1998

Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of System Capacity

December 1998

Prepared jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration,

JIL Information Systems, and Fu Associates.

Visit us on the world wide web at:

www.asc.faa.gov
2 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1998 ACE PLAN
Aviation activity is predicted to rise steadily over the next ten

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

years, increasing the demand on already congested airports and

terminal areas. The U.S. aviation infrastructure handled 63.4 million

aircraft operations in 1997, an increase of 1.4 million operations over

the previous year. The 1998 Aviation Capacity Enhancement (ACE)

Plan describes FAA initiatives aimed at enhancing the capacity and

performance of the National Airspace System (NAS) to accommodate

this growing demand, and explores issues that could inhibit the future

efficiency of the NAS. The ACE Plan is produced by the FAA Office of

System Capacity (ASC).

The National Airspace System

Delay is the traditional measure of NAS performance. The primary

causes of delay are weather and terminal volume. In 1997, approximately 245,000 flights were delayed 15 minutes or more, a decrease of

9.6 percent from 1996. The overall decrease in delay was primarily a

result of fewer weather-related delays. Twenty-seven airports in the

U.S. had more than 20,000 hours of annual delay in 1997, and if no

significant capacity enhancements are made this number will increase

to 31 airports by 2007. Of the 29 large hub airports, Newark International Airport had the highest average delay per operation in 1997.

New airport development, weather detection and forecasting tools,

and new decision support technology such as the Standard Terminal

Automation Replacement System (STARS) are just a few of the FAA

initiatives that will help to reduce delays.

Other measures of NAS system performance are the flexibility and

predictability of the air traffic control system, and user access to

aviation services and facilities. FAA initiatives focused on increasing

flexibility are the elimination of unnecessary ATC-preferred routes,

expansion of the National Route Program (NRP), and the development

of enhanced area navigation (RNAV) procedures. Key strategies for

increasing system predictability are improving the quality and quantity of information available to system users and involving them in

interactive operational decision making. FAA initiatives to improve

access include increasing civilian access to Special Use Airspace (SUA)

and supplementing GPS navigation through the development of the

wide area augmentation system (WAAS) and the local area augmentation system (LAAS).

Free Flight and NAS Modernization

The FAA’s two major interdependent capacity enhancement initiatives — Free Flight and NAS modernization — are providing new

technologies and procedures to increase NAS efficiency. The main

objective of free flight is to remove restrictions that hinder the efficient

flow of traffic while maintaining or improving the current high level

of safety. The transition to free flight requires both procedural and

technological advances. The FAA is currently implementing many of

the procedural changes required for free flight. Six new technologies
4 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1998 ACE PLAN

will be implemented at select locations in the near

future under a NAS modernization initiative referred

to as Free Flight Phase 1. A full-scale testing of free

flight technologies is planned in the Safe Flight 21

initiative.

Airport Development

The construction of new runways and the extension of existing runways are the most significant and

direct ways to improve capacity at existing airports. Of

the top 100 U.S. airports, 18 completed runway construction projects from 1995 to 1998; eight airports are

currently constructing new runways or runway extensions, and 59 airports have proposed runway construction projects. ASC works with airports to study ways to

redevelop and expand existing airport facilities. These

studies focus on maximizing capacity at existing airports through improvements in runways and taxiways, navigational and guidance aids, and operational

procedures. Increasingly, environmental issues such

as noise in the airport environment are restricting

airport expansion options in major metropolitan areas.

Airspace Development

Airspace development studies strive to reduce

delays by determining how to restructure airspace and

modify arrival, departure, en route and terminal flow

patterns. In mid-1998 the FAA initiated the National

Airspace Redesign, a large-scale analysis of the national airspace structure that will begin by identifying

problems in the congested airspace of New York and

New Jersey. Additional FAA airspace studies are ongoing in Chicago, northern and southern California, Salt

Lake City, the Southern Region (from Florida to Atlanta), and the Caribbean. The FAA has also initiated a

terminal airspace study at Phoenix International Airport. The efficiency benefits of airspace redesign have

been demonstrated in the Dallas/Fort Worth area,

where a new runway, rerouting of traffic, and expanding the TRACON airspace resulted in an increase of

visual flight rules (VFR) arrival rates by more than 40

percent and annual flight time savings of $92 million in

1997.

Operational Procedures

A cost-efficient alternative to airport and airspace

development is modifying air traffic control procedures to improve the flow of aircraft in the en route and

terminal area. Examples of initiatives in the en route

environment are the National Route Program (NRP)

and the 3D User Preferred Trajectories Flight Trials

Project, which are decreasing restrictions and allowing pilots to fly more direct routes. In the oceanic

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

and efficient routing. Additionally, less restrictive instrument approach procedures are being developed

for the terminal environment as the accuracy of landing aids improves.

