,990 1,192,157 146,937 125,442 123,195

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 75 1,085,448 1,046,753 1,161,797 155,058 143,739 154,154

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 76 1,022,344 1,117,538 1,106,614 61,172 60,393 66,821

Birmingham Airport BHM 77 981,175 1,018,261 1,099,815 175,986 168,074 161,638

Lihue Airport LIH 78 1,111,730 768,822 1,084,800 123,105 57,686 92,542

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 79 965,661 996,126 1,077,193 145,079 154,925 153,589

Bangor Int’l Airport BGR 80 1,032,756 1,026,173 1,074,098 112,955 107,657 93,048

Albany County Airport ALB 81 1,047,000 1,022,257 1,062,679 162,225 160,587 158,658

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 82 1,133,554 1,085,866 1,045,438 176,567 180,936 158,677

Boise Air Terminal BOI 83 647,554 697,665 903,673 161,434 155,166 163,306

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 84 882,365 876,042 859,917 161,749 152,722 147,115

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 85 645,762 629,901 851,276 135,599 114,427 151,674

Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1992, 1993, and 19941

Airport Enplanements Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY92 FY 93 FY94 FY92 FY93 FY94
Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix A – 4

1. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1994 enplanements.

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 86 712,144 733,632 786,073 228,714 246,732 239,885

Grand Rapids Kent County Int’l GRR 87 699,669 708,617 754,480 152,260 150,313 154,264

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 88 553,026 574,846 708,165 60,561 56,855 62,526

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 89 703,736 664,337 702,798 89,284 91,903 90,802

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 90 663,462 671,998 676,968 95,916 86,427 82,405

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 91 715,603 663,453 675,356 139,135 128,797 133,954

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 92 628,219 642,658 647,019 130,640 130,368 128,032

Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas STT 93 583,817 630,855 620,085 108,796 105,217 109,958

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 94 583,156 596,088 600,773 113,035 103,112 104,968

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 95 571,314 546,102 600,529 202,008 195,198 189,663

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 96 608,208 570,925 582,069 117,121 126,353 114,162

Midland Int’l Airport MAF 97 532,202 544,189 551,273 92,464 93,294 92,853

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 98 503,890 483,833 549,891 110,621 104,681 97,509

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 99 512,586 491,472 549,377 105,585 103,202 108,410

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 100 602,048 592,633 544,439 178,853 174,527 167,757

Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1992, 1993, and 19941

Airport Enplanements Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY92 FY 93 FY94 FY92 FY93 FY94

Totals: 1992 Enplanements ........................................... 474,270,830

1993 Enplanements .................................................................. 480,211,169

1994 Enplanements .........................................................................................522,376,979

1992 Operations .................................................................................................................. 25,283,469

1993 Operations ................................................................................................................................... 25,381,499

1994 Operations ..................................................................................................................................................... 26,107,622
1995 ACE Plan Appendix A: Aviation Statistics

Appendix A – 5

Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1994 and Forecast 20102

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY94 FY2010 % Growth

2. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1994 enplanements.

3. Stats are for Denver Stapleton, as the new Denver International has not been operational for a full fiscal year.

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 1 30,549,625 55,945,000 83.1

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 2 25,514,422 51,830,000 103.1

William B. Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 3 25,364,630 40,991,000 61.6

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 4 24,457,010 36,326,000 48.5

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 5 16,146,552 28,854,000 78.7

Denver Stapleton Int’l Airport 3 DEN 6 15,755,747 26,222,000 66.4

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 7 14,561,222 26,397,000 81.3

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 8 13,627,089 19,797,000 45.3

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 9 13,564,615 20,186,000 48.8

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport DTW 10 12,666,331 27,449,000 116.7

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 11 12,397,443 26,992,000 117.7

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 12 12,321,672 24,834,000 101.5

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 13 11,789,385 20,200,000 71.3

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 14 11,425,428 21,820,000 91.0

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 15 11,410,274 22,058,000 93.3

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 16 11,084,346 19,602,000 76.8

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 17 10,531,965 25,269,000 139.9

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 18 10,192,077 18,096,000 77.5

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 19 10,138,818 19,282,000 90.2

Houston Intercontinental Airport IAH 20 10,118,565 19,226,000 90.0

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 21 9,978,607 21,525,000 115.7

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 22 9,743,873 16,560,000 70.0

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 23 8,352,442 18,972,000 127.1

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 24 8,094,932 19,325,000 138.7

Washington National Airport DCA 25 7,553,357 10,028,000 32.8

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 26 6,613,563 16,152,000 144.2

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 27 6,277,920 11,177,000 78.0

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 28 5,987,160 13,257,000 121.4

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 29 5,890,451 10,361,000 75.9

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 30 5,473,123 12,577,000 129.8

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l Airport FLL 31 5,267,460 10,058,000 90.9

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 32 5,059,209 9,615,000 90.0

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 33 4,845,429 9,827,000 102.8

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 34 4,562,270 5,232,000 14.7

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín Int’l Airport SJU 35 4,524,337 7,933,000 75.3

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 36 4,347,493 6,574,000 51.2

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 37 4,261,810 9,909,000 132.5

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 38 4,032,093 10,830,000 168.6

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 39 3,969,405 9,105,000 129.4

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 40 3,966,916 11,123,000 180.4

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 41 3,915,653 10,011,000 155.7

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 42 3,888,728 6,839,000 75.9
Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix A – 6

Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1994 and Forecast 20102

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY94 FY2010 % Growth

2. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1994 enplanements.

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 43 3,886,126 5,591,000 43.9

Dallas-Love Field DAL 44 3,374,457 7,381,000 118.7

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 45 3,281,861 8,228,000 150.7

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 46 3,178,766 8,193,000 157.7

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 47 3,051,267 6,475,000 112.2

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 48 2,989,398 5,989,000 100.3

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 49 2,950,234 5,410,000 83.4

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 50 2,813,709 5,282,000 87.7

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 51 2,759,950 4,644,000 68.3

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 52 2,747,903 5,225,000 90.1

Kahului Airport OGG 53 2,597,947 4,568,000 75.8

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 54 2,539,035 6,125,000 141.2

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport AUS 55 2,461,562 4,978,000 102.2

Milwaukee General Mitchell Int’l Airport MKE 56 2,421,191 4,633,000 91.4

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 57 2,363,029 4,135,000 75.0

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 58 2,310,816 4,572,000 97.9

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 59 2,262,242 4,143,000 83.1

Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional Airport RSW 60 1,923,630 5,255,000 173.2

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 61 1,889,410 3,719,000 96.8

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 62 1,813,373 3,199,000 76.4

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 63 1,799,528 3,069,000 70.5

Greensboro Piedmont Triad Int’l Airport GSO 64 1,765,586 3,690,000 109.0

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 65 1,687,526 3,148,000 86.5

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Airport OKC 66 1,609,280 2,662,000 65.4

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 67 1,574,478 2,726,000 73.1

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 68 1,529,744 2,995,000 95.8

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 69 1,499,641 2,768,000 84.6

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 70 1,314,183 2,056,000 56.4

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 71 1,257,907 3,019,000 140.0

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 72 1,230,863 3,689,000 199.7

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 73 1,200,138 2,559,000 113.2

Providence Theodore Francis Green State Airport PVD 74 1,192,157 2,710,000 127.3

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 75 1,161,797 2,019,000 73.8

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 76 1,106,614 3,267,000 195.2

Birmingham Airport BHM 77 1,099,815 2,208,000 100.8

Lihue Airport LIH 78 1,084,800 2,063,000 90.2

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 79 1,077,193 2,273,000 111.0

Bangor Int’l Airport BGR 80 1,074,098 1,810,000 68.5

Albany County Airport ALB 81 1,062,679 1,933,000 81.9

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 82 1,045,438 2,585,000 147.3

Boise Air Terminal BOI 83 903,673 1,999,000 121.2
1995 ACE Plan Appendix A: Aviation Statistics

Appendix A – 7

Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1994 and Forecast 20102

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY94 FY2010 % Growth

2. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1994 enplanements.

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 84 859,917 1,254,000 45.8

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 85 851,276 1,679,000 97.2

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 86 786,073 1,645,000 109.3

Grand Rapids Kent County Int’l Airport GRR 87 754,480 1,543,000 104.5

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 88 708,165 1,668,000 135.5

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 89 702,798 1,834,000 161.0

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 90 676,968 1,320,000 95.0

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 91 675,356 1,325,000 96.2

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 92 647,019 1,178,000 82.1

Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, Virgin Islands STT 93 620,085 1,306,000 110.6

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 94 600,773 900,000 49.8

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 95 600,529 1,589,000 164.6

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 96 582,069 1,526,000 162.2

Midland Int’l Airport MAF 97 551,273 1,062,000 92.6

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 98 549,891 1,291,000 134.8

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 99 549,377 1,274,000 131.9

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 100 544,439 1,049,000 92.7

Totals: 1994 Enplanements ....................................................... 522,376,979

2010 Enplanements .................................................................................. 994,802,000

Average forecast growth at the top 100 airports for the 16 year period ............................................ 90.4
Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix A – 8

Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1994 and Forecast 20104

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY94 FY2010 % Growth

4. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1994 operations.

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 1 883,480 966,000 9.3

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 2 831,135 1,118,000 34.5

William B. Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 3 699,400 1,012,000 44.7

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 4 687,627 905,000 31.6

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 5 550,194 802,000 45.8

Denver Stapleton Int’l Airport DEN 6 546,305 633,000 15.9

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 7 509,220 631,000 23.9

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 8 507,698 677,000 33.3

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 9 488,347 729,000 49.3

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport DTW 10 479,738 721,000 50.3

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 11 478,660 585,000 22.2

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 12 471,128 728,000 54.5

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 13 470,901 553,000 17.4

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 14 466,639 585,000 25.4

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 15 454,441 693,000 52.5

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 16 441,997 485,000 9.7

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 17 435,433 568,000 30.4

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 18 430,380 540,000 25.5

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 19 402,845 574,000 42.5

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 20 357,116 497,000 39.2

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 21 352,494 411,000 16.6

Houston Intercontinental Airport IAH 22 352,385 467,000 32.5

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 23 345,534 469,000 35.7

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 24 345,052 499,000 44.6

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 25 344,213 601,000 74.6

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 26 343,807 500,000 45.4

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 27 335,539 361,000 7.6

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 28 333,832 619,000 85.4

Washington National Airport DCA 29 316,790 345,000 8.9

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 30 298,220 308,000 3.3

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 31 296,201 490,000 65.4

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 32 295,558 409,000 38.4

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 33 286,392 397,000 38.6

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 34 283,713 216,000 -23.9

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 35 277,000 404,000 45.8

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 36 263,541 325,000 23.3

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 37 260,485 374,000 43.6

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 38 254,570 372,000 46.1

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 39 249,729 257,000 2.9

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 40 239,885 377,000 57.2

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 41 238,277 263,000 10.4

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 42 237,937 341,000 43.3
1995 ACE Plan Appendix A: Aviation Statistics

Appendix A – 9

Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1994 and Forecast 20104

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY94 FY2010 % Growth

4. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1994 operations.

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 43 236,683 347,000 46.6

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l Airport FLL 44 233,044 306,000 31.3

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 45 223,633 300,000 34.1

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 46 220,914 249,000 12.7

Dallas-Love Field DAL 47 217,331 224,000 3.1

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 48 216,480 249,000 15.0

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 49 215,641 267,000 23.8

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 50 215,215 322,000 49.6

Milwaukee General Mitchell Int’l Airport MKE 51 213,602 278,000 30.1

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 52 198,332 174,000 -12.3

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 53 198,274 233,000 17.5

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 54 194,264 247,000 27.1

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport AUS 55 192,040 245,000 27.6

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 56 189,663 178,000 -6.1

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 57 189,372 213,000 12.5

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 58 179,921 247,000 37.3

Kahului Airport OGG 59 176,209 195,000 10.7

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín Int’l Airport SJU 60 174,598 200,000 14.5

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 61 173,126 195,000 12.6

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 62 167,757 242,000 44.3

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 63 167,375 200,000 19.5

Boise Air Terminal BOI 64 163,306 268,000 64.1

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 65 163,180 206,000 26.2

Birmingham Airport BHM 66 161,638 174,000 7.6

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 67 161,190 222,000 37.7

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 68 158,677 198,000 24.8

Albany County Airport ALB 69 158,658 184,000 16.0

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 70 158,635 261,000 64.5

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 71 157,984 166,000 5.1

Greensboro Piedmont Triad Int’l Airport GSO 72 157,401 201,000 27.7

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 73 154,481 215,000 39.2

Grand Rapids Kent County Int’l Airport GRR 74 154,264 217,000 40.7

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 75 154,154 187,000 21.3

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 76 153,589 179,000 16.5

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 77 151,674 159,000 4.8

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 78 149,053 198,000 32.8

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 79 147,115 162,000 10.1

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Airport OKC 80 146,759 147,000 0.2

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 81 145,221 181,000 24.6

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 82 142,821 182,000 27.4

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 83 141,861 161,000 13.5

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 84 133,954 160,000 19.4
Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix A – 10

Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1994 and Forecast 20104

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY94 FY2010 % Growth

4. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1994 operations.

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 85 128,032 148,000 15.6

Providence Green State Airport PVD 86 123,195 139,000 12.8

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 87 122,615 142,000 15.8

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 88 114,162 135,000 18.3

Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, Virgin Islands STT 89 109,958 150,000 36.4

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 90 108,410 117,000 7.9

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 91 104,968 109,000 3.8

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 92 97,509 116,000 19.0

Bangor Int’l Airport BGR 93 93,048 109,000 17.1

Midland Int’l Airport MAF 94 92,853 72,000 -22.5

Lihue Airport LIH 95 92,542 110,000 18.9

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 96 90,802 137,000 50.9

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 97 82,405 91,000 10.4

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 98 66,821 126,000 88.6

Fort Myers SWFlorida Regional Airport RSW 99 64,849 122,000 88.1

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 100 62,526 78,000 24.7

Totals: 1994 Operations ............................................................................ 26,107,622

2010 Operations ............................................................................................................ 33,847,000

Average forecast growth at the top 100 airports for the 16 year period ............................................................ 29.6
1995 ACE Plan Appendix A: Aviation Statistics

Appendix A – 11

Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1993 to 19945

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY93 FY94 % Growth

5. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total enplanments.

Greensboro Piedmont Triad Int’l Airport GSO 1 924,014 1,765,586 91.1

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 2 2,688,126 4,032,093 50.0

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 3 1,323,935 1,889,410 42.7

Lihue Airport LIH 4 768,822 1,084,800 41.1

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 5 4,330,738 5,987,160 38.2

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 6 1,120,238 1,529,744 36.6

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 7 1,242,831 1,687,526 35.8

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 8 629,901 851,276 35.1

Boise Air Terminal BOI 9 697,665 903,673 29.5

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 10 1,045,450 1,314,183 25.7

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 11 1,252,877 1,574,478 25.7

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 12 574,846 708,165 23.2

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 13 4,807,050 5,890,451 22.5

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 14 3,250,227 3,969,405 22.1

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l Airport FLL 15 4,335,601 5,267,460 21.5

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 16 10,282,461 12,321,672 19.8

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 17 1,033,601 1,230,863 19.1

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 18 8,450,749 9,978,607 18.1

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 19 6,873,589 8,094,932 17.8

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 20 4,305,049 5,059,209 17.5

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 21 4,125,162 4,845,429 17.5

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 22 1,542,765 1,799,528 16.6

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 23 3,351,524 3,886,126 16.0

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 24 2,861,867 3,281,861 14.7

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 25 8,843,265 10,138,818 14.7

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 26 9,673,790 11,084,346 14.6

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 27 2,065,167 2,363,029 14.4

William B. Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 28 22,279,277 25,364,630 13.8

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 29 2,233,912 2,539,035 13.7

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 30 483,833 549,891 13.7

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 31 3,845,223 4,347,493 13.1

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 32 2,453,287 2,759,950 12.5

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 33 3,465,242 3,888,728 12.2

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 34 491,472 549,377 11.8

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 35 2,458,672 2,747,903 11.8

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport DTW 36 11,408,450 12,666,331 11.0

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 37 1,046,753 1,161,797 11.0

Milwaukee General Mitchell Int’l Airport MKE 38 2,192,294 2,421,191 10.4

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 39 5,998,493 6,613,563 10.3

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 40 11,273,726 12,397,443 10.0

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 41 546,102 600,529 10.0

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 42 1,092,665 1,200,138 9.8
Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix A – 12

Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1993 to 19945

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY93 FY94 % Growth

5. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total enplanments.

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 43 2,731,804 2,989,398 9.4

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 44 12,413,976 13,564,615 9.3

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 45 2,575,203 2,813,709 9.3

Fort Myers SW Florida Regional Airport RSW 46 1,765,317 1,923,630 9.0

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 47 1,156,295 1,257,907 8.8

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport AUS 48 2,263,168 2,461,562 8.8

Dallas-Love Field DAL 49 3,117,194 3,374,457 8.3

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 50 996,126 1,077,193 8.1

Birmingham Airport BHM 51 1,018,261 1,099,815 8.0

Houston Intercontinental Airport IAH 52 9,378,643 10,118,565 7.9

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 53 9,040,795 9,743,873 7.8

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 54 5,833,845 6,277,920 7.6

Providence Green State Airport PVD 55 1,111,990 1,192,157 7.2

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 56 733,632 786,073 7.1

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 57 11,067,239 11,789,385 6.5

Grand Rapids Kent County Int’l Airport GRR 58 708,617 754,480 6.5

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 59 13,691,750 14,561,222 6.4

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 60 15,183,917 16,146,552 6.3

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 61 23,019,470 24,457,010 6.2

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 62 3,737,696 3,966,916 6.1

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Airport OKC 63 1,517,153 1,609,280 6.1

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 64 664,337 702,798 5.8

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 65 9,635,072 10,192,077 5.8

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 66 2,791,944 2,950,234 5.7

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 67 2,150,031 2,262,242 5.2

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 68 5,204,382 5,473,123 5.2

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 69 12,960,386 13,627,089 5.1

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 70 10,865,387 11,410,274 5.0

Denver Stapleton Int’l Airport DEN 71 15,032,318 15,755,747 4.8

Bangor Int’l Airport BGR 72 1,026,173 1,074,098 4.7

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 73 7,985,716 8,352,442 4.6

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 74 3,039,228 3,178,766 4.6

Kahului Airport OGG 75 2,492,404 2,597,947 4.2

Albany County Airport ALB 76 1,022,257 1,062,679 4.0

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 77 11,002,537 11,425,428 3.8

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín Int’l Airport SJU 78 4,359,528 4,524,337 3.8

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 79 1,752,724 1,813,373 3.5

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 80 1,452,482 1,499,641 3.2

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 81 2,971,961 3,051,267 2.7

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 82 10,258,281 10,531,965 2.7

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 83 570,925 582,069 2.0

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 84 663,453 675,356 1.8
1995 ACE Plan Appendix A: Aviation Statistics

Appendix A – 13

Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1993 to 19945

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY93 FY94 % Growth

5. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total enplanments.

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 85 25,143,882 25,514,422 1.5

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 86 2,279,198 2,310,816 1.4

Midland Int’l Airport MAF 87 544,189 551,273 1.3

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 88 30,252,671 30,549,625 1.0

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 89 596,088 600,773 0.8

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 90 671,998 676,968 0.7

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 91 642,658 647,019 0.7

Washington National Airport DCA 92 7,552,956 7,553,357 0.0

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 93 1,117,538 1,106,614 -1.0

Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, Virgin Islands STT 94 630,855 620,085 -1.7

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 95 876,042 859,917 -1.8

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 96 1,085,866 1,045,438 -3.7

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 97 4,073,080 3,915,653 -3.9

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 98 4,849,312 4,562,270 -5.9

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 99 592,633 544,439 -8.1

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 100 4,667,875 4,261,810 -8.7

Totals: 1993 Enplanements ...................................................................... 480,211,169

1994 Enplanements ................................................................................................. 522,376,979

Average forecast growth at the top 100 airports ............................................................................................. 8.8
Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix A – 14

Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1993 to 19946

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY93 FY94 % Growth

6. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total operations.

Lihue Airport LIH 1 57,686 92,542 60.4

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 2 189,755 254,570 34.2

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 3 114,427 151,674 32.6

Greensboro Piedmont Triad Int’l Airport GSO 4 126,446 157,401 24.5

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 5 141,384 167,375 18.4

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 6 132,234 154,481 16.8

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 7 155,941 179,921 15.4

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 8 439,393 488,347 11.1

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 9 60,393 66,821 10.6

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 10 129,683 142,821 10.1

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 11 56,855 62,526 10.0

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 12 240,425 263,541 9.6

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 13 261,674 286,392 9.4

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 14 228,877 249,729 9.1

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 15 306,811 333,832 8.8

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 16 219,305 238,277 8.7

Milwaukee General Mitchell Int’l Airport MKE 17 198,529 213,602 7.6

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 18 184,848 198,274 7.3

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 19 143,739 154,154 7.2

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 20 439,214 470,901 7.2

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l Airport FLL 21 217,786 233,044 7.0

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 22 277,483 296,201 6.7

William B. Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 23 658,414 699,400 6.2

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 24 324,595 343,807 5.9

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 25 441,142 466,639 5.8

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 26 446,315 471,128 5.6

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 27 188,009 198,332 5.5

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 28 134,564 141,861 5.4

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 29 209,567 220,914 5.4

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 30 789,183 831,135 5.3

Boise Air Terminal BOI 31 155,166 163,306 5.2

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 32 247,502 260,485 5.2

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 33 327,199 344,213 5.2

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 34 103,202 108,410 5.0

Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, Virgin Islands STT 35 105,217 109,958 4.5

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 36 151,284 157,984 4.4

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 37 527,545 550,194 4.3

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport DTW 38 460,009 479,738 4.3

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 39 128,797 133,954 4.0

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 40 419,581 435,433 3.8

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 41 152,914 158,635 3.7

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 42 851,865 883,480 3.7
1995 ACE Plan Appendix A: Aviation Statistics

Appendix A – 15

Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1993 to 19946

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY93 FY94 % Growth

6. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total operations.

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 43 390,736 402,845 3.1

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 44 217,049 223,633 3.0

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 45 494,378 509,220 3.0

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Airport OKC 46 142,492 146,759 3.0

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 47 209,267 215,215 2.8

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 48 442,341 454,441 2.7

Grand Rapids Kent County Int’l Airport GRR 49 150,313 154,264 2.6

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 50 337,608 345,534 2.3

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 51 431,944 441,997 2.3

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 52 142,136 145,221 2.2

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport AUS 53 188,026 192,040 2.1

Dallas-Love Field DAL 54 212,854 217,331 2.1

Kahului Airport OGG 55 173,002 176,209 1.9

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 56 103,112 104,968 1.8

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 57 423,404 430,380 1.6

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 58 339,968 345,052 1.5

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 59 171,399 173,126 1.0

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 60 681,845 687,627 0.8

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 61 188,072 189,372 0.7

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 62 351,205 352,494 0.4

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 63 122,350 122,615 0.2

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 64 335,071 335,539 0.1

Houston Intercontinental Airport IAH 65 352,340 352,385 0.0

Washington National Airport DCA 66 316,762 316,790 0.0

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 67 238,789 237,937 -0.4

Midland Int’l Airport MAF 68 93,294 92,853 -0.5

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 69 162,441 161,190 -0.8

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 70 154,925 153,589 -0.9

Denver Stapleton Int’l Airport DEN 71 552,238 546,305 -1.1

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 72 280,263 277,000 -1.2

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 73 91,903 90,802 -1.2

Albany County Airport ALB 74 160,587 158,658 -1.2

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 75 218,279 215,641 -1.2

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 76 239,634 236,683 -1.2

Fort Myers SW Florida Regional Airport RSW 77 66,004 64,849 -1.7

Providence Green State Airport PVD 78 125,442 123,195 -1.8

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 79 130,368 128,032 -1.8

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 80 365,195 357,116 -2.2

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 81 166,889 163,180 -2.2

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 82 520,403 507,698 -2.4

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 83 246,732 239,885 -2.8

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 84 195,198 189,663 -2.8
Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix A – 16

Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1993 to 19946

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY93 FY94 % Growth

6. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total operations.

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín Int’l Airport SJU 85 180,567 174,598 -3.3

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 86 495,347 478,660 -3.4

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 87 294,066 283,713 -3.5

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 88 152,722 147,115 -3.7

Birmingham Airport BHM 89 168,074 161,638 -3.8

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 90 174,527 167,757 -3.9

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 91 312,405 298,220 -4.5

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 92 86,427 82,405 -4.7

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 93 230,903 216,480 -6.2

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 94 207,460 194,264 -6.4

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 95 104,681 97,509 -6.9

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 96 318,886 295,558 -7.3

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 97 126,353 114,162 -9.6

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 98 169,272 149,053 -11.9

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 99 180,936 158,677 -12.3

Bangor Int’l Airport BGR 100 107,657 93,048 -13.6

Totals: 1993 Operations ................................................................................. 25,381,499

1994 Operations ......................................................................................................... 26,107,622

Average forecast growth at the top 100 airports ........................................................................................... 2.9
1995 ACE Plan Appendix A: Aviation Statistics

Appendix A – 17

Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements7

Airport % Growth in Enplanements % Growth in Operations

City-Airport ID FY93-FY94 FY94-FY2010 FY93-FY94 FY94-FY2010

7. At the top 100 airports, listed in alphabetical order by Airport Identifier.

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 9.4 100.3 5.4 12.7

Albany County Airport ALB 4 81.9 -1.2 16

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 5.2 83.1 -1.2 23.8

William B. Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 13.8 61.6 6.2 44.7

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport AUS 8.8 102.2 2.1 27.6

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 1.4 97.9 -2.2 26.2

Bangor Int’l Airport BGR 4.7 68.5 -13.6 17.1

Birmingham Airport BHM 8 100.8 -3.8 7.6

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA -8.7 132.5 -7.3 38.4

Boise Air Terminal BOI 29.5 121.2 5.2 64.1

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 6.5 71.3 -3.4 22.2

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 16.6 70.5 2.2 24.6

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 14.4 75 -6.4 27.1

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 38.2 121.4 9.4 38.6

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 11.8 131.9 5 7.9

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 35.1 97.2 32.6 4.8

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 17.5 90 5.2 43.6

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 18.1 115.7 5.6 54.5

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 12.5 68.3 3 34.1

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 7.1 109.3 -2.8 57.2

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 10.3 144.2 8.8 85.4

Dallas-Love Field DAL 8.3 118.7 2.1 3.1

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 19.1 199.7 16.8 39.2

Washington National Airport DCA 0 32.8 0 8.9

Denver Stapleton Int’l Airport DEN 4.8 66.4 -1.1 15.9

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 1.5 103.1 5.3 34.5

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 1.8 96.2 4 19.4

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport DTW 11 116.7 4.3 50.3

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 3.5 76.4 4.4 5.1

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 9.3 48.8 2.3 9.7

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l Airport FLL 21.5 90.9 7 31.3

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 25.7 56.4 0.2 15.8

Grand Rapids Kent County Int’l Airport GRR 6.5 104.5 2.6 40.7

Greensboro Piedmont Triad Int’l Airport GSO 91.1 109 24.5 27.7

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 23.2 135.5 10 24.7

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 3.8 91 -2.2 39.2

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU -3.9 155.7 -1.2 46.6

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 5.2 129.8 6.7 65.4

Houston Intercontinental Airport IAH 7.9 90 0 32.5

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT -8.1 92.7 -3.9 44.3

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 2.7 112.2 -0.4 43.3

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 10 164.6 -2.8 -6.1
Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix A – 18

7. At the top 100 airports, listed in alphabetical order by Airport Identifier.

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 5.8 161 -1.2 50.9

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 42.7 96.8 10.1 27.4

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 5.1 45.3 0.4 16.6

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA -1 195.2 10.6 88.6

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 19.8 101.5 11.1 49.3

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 6.2 48.5 0.8 31.6

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 0.8 49.8 1.8 3.8

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 5.8 77.5 0.1 7.6

Lihue Airport LIH 41.1 90.2 60.4 18.9

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 9.8 113.2 1 12.6

Midland Int’l Airport MAF 1.3 92.6 -0.5 -22.5

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 13.1 51.2 7.3 17.5

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 2.7 139.9 5.2 74.6

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 0.7 95 -4.7 10.4

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 50 168.6 34.2 46.1

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 6.1 180.4 2.3 35.7

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 6.4 81.3 4.3 45.8

Milwaukee General Mitchell Int’l Airport MKE 10.4 91.4 7.6 30.1

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 5 93.3 2.7 52.5

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 16 43.9 18.4 19.5

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 12.2 75.9 7.2 17.4

Kahului Airport OGG 4.2 75.8 1.9 10.7

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Airport OKC 6.1 65.4 3 0.2

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 11 73.8 7.2 21.3

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 4.6 157.7 3.7 64.5

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 1 83.1 3.7 9.3

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 35.8 86.5 5.4 13.5

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 11.8 90.1 -6.2 15

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 17.5 102.8 -1.2 45.8

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 4.6 127.1 3.1 42.5

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 10 117.7 -2.4 33.3

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 7.8 70 3.8 30.4

Providence Green State Airport PVD 7.2 127.3 -1.8 12.8

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 2 162.2 -9.6 18.3

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU -5.9 14.7 -3.5 -23.9

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 8.1 111 -0.9 16.5

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 13.7 141.2 -0.8 37.7

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 8.8 140 0.7 12.5

Fort Myers SW Florida Regional Airport RSW 9 173.2 -1.7 88.1

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 7.6 78 2.8 49.6

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 5.7 83.4 8.7 10.4

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 13.7 134.8 -6.9 19

Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements7

Airport % Growth in Enplanements % Growth in Operations

City-Airport ID FY93-FY94 FY94-FY2010 FY93-FY94 FY94-FY2010
1995 ACE Plan Appendix A: Aviation Statistics

Appendix A – 19

7. At the top 100 airports, listed in alphabetical order by Airport Identifier.

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 36.6 95.8 15.4 37.3

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 14.7 90.2 1.5 44.6

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 6.3 78.7 1.6 25.5

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 22.1 129.4 -4.5 3.3

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín Int’l Airport SJU 3.8 75.3 -3.3 14.5

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 17.8 138.7 5.9 45.4

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 9.3 87.7 -11.9 32.8

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 14.7 150.7 3 23.9

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ -1.8 45.8 -3.7 10.1

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 14.6 76.8 5.8 25.4

Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, Virgin Islands STT -1.7 110.6 4.5 36.4

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR -3.7 147.3 -12.3 24.8

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 22.5 75.9 9.6 23.3

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 3.2 84.6 5.5 -12.3

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 25.7 73.1 9.1 2.9

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 0.7 82.1 -1.8 15.6

Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements7

Airport % Growth in Enplanements % Growth in Operations

City-Airport ID FY93-FY94 FY94-FY2010 FY93-FY94 FY94-FY2010

Totals: Average growth at the top 100 airports .............................. 8.8 ...................................................... 2.9

Average forecast growth at the top 100 airports for the 16 year period ...... 90.4 ........................ 29.6
Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix A – 20

Figure A-1. Traffic Handled by ARTCCs, FY93 and FY94

Air Carrier (50.71%)

Air Taxi/Commuter (16.47%)

General Aviation (20.06%)

Military (12.76%)

Air Carrier (51.52%)

Air Taxi/Commuter (16.75%)

General Aviation (19.93%)

Military (11.80%)

FY93

Total IFR Operations

36.7 Million

FY94

Total IFR Operations

38.3 Million
1995 ACE Plan Appendix A: Aviation Statistics

Appendix A – 21

Figure A-2. Traffic Handled by ARTCCs, FY94 and Forecast FY06

Air Carrier (51.52%)

Air Taxi/Commuter (16.75%)

General Aviation (19.93%)

Military (11.80%)

Air Carrier (54.12%)

Air Taxi/Commuter (18.67%)

General Aviation (18.23%)

Military (8.98%)

FY06

Total IFR Operations

50.9 Million

FY94

Total IFR Operations

38.3 Million
Appendix A: Aviation Statistics 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix A – 22

Albuquerque (ZAB) 1,362 1,402 1,730 23.4

Atlanta (ZTL) 2,266 2,394 3,466 44.8

Boston (ZBU) 1,611 1,612 2,079 29.0

Chicago (ZAU) 2,637 2,816 3,591 27.5

Cleveland (ZOB) 2,450 2,597 4,262 64.1

Fort Worth (ZFW) 2,026 2,072 2,576 24.3

Denver (ZDV) 1,451 1,452 1,777 22.4

Houston (ZHU) 1,728 1,847 2,234 21.0

Indianapolis (ZID) 1,947 2,131 3,036 42.5

Jacksonville (ZJX) 1,708 1,796 2,246 25.1

Kansas City (ZKC) 1,789 1,866 2,714 45.4

Los Angeles (ZLA) 1,791 1,832 2,350 28.3

Memphis (ZME) 1,919 1,967 2,375 20.7

Miami (ZMA) 1,831 1,940 2,542 31.0

Minneapolis (ZMP) 1,862 1,943 2,936 51.1

New York (ZNY) 2,023 2,046 2,555 24.9

Oakland (ZOA) 1,515 1,506 1,985 31.8

Salt Lake City (ZLC) 1,355 1,348 1,805 33.9

Seattle (ZSE) 1,374 1,349 1,668 23.6

Washington (ZDC) 2,215 2,336 2,930 25.4

Source: Forecast of IFR Aircraft Handled by ARTCC FY95-06, May 1995

Table A-7. Total IFR Aircraft Handled at ARTCCs

Operations (000)

Center FY93 FY94 FY06 % Growth ’94-’06
1995 ACE Plan Appendix B: Airport Directory

Appendix B – 1

State Airport ID Where

Alaska Anchorage Int’l ANC Appendix E

Alabama Birmingham Municipal BHM Appendix E

Arkansas Little Rock Adams Field LIT Appendix D

Arizona Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l PHX Appendix D

Tucson Int’l TUS Appendix D

California Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena BUR Appendix E

Los Angeles Int’l LAX Appendix E

Oakland Metro Int’l OAK Appendix D

Ontario Int’l ONT Appendix E

Sacramento Int’l SMF Appendix E

San Diego Int’-Lindbergh Field SAN Appendix E

San Francisco Int’l SFO Appendix E

San Jose Int’l SJC Appendix E

Santa Ana/John Wayne Airport SNA Appendix D

Appendix B

Airport Diagram Directory

Cuba

Florida

Puerto

Rico

KOA

HNL OGG

ITO

ANC LIH

ABQ

ATL

AUS

BDL

BHM

BNA

BOI BOS

BUF

BUR

BWI

GSP

CHS

CLE

CLT

CMH

COS CVG

DAL

DAY

DCA

DEN

DFW

DSM

DTW

ELP

EWR

FLL

GRR

GSO

HOU

IAD

IAH

ICT

IND

JAX

LGA

LAS

LAX

LBB

JFK

LIT

MAF

MCI

MCO

MDT MDW

MEM

MIA

MKE

MSP

MSY

OAK

OKC

OMA

ONT

ORD

ORF

PBI

PDX

PHL

PHX

PIT

PVD

RDU

RIC

RNO

ROC

RSW

SAN

SAT

SDF

SEA

SFO

SJC

SLC SMF

SNA

SRQ

STL

SYR

TPA

TUL

TUS

TYS

ALB

GEG

SJU

PWM

STT

ISP

SAV

CAE

BGR
Appendix B: Airport Directory 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix B – 2

State Airport ID Where

Colorado Colorado Springs Municipal COS Appendix E

Denver Int’l Airport DEN Appendix D

Denver Stapleton Int’l (closed) DEN Appendix E

Connecticut Windsor Locks Bradley Int’l BDL Appendix E

District of Columbia Washington Dulles Int’l IAD Appendix D

Washington National DCA Appendix E

Florida Fort Lauderdale Int’l FLL Appendix D

Fort Myers SW Florida Regional RSW Appendix D

Jacksonville Int’l JAX Appendix D

Miami Int’l MIA Appendix D

Orlando Int’l MCO Appendix D

Sarasota-Bradenton SRQ Appendix D

Tampa Int’l TPA Appendix D

West Palm Beach Int’l PBI Appendix D

Georgia Atlanta Hartsfield Int’l ATL Appendix D

Savanah Airport SAV Appendix D

Hawaii Hilo General Lyman ITO Appendix E

Honolulu Int’l HNL Appendix E

Kahului OGG Appendix D

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA Appendix E

Lihue LIH Appendix E

Iowa Des Moines Int’l DSM Appendix D

Idaho Boise Air-Terminal BOI Appendix D

Illinois Chicago Midway MDW Appendix D

Chicago O’Hare Int’l ORD Appendix E

Indiana Indianapolis Int’l IND Appendix E

Kansas Wichita Mid-Continent ICT Appendix E

Kentucky Louisville Standiford Field SDF Appendix D

Louisiana New Orleans Int’l MSY Appendix D

Massachusetts Boston Logan Int’l BOS Appendix D

Maryland Baltimore-Washington Int’l BWI Appendix D

Maine Bangor International Airport BGR Appendix E

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM Appendix E

Michigan Detroit Metro Wayne County DTW Appendix D

Grand Rapids Kent County Int’l GRR Appendix D

Minnesota Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l MSP Appendix D

Missouri Kansas City Int’l MCI Appendix D

Lambert St. Louis Int’l STL Appendix D

North Carolina Charlotte/Douglas Int’l CLT Appendix D

Greensboro Piedmont Int’l GSO Appendix D

Raleigh-Durham Int’l RDU Appendix D

Nebraska Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA Appendix D

New Jersey Newark Int’l EWR Appendix D

New Mexico Albuquerque Int’l ABQ Appendix E
1995 ACE Plan Appendix B: Airport Directory

Appendix B – 3

State Airport ID Where

Nevada Las Vegas McCarran Int’l LAS Appendix D

Reno/Tahoe Int’l RNO Appendix E

New York Albany County ALB Appendix D

Buffalo Int’l BUF Appendix D

Islip Long Island ISP Appendix E

John F. Kennedy Int’l JFK Appendix E

LaGuardia LGA Appendix E

Rochester Monroe County ROC Appendix D

Syracuse Hancock Int’l SYR Appendix D

Ohio Cincinnati Int’l CVG Appendix D

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l CLE Appendix D

Dayton Int’l DAY Appendix E

Port Columbus Int’l CMH Appendix D

Oklahoma Oklahoma City Will Rogers OKC Appendix D

Tulsa Int’l TUL Appendix D

Oregon Portland Int’l PDX Appendix E

Pennsylvania Harrisburg Int’l MDT Appendix E

Philadelphia Int’l PHL Appendix D

Pittsburgh Int’l PIT Appendix D

Rhode Island Providence Green State PVD Appendix E

South Carolina Charleston Int’l CHS Appendix E

Columbia Metropolitan CAE Appendix E

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg GSP Appendix D

Tennessee Knoxville McGhee-Tyson TYS Appendix E

Memphis Int’l MEM Appendix D

Nashville Int’l BNA Appendix D

Texas Austin Robert Mueller Municipal AUS Appendix E

Bergstrom AFB (new Austin) BSM Appendix D

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l DFW Appendix D

Dallas Love Field DAL Appendix E

El Paso Int’l ELP Appendix D

Houston Hobby HOU Appendix E

Houston Intercontinental IAH Appendix D

Lubbock Int’l LBB Appendix D

Midland Int’l MAF Appendix D

San Antonio Int’l SAT Appendix D

Utah Salt Lake City Int’l SLC Appendix E

Virginia Norfolk Int’l ORF Appendix D

Richmond Int’l RIC Appendix D

Washington Seattle-Tacoma Int’l SEA Appendix D

Spokane Int’l GEG Appendix D

Wisconsin Milwaukee Mitchell Int’l MKE Appendix D

Puerto Rico San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín Int’l SJU Appendix E

Virgin Islands Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas STT Appendix E
Appendix B: Airport Directory 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix B – 4
1995 ACE Plan Appendix C: Capacity Design Team Program

Appendix C – 1

Appendix C

Airport Capacity Design Team Program1

1. As of 02-01-96.

Background

Recognizing the problems posed by congestion and delay within the National Airspace

System, the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) asked the aviation community to study

the problem of airport congestion through the

Industry Task Force on Airport Capacity Improvement and Delay Reduction chaired by the

Airport Operators Council International.

By 1984, aircraft delays recorded throughout

the system highlighted the need for more centralized management and coordination of activities to relieve airport congestion. In response,

the FAA established the Airport Capacity Program Office, now called the Office of System

Capacity (ASC). The goal of this office and its

capacity enhancement program is to identify

and evaluate initiatives that have the potential to

increase capacity, so that current and projected

levels of demand can be accommodated within

the system with a minimum of delay and without compromising safety or the environment.

In 1985, the FAA initiated a renewed program of Airport Capacity Design Teams at various major air carrier airports throughout the

U.S. Each Capacity Team identifies and evaluates alternative means to enhance existing airport and airspace capacity to handle future demand and works to develop a coordinated action

plan for reducing airport delay. Over 35 Airport

Capacity Design Teams have either completed

their studies or have work in progress.

The need for this program continues. In

1994, 23 airports each exceeded 20,000 hours of

airline flight delays. If no improvements in capacity are made, the number of airports that

could exceed 20,000 hours of annual aircraft delay is projected to grow from 23 to 29 by 2004.

The challenge for the air transportation industry

in the nineties is to enhance existing airport and

airspace capacity and to develop new facilities to

handle future demand. As environmental, financial, and other constraints continue to restrict

the development of new airport facilities in the

U.S., an increased emphasis has been placed on

the redevelopment and expansion of existing

airport facilities.

Objectives

The major goal of a Capacity Team is to

identify and evaluate proposals to increase airport capacity, improve airport efficiency, and reduce aircraft delays while maintaining or improving aviation safety. To achieve this objective,

the Capacity Team:

• Assesses the current airport capacity.

• Examines the causes of delay associated

with the airfield, the immediate airspace,

and the apron and gate-area operations.

• Evaluates capacity and delay benefits of

alternative air traffic control (ATC) procedures, navigational improvements, airfield

development, and operational improvements.
Appendix C: Capacity Design Team Program 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix C – 2

Scope

The Capacity Team limits its analyses to aircraft activity within the terminal area airspace

and on the airfield. They consider the operational benefits of the proposed airfield improvements, but do not address environmental, socioeconomic, or political issues regarding airport

development. These issues need to be addressed

in future airport planning studies, and the data

generated by the Capacity Team can be used in

such studies.

Methodology

The Capacity Team, which includes representatives from the FAA, the airport authority of

the airport under study, the appropriate State

Department of Transportation, various aviation

industry groups, and members of the local general aviation community meet periodically for

review and coordination. The Capacity Team

members consider suggested capacity improvement alternatives proposed by the FAA’s Office

of System Capacity, FAA Technical Center, Regional Aviation Capacity Program Manager, and

by other members of the Team. Alternatives

which are considered practicable are developed

into experiments which can be tested by simulation modeling. The FAA Technical Center’s

Aviation Capacity Branch provides expertise in

airport simulation modeling. The Capacity

Team validates the data used as input for the

simulation modeling and analysis and reviews

the interpretation of the simulation results. The

data, assumptions, alternatives, and experiments

are continually reevaluated, and modified where

necessary, as the study progresses. A primary

goal of the study is to develop a set of capacityproducing recommendations, complete with

planning and implementation time horizons.

Cuba

Florida

Puerto

Rico

SJU

HNL

ATL

BNA

CLE

FLL

IAD

LAX

MCI

MCO

MDW

MEM

MIA

MSY

OAK

ORD PHL

PHX

PIT

RDU

SAT

SEA

SFO

SJC

SLC

STL

DTW

BOS

CMH

IND

MSP

ABQ

CLT

IAH

RIC ORF

PHF } Eastern Virginia

(RIC, ORF, PHF)

Completed

Ongoing

LAS

DFW

PDX

Update Study Ongoing

Update Study Completed

An Update Study indicates that a base

Capacity Enhancement Design Team Study

has been completed.

RNO
1995 ACE Plan Appendix C: Capacity Design Team Program

Appendix C – 3

Initial work consists of gathering data and

formulating assumptions required for the capacity and delay analysis and modeling. Where possible, assumptions are based on actual field observations at the target airport. Proposed improvements are analyzed in relation to current

and future demands with the help of FAA computer models, the Airport and Airspace Simulation Model (SIMMOD), the Runway Delay

Simulation Model (RDSIM), and the Airfield

Delay Simulator (ADSIM).

The simulation models consider Air Traffic

Control procedures, airfield improvements, and

traffic demands. Alternative airfield configurations are prepared from present and proposed

airport layout plans. Various configurations are

evaluated to assess the benefit of projected improvements. Air Traffic Control procedures and

system improvements determine the aircraft

separations to be used for simulations under

both VFR and IFR.

Air traffic demand levels are derived from

Official Airline Guide data, historical data, and

Capacity Team and other forecasts. Aircraft volume, fleet mix, and peaking characteristics are

considered for each of the three different demand forecast levels (Baseline, Future 1, and

Future 2). From this, annual delay estimates are

determined based on implementing various improvements. These estimates take into account

historic variations in runway configuration,

weather, and demand. Annual delay estimates

for each configuration are then compared to

identify delay reductions resulting from the improvements. Following the evaluation, the Capacity Team develops a plan of recommended

alternatives for consideration.

Reports

Since the renewal of the program in 1985,

39 Airport Capacity Design Team studies have

been completed. Currently, four Capacity Design Team studies or updates are in progress.

The following listing provides locations and

dates for completed studies.

Design Team Completion Dates

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

Metropolitan Orlando Int’l....................... 1990

Miami Int’l ............................................... 1989

Minneapolis-Saint Paul Int’l..................... 1993

Nashville Int’l ........................................... 1991

New Orleans Int’l ..................................... 1992

Oakland Int’l............................................. 1987

Philadelphia Int’l ...................................... 1991

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l.......................... 1989

Port Columbus Int’l .................................. 1993

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 Udate ....................... 1995

Washington Dulles Int’l ........................... 1990
Appendix C: Capacity Design Team Program 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix C – 4
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 1

Appendix D

New Runway & Runway Extension Construction

Appendix D contains current airport diagrams for those airports among the top 100

airports1

 that are considering or have plans for

the construction of new runways or extensions

to existing runways. The airport diagrams show

simplified drawings of the existing airports, with

proposed runway and runway extension projects

indicated in blue. Airport layouts for the remainder of the top 100 airports are contained in

Appendix E.

1. Based on 1994 passenger enplanements (see Appendix A, Table A-1).

Buildings

New Buildings

Existing Runway

New Runway or Runway Improvement

Existing Taxiway/Apron

New Taxiway or Taxiway Improvement

Legend

Note: some ALPs may have additional symbols or patterns.

ALB Albany County Airport........................... D-2

ATL Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ................ D-3

BNA Nashville Int’l Airport ............................. D-4

BOI Boise Air Terminal .................................. D-5

BOS Boston Logan Int’l Airport ..................... D-6

BSM Bergstrom AFB (new Austin) .................. D-7

BUF Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport ................... D-8

BWI Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport ........ D-9

CLE Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport ............ D-10

CLT Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport ............ D-11

CMH Port Columbus Int’l Airport ................. D-12

CVG Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport ............ D-13

DEN Denver Int’l Airport.............................. D-14

DFW Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport .............. D-15

DSM Des Moines Int’l Airport ....................... D-16

DTW Detroit Metropolitan Airport................ D-17

ELP El Paso Int’l Airport .............................. D-18

EWR Newark Int’l Airport ............................. D-19

FLL Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l............. D-20

GEG Spokane Int’l Airport............................ D-21

GRR Grand Rapids Kent County Int’l ........... D-22

GSO Greensboro Piedmont Triad Int’l .......... D-23

GSP Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport .. D-24

IAD Washington Dulles Int’l Airport ............ D-25

IAH Houston Intercontinental Airport ......... D-26

JAX Jacksonville Int’l Airport ....................... D-27

LAS Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport .......... D-28

LBB Lubbock Int’l Airport ........................... D-29

LIT Little Rock Adams Field ........................ D-30

MAF Midland Int’l Airport ............................ D-31

MCI Kansas City Int’l Airport ....................... D-32

MCO Orlando Int’l Airport ............................ D-33

MDW Chicago Midway Airport...................... D-34

MEM Memphis Int’l Airport .......................... D-35

MIA Miami Int’l Airport ............................... D-36

MKE Milwaukee General Mitchell Int’l ......... D-37

MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport ......... D-38

MSY New Orleans Int’l Airport..................... D-39

OAK Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport ...... D-40

OGG Kahului Airport .................................... D-41

OKC Oklahoma City Will Rogers World ........ D-42

OMA Omaha Eppley Airfield ......................... D-43

ORF Norfolk Int’l Airport ............................. D-44

PBI Palm Beach Int’l Airport ....................... D-45

PHL Philadelphia Int’l Airport ...................... D-46

PHX Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport .......... D-47

PIT Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport ............ D-48

RDU Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport ............... D-49

RIC Richmond Int’l Airport ......................... D-50

ROC Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ............. D-51

RSW Fort Myers SW Florida Regional ........... D-52

SAT San Antonio Int’l Airport ...................... D-53

SAV Savannah Int’l Airport .......................... D-54

SDF Louisville Standiford Field .................... D-55

SEA Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport ................. D-56

SNA Santa Ana/John Wayne Airport ............ D-57

SRQ Sarasota Bradenton Airport .................. D-58

STL Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport .............. D-59

SYR Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport ............. D-60

TPA Tampa Int’l Airport .............................. D-61

TUL Tulsa Int’l Airport ................................. D-62

TUS Tucson Int’l Airport .............................. D-63
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 2

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.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 3

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

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 being

planned. The runway will

permit triple independent IFR

approaches using the PRM.

The total estimated cost is

$418 million. The estimated

operational date is 1999.
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 4

2R

2L

20R

20L

20C

2C

13

31

Donelson Pike

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

General

Aviation

20E

2E

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. It is expected

to be completed by 2000, at an

estimated cost of $38.6 million.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 5

BOI — Boise Air Terminal

A 2,300 foot extension to

the east end of Runway 10L/

28R in planned. It is expected

to be operational by 1998, at a

cost of $8 million.

10L

10R

28L

28R

 FIRE

CENTER

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 6

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.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 7

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 D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 8

23

32

5

14

WEST TERMINAL

EAST TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

BUF — Greater Buffalo International Airport

Construction is expected

to start in 1996 on a extension

to Runway 14/32, along with

relocating the runway threshold. The project is scheduled

to be completed in 1998 at a

cost of $1.0 million.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 9

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.
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 10

CLE — Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

A Master Plan Update is

currently being coordinated.

The preliminary Airport

Layout Plan shows construction of a new Runway 5W/

23W that would be 9,600 feet

long and 150 feet wide. Construction is expected to be

completed in 1999 at a cost of

$180 million. Also included in

the development plan is an

extension of the existing

Runway 5L/23R from 7,095

feet to 12,000 feet at an

estimated cost of $40 million

and conversion of the existing

Runway 5R/23L to a parallel

taxiway at a cost of $3 million.

All of this work is scheduled

for completion in 2000.

Control

Tower

General

Aviation General

Aviation

NASA

36

18

10L

28R

5R

5L

23R

23L

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

Terminal

5W

23W
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 11

CLT — Charlotte/Douglas International Airport

Plans to open a third

parallel 8,000-foot runway

west of Runway 18R/36L that

would permit triple IFR approaches (dependent or independent, based on final separation) is being considered. An

Environmental Impact Study

is underway. While construction has not begun, it is estimated to be completed in

1999, with an estimated cost

of $70 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
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 12

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.

The exiting Runway 28R

is being extended 1,000 feet

and will be completed in 1996.

A 1,000 foot extension to

Runway 10L is proposed for

1997. Upon competion,

Runway 10L/28R will be

8,000 feet long and 150 fet

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
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 13

CVG — Greater Cincinnati International Airport

An extension of Runway

18R/36L is under construction. It will allow aircraft to

land on Runway 18R and hold

short of Runway 27 and will

add capacity during noise

abatement hours. The estimated cost of construction is

$11 million, and the estimated

operational date is 1996. The

extension of Runway 9/27 was

completed in 1995. An additional 2,000 ft. extension is

planned for after 2000, with an

36L

36R

18L

18R

9

27

Fire

Station

Terminals

International

Terminal

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

estimated cost of $30 million.

A third parallel runway is

planned for after the year

2000, west of the existing

parallels. Estimated cost for

the new runway is $232.7

million.
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 14

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

16L

34R

8

26

17L

17R

35R

35L

7

25

Control Tower

16R

34L

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.

DEN — Denver International Airport
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 15

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. The

estimated cost of each extension is $25 million. The

extension of Runway 17R/35L

has been completed and was

operational September 16,

1993. Also planned are two

more parallel runways, Runway 17L/35R and Runway

18R/36L. The east runway,

Runway 17L/35R, will be

8,500 feet in length. It will be

located 5,000 feet east of and

parallel to Runway 17C/35C

(previously 17L/35R). The

estimated cost is $300 million.

It is anticipated that the east

runway will be operational by

1996. Construction on the

west runway, Runway 18R/

36L, will begin when warranted by aviation demand. It

could be available as early as

2001. The estimated cost is

$100 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.

These runways could potentially permit triple or quadruple IFR arrival operations if

the multiple approach concepts are approved.

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.
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 16

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

1999. Cost for construction is

estimated at $21.5 million,

with an estimated additional

$24 million for road relocation.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

12L

23

30R

30L

5

12R

CONTROL

 TOWER
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 17

DTW — Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport

A fourth north-south

parallel, Runway 4/22, 2,667

feet west of Runway 3L/21R,

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
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 18

22

8L

26L

26R

8R

4

TERMINAL BUILDING

 U.S. CUSTOMS

FIRE STATION

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

ELP — El Paso International Airport

A new parallel Runway 8/

26 is planned in conjunction

with a taxiway between the

airport and Fort Biggs. Construction is expected to begin

in 1999 with an estimated cost

of $10.7 million.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 19

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
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 20

FLL — Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport

An extension of the short

parallel Runway 9R/27L to

10,000 feet long by 150 feet

wide is planned to provide the

airport with a second parallel

air carrier runway. Construction is expected to begin in

1997. The estimated cost of

construction is $270 million.

The anticipated operational

date is 2002. An EIS is underway and expected to be completed in the fall of 1996.

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
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 21

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. Construction could be started as early as

1999.

3

7

25

21

U.S. CUSTOMS

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

3L

21R
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 22

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
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 23

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 2000, at a

cost of $15.7 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 2010.
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 24

GSP — Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport

A new parallel runway,

Runway 3R/21L, is anticipated in 2015 at an estimated

cost of $50 million. Presently,

its planned length is 10,000

feet with a 4,350 foot separation from Runway 3/21. This

would potentially double

hourly IFR arrival capacity

Also, an extension of Runway

3L/21R to 12,200 feet is

planned. Construction 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.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 25

IAD — Washington Dulles International Airport

Two new parallel runways

are under consideration. A

north-south parallel, Runway

1W/19W, would be located

5,000 feet west of the existing

parallels and north of Runway

12/30. Estimated opening data

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 D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 26

IAH — Houston Intercontinental Airport

An $8 million 2,000-foot

extension to Runway 14R/32L

is planned to be operational in

1997. Construction is expected

to begin in 1996. A new

Runway 8L/26R is planned to

be parallel to and north of the

existing Runway 8/26. 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. Construction

is expected to cost $44 million

for each new runway.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

32R

32L

14R

14L

8R

8L

9L

9R

26R 26L

27R

27L

Fire

Station

Control

Tower

Fire

Station
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 27

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

1999, with completion expected in 2000. Estimated cost

of construction is $37 million.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

7

13

31

25

MAIN TERMINAL

7R

25L
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 28

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 being planned

for 1997. 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.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 29

LBB — Lubbock International Airport

An extension to Runway

8/26 is planned. The start of

construction is scheduled for

1999 and the estimated cost is

$5 million. It is anticipated

that the extension will be

operational in 2000.

26

35L

8

17R

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

 TOWER

GA PARKING

 GA

PARKING

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 30

LIT — Little Rock Adams Field

An extension of Runway

4L/22R is underway, and

should be operational in 1997.

The estimated cost of construction is $31 million,

including the resurfacing/

reconstruction of the existing

runway.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

22R

36

18

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

 TOWER

4R

4L

22L
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 31

MAF — Midland International Airport

An extension to Runway

10/28 is planned, and construction is scheduled to begin

in 2007.

28

22

34L

4

34R

16L

16R

10

TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 32

MCI — Kansas City International Airport

In accordance with the

Airport Master Plan, an

extension of Runway 1L/19R

is currently planned. Additional parallel runways west of

the existing north-south

runway are being considered.

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

19R

1L

9

27

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINALS

A

B

C

1R

19L
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 33

MCO — Orlando International Airport

Environmental mitigation

for a fourth north-south

runway, Runway 17L/35R,

began October 10, 1990. 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 D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 34

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

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

13R

31L

13C
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 35

MEM — Memphis International Airport

Construction of a new

north-south parallel Runway

18L/36R began in 1993. It

will be located about 900 feet

east of Runway 18C/36C (old

18L/36R) and 4,300 feet from

Runway 18R/36L, thus allowing independent parallel

approaches. This will increase

present hourly IFR arrival

capacity by about 33 percent.

The new runway should be

operational in 1996. The

estimated cost is $146.1

million. A reconstruction and

extension of Runway 18L/36R

is also planned. Construction

is expected to start in 1997 and

be completed by 1999 at a cost

of $113.7 million.

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

TERMINAL

CONTROL

TOWER

27

18C

9

36L 36C

18R

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

XXXX Closed Runway

36R

18L
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 36

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 1997 and be completed

by late 1999. The estimated

cost of construction is $149

million. An EIS is expected to

be completed in mid-1996

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINAL

27R

27L

30

9L

12

9R

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

9N/27N
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 37

MKE — Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport

A capacity demand analysis will be done to determine

when construction of a new

parallel Runway 7R/25L,

3,500 feet south of the existing

runway, is needed. An EIS is

in progress for the extension of

Runway 7L/25R. Realignment

of Runway 7L/25R is under

grant for construction in 1996,

at an estimated cost of $3.5

million.

13

19R

19L

31

25L

1R

1L

7L

25R

7R

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 38

MSP — Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

An extension of Runway

4/22, 2,750 feet to the southwest, is proposed, which would

bring the runway length to

11,000 feet. Construction

began in late 1995, and the

extension should be operational in 1996. The estimated

cost of construction is $40.2

million, including associated

taxiway improvements and

noise mitigation for the runway. A new air carrier runway,

Runway 17/35, is planned for

2002, at an estimated cost of

$120 million.

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
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 39

MSY — New Orleans International Airport

A new north-south runway, Runway 1L/19R, is

planned. This new runway will

be 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 1998

and be completed in 2005, at

an approximate cost of $340

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 planning to

construct 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 1998.

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

19L

28

10

1R

10S

28S

19R

1L
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 40

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
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 41

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 D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 42

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 costs

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
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 43

OMA — Omaha Eppley Airfield

A 1,000 foot extension of

Runway 14L/32R is planned

to begin construction in mid1996. Expected operational

date is mid-1997, with a cost

of $9 million, including the

relocation of ILS equipment.

17

14R

35

32L

32R

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

 TOWER

 HOT

CARGO

FIRE STATION

FREIGHT

 RAMP

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

14L
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 44

ORF — Norfolk International Airport

A new air carrier runway,

Runway 5R/23L, 800 feet

south of Runway 5/23 was

recommended by the Eastern

Region Capacity Design

Team. A Master Plan Update

is currently underway. The

runway could be operational

by 2005, at en 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.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 45

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 $8.5

million. In addition, a 250 ft.

northwest extension of Runway 13/31 is planned to be

completed in 1999 at a cost of

$1 million. Finally, a 700 foot

extension of Runway 9R/27L

is also being considered for

completion in 1997 at a cost of

$0.5 million.

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

13

31

9L

27R

9R

27L

Terminal

Control

Tower
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 46

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.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 47

PHX — Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

A new 9,500-foot third

parallel runway, Runway 7/25,

is proposed 800 feet south of

Runway 8R/26L. The estimated cost of construction is

$88 million. The estimated

operational date for the first

7,800 feet of Runway 7/25 is

1997; the remaining 1,700 feet

of the runway is not scheduled

at this time. In addition, an

extension of Runway 8L/26R

is under consideration. The

estimated cost of construction

is $7.0.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

26R 26L

Control Tower

8R

8L
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 48

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.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 49

RDU — Raleigh-Durham International Airport

The relocation of Runway

5R/23L and its associated

taxiways is being considered.

The new runway will be

parallel to and approximately

450-1,200 feet southeast of

existing Runway 5R/23L. It

will be a 9,000-foot long air

carrier runway. It is planned to

be operational bt 2005.

Terminal B

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Control Tower

Terminal A

5R

5L

23L

23R

14

General Aviation

National Guard

relocated

5R

relocated

23L

32

Terminal C
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 50

RIC — Richmond International Airport

An extension of Runway

16/34 is planned for an operational date of early 1997. The

estimated cost of construction

is $45 million.

20

16

34

2

7

25

Control

Tower

Terminal

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 51

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
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 52

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 1998. The

new runway should be operational by 2000. The estimated

cost of the project is $87

million. This new runway will

support independent parallel

operations.

CONTROL

 TOWER

6

24

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

6R

24L
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 53

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 D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 54

SAV — Savannah International Airport

Three runway construction

projects are being planned. A

2,000-foot extension to Runway 18/36 is planned for the

year 2000, at a cost of $3.9

million. 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

2005, with an estimated cost

of $15.2 million. Also, an

extension to the existing

Runway 9/27 is planned to

begin in 1999, at a cost of $5

million.

27

9

36

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

FIRE STATION

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

18

27R

9L
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 55

SDF — Louisville Standiford Field

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.
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 56

16L

34L

34R

16R

16W

34W

Control

Tower

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

SEA — Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Potential airport improvements include a new Runway

16W/34W, up to 8,500 feet in

length, which will be located

2,500 feet from Runway 16L/

34R. A decision on construction will be made in 1996, and

the estimated cost of construction is $400 million.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 57

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.
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 58

32

22

4

14

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINAL

X X X X X X X X

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

14L

32R

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 2000. In

addition, an extension of the

existing Runway 14/32 is

planned at a cost of $5.1

million. It is expected to be

complete in 1998.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 59

STL — Lambert St. Louis International Airport

A new parallel Runway

12R/30L in several

configurations had been

recommended by the St. Louis

Airport Capacity Design

Team. A Master Plan Update

is underway, and the entire

airport layout may change as a

result. The new plan will

probably call for three parallel

runways, with at least two

supporting independent IFR

operations. An EIS is also

underway. The Master Plan

Update and the EIS are

anticipated to be completed in

1996. A new Runway 14R/

32L is planned as the first

phase of the airport expansion.

Construction of the runway

could occur beginning in 1997,

subject to environmental

approval.

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

12R

6

12L

24

17

30R

30L

31

13
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 60

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.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 61

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.

Construction is expected to be

completed by 2000, and the

estimated cost of construction

is $55 million. 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
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 62

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.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix D: Runway Construction

Appendix D – 63

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.
Appendix D: Runway Construction 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix D – 64
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 1

Appendix E

Diagrams of the Remaining Top 100 Airports

Appendix E contains current airport diagrams for those airports among the top 100

airports1

 that are not considering construction of

new runways or extensions to existing runways

at the present time. The airport diagrams show

simplified drawings of the existing airports.

Airport diagrams for those airports that are

considering or have plans for new runways or

runway extension projects are contained in

Appendix D.

1. Based on 1994 passenger enplanements (see Appendix A, Table A-1).

ABQ Albuquerque Int’l Airport ........................ E-2

ANK Anchorage Int’l Airport ........................... E-3

AUS Austin Robert Mueller Airport .................. E-4

BDL Bradley Int’l Airport................................. E-5

BGR Bangor Int’l Airport ................................. E-6

BHM Birmingham Airport ................................ E-7

BUR Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport......... E-8

CAE Columbia Metropolitan Airport ............... E-9

CHS Charleston AFB Int’l Airport ................... E-10

COS Colorado Springs Municipal Airport ....... E-11

DAL Dallas-Love Field ................................... E-12

DAY Dayton Int’l Airport............................... E-13

DCA Washington National Airport................. E-14

DEN Denver Stapleton Int’l Airport (closed) ... E-15

HNL Honolulu Int’l Airport ............................ E-16

HOU Houston William P. Hobby Airport ......... E-17

ICT Wichita Mid-Continent Airport .............. E-18

IND Indianapolis Int’l Airport ........................ E-19

ISP Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport....... E-20

ITO Hilo Int’l Airport.................................... E-21

JFK New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport .. E-22

KOA Kailua-Kona Keahole ............................. E-23

LAX Los Angeles Int’l Airport ........................ E-24

LGA New York LaGuardia Airport .................. E-25

LIH Lihue Airport ........................................ E-26

MDT Harrisburg Int’l Airport .......................... E-27

ONT Ontario Int’l Airport .............................. E-28

ORD Chicago O'Hare Int’l Airport .................. E-29

PDX Portland Int’l Airport ............................. E-30

PVD Providence Green State Airport ............. E-31

PWM Portland Int’l Jetport ............................. E-32

RNO Reno Tahoe Int’l Airport ........................ E-33

SAN San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field ............... E-34

SFO San Francisco Int’l Airport...................... E-35

SJC San Jose Int’l Airport ............................. E-36

SJU San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín Int’l Airport . E-37

SLC Salt Lake City Int’l Airport ...................... E-38

SMF Sacramento Metropolitan Airport .......... E-39

STT Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas ................. E-40

TYS Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport ........... E-41
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 2

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
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 3

ANK — Anchorage International Airport

14

6R

32

24L

24R

6L

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 4

AUS — Austin Robert Mueller Airport

13R

17

13L

31R

31L

35

TERMINAL BUILDING

 FIRE

STATION

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 5

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.
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 6

BGR — Bangor International Airport

15

33

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 7

BHM — Birmingham Airport

18

23

36

5

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 8

BUR — Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport

15

25

33

7

 CONTROL TOWER

PASSENGER TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 9

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 E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 10

CHS — Charleston AFB International Airport

15

21

33

3

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 11

COS — Colorado Springs Municipal Airport

12

R 17

30

35L

CONTROL TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

35R

17L
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 12

DAL — Dallas-Love Field

31L

36

31R

13R

13L

18

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

BUILDING

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 13

DAY — Dayton International Airport

24R

18

36

6R

24L

6L

TERMINAL BUILDING

 CONTROL TOWER

 BEACON

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 14

DCA — Washington National Airport

3

36

33

21

18

15

Terminals

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 15

DEN — Denver Stapleton International Airport (closed)

35R

17R

17L

26L

26R

8L

8R

36

18

TERMINAL

CONTROL TOWER

 FIRE

STATION

FIRE STATION

35L

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 16

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
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 17

HOU — Houston William P. Hobby Airport

Terminal

30L

30R

35

12L

12R

17

22

4

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 18

ICT — Wichita Mid-Continent Airport

19L

32 1R

19R

1L

14

TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 19

IND — Indianapolis International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

32

14

23L

23R

5R

5L

Terminal
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 20

ISP — Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport

28

24

15L

33R

33L

9

10

15R

TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 21

ITO — Hilo International Airport

8

21

3

26

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 22

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
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 23

KOA — Kailua-Kona Keahole

17

35

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 24

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
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 25

LGA — New York LaGuardia Airport

31

13

22

04

Control Tower

Passenger

Terminals

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 26

LIH — Lihue Airport

3

35

21

17

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 27

MDT — Harrisburg International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

13

31
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 28

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
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 29

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 E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 30

PDX — Portland International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

28L

28R

10L

10R

3

21

Control

Tower

Terminal
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 31

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 E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 32

PWM — Portland International Jetport

11

36

29

18

Terminal

Air Carrier Ramp

Control Tower

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 33

RNO — Reno Tahoe International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

16L 16R

34L

34R

25

7
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 34

SAN — San Diego International Lindberg Field

27

9

CONTROL

 TOWER

 FIRE

STATION

 EAST

TERMINAL

 WEST

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 35

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 E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 36

SJC — San Jose International Airport

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
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 37

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 E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 38

SLC — Salt Lake City International Airport

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

35

16L

17

32

34R

Terminal

Control

Tower

34L

16R

14
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 39

SMF — Sacramento Metropolitan Airport

16R

16L

34L

34R

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINALS

 FIRE

STATION

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 40

STT — Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, Virgin Islands

Control Tower

28

10

Terminal

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1995 ACE Plan Appendix E: Airport Layouts

Appendix E – 41

TYS — Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport

5L

5R

23L

23R

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
Appendix E: Airport Layouts 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix E – 42
1995 ACE Plan Appendix F: Glossary

Appendix F – 1

Appendix F

Glossary

AAC ................ Advanced AERA Concepts

AAF ................. Army Airfield

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

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

CAA ................ Civil Aviation Authority

CAEG .............. Computer Aided Engineering Graphics

CARF .............. Central Altitude Reservation Function
Appendix F – 2

Appendix F: Glossary 1995 ACE Plan

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

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

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
1995 ACE Plan Appendix F: Glossary

Appendix F – 3

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

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

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
Appendix F – 4

Appendix F: Glossary 1995 ACE Plan

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

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
1995 ACE Plan Appendix G: Index

Appendix G – 1

A

ABQ. See Albuquerque International Airport

Advanced Traffic Flow Management System: 5-14

Advanced Traffic Management System: 5-10, 5-14

Aeronautical Data Link Communications: 5-13

Aeronautical Radio Incorporated: 1-12

Aeronautical Telecommunications Network: 5-13

air carrier passenger enplanements: 1-2

Air Route Traffic Control Center: 1-7, 1-10

Air Traffic Control: 1-3

Air Traffic Control Automation: 5-3

Air Traffic Control System Command Center: 5-15, 5-16

Air Traffic Operations Management System: 1-11

Air Traffic Service Plan: 1-4

Aircraft Situation Display: 5-15

Airfield Delay Simulation Model: 5-19, C-3

Airline Service Quality Performance: 1-11

Airport and Airspace Simulation Model: 4-1, 5-19, C-3

Airport Capacity Design Team: 2-2, 2-4, 2-7, 2-16, C-1

Airport Capacity Design Team Updates: 2-16

Airport Capacity Design Teams. See Appendix F

Airport Development

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport. See Austin

Robert Mueller Municipal Airport

Bergstrom Air Force Base. See Bergstrom Air Force

Base

Construction Projects. See Appendix D

Denver International Airport. See Denver International Airport

Existing Airports

Construction. See Appendix D

Airport Improvement Program: 1-4, 2-5

Airport Machine: 5-19

Airport Movement Area Safety System: 5-2

Airport Network Simulation Model: 5-18

airport planning: 1-20

Airport Surface Detection Equipment: 5-2, 5-9

Airport Surface Traffic Automation Program: 5-2

Airport Surface Traffic Automation System: 5-1

Airport Tactical Initiative: 2-15

ALB. See Albany County Airport

Albany County Airport: B-3

Albuquerque International Airport: B-2, C-3

AMASS. See Airport Movement Area Safety System

ANC. See Anchorage International Airport

Anchorage International Airport: B-1

ARTCC. See Air Route Traffic Control Center

ARTS. See Automated Radar Terminal System

ASDE-3. See Airport Surface Detection Equipment

ASTA. See Airport Surface Traffic Automation System

ATC Automation: 1-19

ATL. See William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport

Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. See William B. Hartsfield

Atlanta International Airport

AUS. See Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport: B-3.

See also Airport Development:

Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport

Automated Demand Resolution: 5-15

Automated En Route Air Traffic Control: 5-10, 5-11

Automated Execution: 5-15

Automated Radar Terminal System: 5-2, 5-6

Automatic Dependent Surveillance: 5-10, 5-11

Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan: 1-4, 1-5

B

Baltimore-Washington International Airport: B-2

Bangor International Airport: B-2

bdl. See Windsor Locks Bradley International Airport

Bergstrom afb: 2-2

Bergstrom Air Force Base: B-3. See also Airport Development:

Bergstrom Air Force Base

BGR. See Bangor International Airport

BHM. See Birmingham Municipal Airport

Birmingham Municipal Airport: B-1

BNA. See Nashville International Airport

BOI. See Boise Air-Terminal

Boise Air-Terminal: B-2

BOS. See Boston Logan International Airport

Boston Logan International Airport: 5-4, B-2, C-3

BSM. See Bergstrom Air Force Base

BUF. See Greater Buffalo International Airport

Buffalo International Airport: B-3.

See Greater Buffalo International Airport

BUR. See Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport: B-1

BWI. See Baltimore-Washington International Airport

C

CAE. See Columbia Metropolitan

Capital Investment Plan: 1-4

CASA. See Controller Automated Spacing Aid

CDTI. See Cockpit Display of Traffic Information

Center-tracon Automation System: 5-3, 5-4

Charleston International Airport: B-3

Appendix G

Index*

* A note concerning airport names and locations:

This index does not reference the occurrences of airports that appear in any Tables or Figures. For a listing of Tables and

Figures, please see the Table of Contents. For a listing of airport layouts and their locations, please refer to Appendix B.
Appendix G: Index 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix G – 2

Charlott/Douglas International Airport: B-2, C-3

Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas Airport: B-3

charted visual flight procedures: 3-2

Chicago Midway Airport. See Midway Airport

Chicago O’Hare International Airport.

See O’Hare International Airport

CHS: 4-10. See Charleston International Airport

Cincinnati International Airport.

See Greater Cincinnati International Airport

CLE. See Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport: B-3, C-3

CLT. See Charlott/Douglas International Airport

CMH. See Port Columbus International Airport

Cockpit Display of Traffic Information: 3-12, 5-2

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport: B-2

Columbia Metropolitan: B-3

Communications Addressing and Reporting System: 1-12

Consolidated Operations and Delay Analysis System: 1-12

Controller Automated Spacing Aid: 5-4

Converging Approach Standards Technical Work Group: 3-10

Converging Runway Display Aid: 3-2, 3-11, 5-3, 5-4

COS. See Colorado Springs Municipal Airport

CVG. See Greater Cincinnati International Airport

D

DAL. See Dallas Love Field Airport

Dallas Love Field Airport: B-3

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport: B-3, C-3

DAY. See Dayton International Airport

Dayton International Airport: B-3

DCA. See Washington National Airport

Delay: 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, 2-1

by Cause: 1-12

by Phase of Flight: 1-13, 1-14

Problem Airports: 1-14

DEN. See Denver International Airport:

Denver Stapleton International Airport

Denver International Airport: 2-2, B-2.

See also Airport Development: Denver International Airport

Denver Stapleton International Airport: B-2

Des Moines International Airport: B-2

Descent Advisor: 5-5

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport: B-2, C-3

DFW. See Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport

DSM. See Des Moines International Airport

DTW. See Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport

Dynamic Special Use Airspace: 5-15

E

Eastern Virginia Region: C-3

economic growth: 1-1

El Paso International Airport: B-3

ELP. See El Paso International Airport

En Route Automation Strategic Plan: 5-11

Enhanced Traffic Management System: 1-12, 5-15

EWR. See Newark International Airport

Expedite Departure Path: 5-5

F

FAST. See Final Approach Spacing Tool

Federal Aviation Administration Strategic Plan. See Strategic Plan

Final Approach Spacing Tool: 5-5

Final Monitor Aid: 3-4

Flight Information Regions: 5-9

Flight Management System: 3-2

Flight Management Systems: 3-10

FLL. See Fort Lauderdale International Airport

Fort Lauderdale International Airport: B-2, C-3

Fort Myers sw Florida Regional Airport: B-2

Free Flight: 1-20, 3-12, 5-9

G

GEG. See Spokane International Airport

general aviation: 2-7

Global Positioning System: 5-2, 5-3, 5-7, 5-13

GPS. See Global Positioning System

Grand Rapids Kent County International Airport: B-2

Graphical Airspace Design Environment: 5-21

Greater Buffalo International Airport: B-3

Greater Cincinnati International Airport: 5-4, B-3

Greater Pittsburgh International Airport: B-3, C-3

Greater Rochester International Airport: B-3

Greensboro Piedmont International Airport: B-2

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport: B-3

Gross Domestic Product: 1-2

GRR. See Grand Rapids Kent County International Airport

GSO. See Greensboro Piedmont International Airport

GSP. See Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport

H

Harrisburg International Airport: B-3

Hilo General Lyman International Airport: B-2

HNL. See Honolulu International Airport

Honolulu International Airport: B-2, C-3

HOU. See Houston William P. Hobby Airport

Houston Intercontinental Airport: B-3, C-3

Houston William P. Hobby Airport: B-3

human factors: 1-20, 5-17, 5-22

I

IAD. See Washington Dulles International Airport

IAH. See Houston Intercontinental Airport

ICT. See Wichita Mid-Continent Airport

IND. See Indianapolis International Airport

Indianapolis International Airport: B-2, C-3

Instrument Landing System: 5-6

Islip Long Island Airport: B-3

ISP. See Islip Long Island Airport

ITO. See Hilo General Lyman International Airport

J

Jacksonville International Airport: B-2

JAX. See Jacksonville International Airport

JFK. See John F. Kennedy International Airport

John F. Kennedy International Airport: B-3
1995 ACE Plan Appendix G: Index

Appendix G – 3

K

Kahului Airport: B-2

Kailua-Kona Keahole Airport: B-2

Kansas City International Airport: B-2, C-3

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport: B-3

KOA. See Kailua-Kona Keahole Airport

L

LaGuardia Airport: B-3

Lambert St. Louis International Airport: 5-4, B-2, C-3

LAS. See Las Vegas McCarran International Airport

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport: B-3, C-3

LAX. See Los Angeles International Airport

LBB. See Lubbock International Airport

LGA. See LaGuardia Airport

LIH. See Lihue Airport

Lihue Airport: B-2

Little Rock Adams Field: B-1

local area augmentation system: 5-8

Los Angeles International Airport: B-1, C-3

Louisville Standiford Field Airport: B-2

Lubbock International Airport: B-3

M

MAF. See Midland International Airport

MCI. See Kansas City International Airport

MCO. See Orlando International Airport

MDT. See Harrisburg International Airport

MDW. See Midway Airport

MEM. See Memphis International Airport

Memphis International Airport: B-3, C-3

Metropolitan Oakland International Airport: B-1, C-3

MIA. See Miami International Airport

Miami International Airport: B-2, C-3

Microwave Landing System: 5-7

Midland International Airport: B-3

Midway Airport: B-2, C-3

Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport: B-3

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport: B-2, C-3

MKE. See Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport

Monitor Alert: 5-15

MSP. See Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

MSY. See New Orleans International Airport

N

Nashville International Airport: B-3, C-3

National Airspace System: 1-4, 1-16, 5-1

National Airspace System Performance Analysis Capa: 5-17, 5-20

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 1-12

National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems: 1-4, 2-1

National Simulation Capability: 4-2, 5-1, 5-17

National Transportation Policy: 1-4

Near-Term Capacity Initiatives: 1-19

New Orleans International Airport: B-2, C-3

Newark International Airport: B-2

Norfolk International Airport: B-3

O

OAK. See Metropolitan Oakland International Airport

Oakland Metro Int’l.

See Metropolitan Oakland International Airport

Oceanic Automation Program: 5-11

Oceanic Control: 1-20

Oceanic Display and Planning System: 5-12

Office of Environment and Energy: 4-1

Office of System Capacity: 2-15, 2-16, 4-1, 4-2, 4-17, C-1

Official Airline Guide: 1-11, 1-12, C-3

OGG. See Kahului Airport

O’Hare International Airport: B-2, C-3

OKC. See Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Airport

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Airport: B-3

OMA. See Omaha Eppley Airfield

Omaha Eppley Airfield: B-2

ONT. See Ontario International Airport

Ontario International Airport: B-1

Operational Concept: 1-4, 1-19

Operational Traffic Flow Planning: 5-14, 5-16

ORD. See O’Hare International Airport

ORF. See Norfolk International Airport

Orlando International Airport: B-2, C-3

P

PBI. See West Palm Beach International Airport

PDX. See Portland International Airport

Philadelphia International Airport: 5-4, B-3, C-3

PHL. See Philadelphia International Airport

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport: B-1, C-3

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l: B-1

PIT. See Greater Pittsburgh International Airport

Pittsburgh International Airport.

See Greater Pittsburgh International Airport

Port Columbus International Airport: B-3, C-3

Portland International Airport: B-3

Portland International Jetport: B-2

Precision Runway Monitor: 3-1, 3-3, 3-8, 5-6

PRM. See Precision Runway Monitor

Providence Green State Airport: B-3

PVD. See Providence Green State Airport

PWM. See Portland International Jetport

R

Raleigh-Durham International Airport: B-2, C-3

RDU. See Raleigh-Durham International Airport

RE&D. See Research, Engineering, and Development Plan

Regional Capacity Design Teams: 2-16

remote area navigation: 5-7

Reno/Tahoe International Airport: B-3

Research, Engineering, and Development Plan: 1-4

RIC. See Richmond International Airport

Richmond International Airport: B-3

RNO. See Reno/Tahoe International Airport

ROC. See Greater Rochester International Airport

Rochester Monroe County Airport: B-3.

See Greater Rochester International Airport

RSW. See Fort Myers sw Florida Regional Airport

Runway Delay Simulation Model: 5-19, C-3
Appendix G: Index 1995 ACE Plan

Appendix G – 4

S

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport: B-1

Salt Lake City International Airport: B-3, C-3

SAN. See San Diego International Lindbergh Field

San Antonio International Airport: B-3, C-3

San Diego International Lindbergh Field: B-1

San Francisco International Airport: B-1, C-3

San Jose International Airport: B-1, C-3

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport: B-3, C-3

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport: B-1

Sarasota-Bradenton Airport: B-2

SAT. See San Antonio International Airport

SAV. See Savanah Airport

Savanah Airport: B-2

SDF. See Louisville Standiford Field Airport

SEA. See Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport: B-3, C-3

Sector Design Analysis Tool: 5-20

Separation Assistance Working Group: 5-8

SFO. See San Francisco International Airport

SIMMOD. See Airport and Airspace Simulation Model

SJC. See San Jose International Airport

SJU. See San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport

SLC. See Salt Lake City International Airport

SMF. See Sacramento Metropolitan Airport

SNA. See Santa Ana John Wayne Airport

Southern California Airspace Users Group: 4-17

Spokane International Airport: B-3

SRQ. See Sarasota-Bradenton Airport

STL. See Lambert St. Louis International Airport

Strategic Plan: 1-4, 1-16, 1-19

Strategy Evaluation: 5-15

STT. See Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas Airport

SYR. See Syracuse Hancock International Airport

Syracuse Hancock International Airport: B-3

System Capacity Measurement: 1-19

T

Tampa International Airport: B-2

TATCA. See Air Traffic Control Automation

Technical Center: 2-4, 4-2, 5-13, C-2

Terminal Airspace Study: 2-16

Terminal Airspace Visualization Tool: 5-21

Terminal Area Forecasts: 1-5

Terminal Area Surveillance System: 5-9

Terminal Instrument Procedures: 3-9

TMA. See Traffic Management Advisor

TMU. See Traffic Management Unit

TPA. See Tampa International Airport

Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System: 3-12, 5-3, 5-8

Traffic Flow Management: 1-19, 5-14

Traffic Management Advisor: 5-5

Traffic Management Unit: 5-3

Tucson International Airport: B-1

TUL. See Tulsa International Airport

Tulsa International Airport: B-3

TUS. See Tucson International Airport

TYS. See Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport

V

Vertical Flight Program: 5-22

W

Wake Vortex: 3-7, 5-9

Washington Dulles International Airport: 5-4, B-2, C-3

Washington National Airport: B-2

Weather: 1-20

West Palm Beach International Airport: B-2

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport: B-2

Wide Area Augmentation System: 5-8

William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport: B-2, C-3

Windsor Locks Bradley International Airport: B-2