Capacity Enhancing Technologies

Over the next two decades significant capacity

enhancements will be gained from increased capabilities in the areas of communication, navigation, surveillance, weather, and Air Traffic Management (ATM)

decision support systems. Digital communications systems, combined with augmentations to the Global

Position System (GPS), Automated Dependent Surveillance (ADS), improved decision support tools for controllers, and improved weather prediction and dissemination systems will lead to the more efficient use

of airspace and airports and greater operational

flexibility.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The National Airspace System .................................................................................... 3

Free Flight and NAS Modernization ............................................................................ 3

Airport Development .................................................................................................... 4

Airspace Development ................................................................................................. 4

Operational Procedures............................................................................................... 4

Capacity Enhancing Technologies .............................................................................. 4

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................11

CHAPTER 1: THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM ................................ 13

Aviation Infrastructure................................................................................................. 13

Airport Capacity in the United States .................................................................... 13

Air Traffic Control (ATC) Facilities ........................................................................... 14

Flight Service Stations (FSS) ................................................................................... 15

Airport Traffic Control Towers (ATCT) ..................................................................... 15

Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON) ........................................ 16

Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) ............................................................. 16

Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC) ........................................ 16

ATC Services Related to Capacity ............................................................................. 17

Separation Assurance ............................................................................................ 17

Traffic Management ............................................................................................... 17

Aviation Information ............................................................................................... 18

Navigation and Landing Services ......................................................................... 18

Aviation Activity .......................................................................................................... 18

U.S. Aircraft Operations and Passenger Enplanements........................................ 18

Operations and Passenger Enplanements at the Top 100 Airports ..................... 19

Traffic Volume in Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCS) ............................... 19

Air Cargo................................................................................................................ 21

U.S. Commercial Air Carrier Aircraft ..................................................................... 23

Regional/Commuter Aircraft ................................................................................. 23

General Aviation Aircraft ....................................................................................... 24

System Performance Measures ................................................................................. 24

Delay ...................................................................................................................... 25

Delay by Cause: Weather, Equipment, and Volume ........................................ 25

Identification of Delay-Problem Airports............................................................ 27

Consolidated Operations and Delay Analysis System (CODAS) ..................... 29

Airports with More than 20,000 Hours of Delay ............................................. 30

The Costs of Delay ............................................................................................. 32

Strategies to Reduce Delay ................................................................................ 32

Flexibility ................................................................................................................. 33

Strategies to Increase System Flexibility ............................................................ 34

Predictability ........................................................................................................... 34

Strategies to Increase Predictability ................................................................... 35

Access..................................................................................................................... 35

CHAPTER 2: MAJOR CAPACITY INITIATIVES....................................... 37

Free Flight ................................................................................................................... 37

NAS Modernization ................................................................................................... 38

Communications ..................................................................................................... 38

Navigation ............................................................................................................. 39

Surveillance ............................................................................................................ 39

Weather .................................................................................................................. 39

Air Traffic Decision Support ................................................................................... 40

Free Flight Phase 1 (FFP1) ...................................................................................... 40

Safe Flight 21 ............................................................................................................. 42

Operational Enhancements Affecting System Capacity and Efficiency ............... 42

Program Execution ................................................................................................. 42
6 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1998 ACE PLAN

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ................................................ 43

Financing of Airport Capital Development ................................................................ 43

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grants........................................................... 43

Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) ........................................................................... 44

Capacity Enhancements Funded by FAA Facilities and Equipment and

Research Engineering and Development Funds........................................................ 45

Airport Construction and Expansion ......................................................................... 45

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

Conversion of Military Airfields to Civilian Airport Facilities................................. 46

Construction of New Runways and Runway Extensions ....................................... 47

Airport Development Implications of Next-Generation Aircraft................................ 48

Airport Enhancements for New Large Airplanes (NLA) ........................................ 48

The Impacts of Next-Generation GA Aircraft on Airport Utilization ..................... 49

Potential Capacity Benefits of Civil Tiltrotor Aircraft to Airport Capacity ............. 52

Airport Capacity Studies............................................................................................ 52

Airport Capacity Design Teams............................................................................. 52

Recommendations from Previous Airport Capacity Studies .................................. 54

1998 Airport Capacity Design Team Studies ....................................................... 56

Reno/Tahoe International Airport (RNO) .......................................................... 56

Miami International Airport Update (MIA) ........................................................ 56

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

Tampa International Airport (TPA) ...................................................................... 57

Additional Airport Capacity Activities ................................................................... 57

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) ............................................................. 57

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) .................................................. 58

Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport (ATL) ..................................................... 58

1998 Tactical Initiative Teams................................................................................ 58

La Guardia Airport (LGA) ................................................................................... 58

San Diego International Airport (SAN) .............................................................. 59

Air Traffic Control (ATC) Ground Simulations ........................................................ 59

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (LAS) .............................................. 59

Salt Lake City Airport (SLC) ................................................................................ 59

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) ............................................... 60

1998 Regional Capacity Design Teams ............................................................... 60

Northeast Region Capacity Design Study ........................................................ 60

Anchorage Area Airspace Design Team Study ................................................ 60

Environmental Constraints on Capacity ................................................................. 61

CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT............................................... 63

New FAA Airspace Management and Development Organizations....................... 63

Efficiency Benefits of Airspace and Airport Enhancements in the

Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex .................................................................................... 64

Ongoing Airspace Studies......................................................................................... 65

National Airspace Redesign .................................................................................. 65

Chicago Terminal Airspace Project (CTAP) ............................................................ 66

West Coast Airspace Analysis ............................................................................... 67

Southern California TRACON (SCT) Airspace Analysis ..................................... 67

Northern California TRACON (NCT) Airspace Analysis.................................... 68

Las Vegas Airspace Analysis.............................................................................. 69

Cincinnati Airspace Analysis.................................................................................. 70

Salt Lake City En Route and Terminal Airspace Analyses ..................................... 71

Southern Region Multi-Center Study...................................................................... 72

RNAV Route Development in the Bahamas and Caribbean ................................. 72

Phoenix Terminal Airspace Analysis ...................................................................... 73

Commercial Space Transportation ............................................................................ 73
1998 ACE PLAN PREFACE

PREFACE – 7

CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES ............................... 75

En Route Procedures................................................................................................... 75

Area Navigation (RNAV) ....................................................................................... 75

The National Route Program (NRP) ....................................................................... 76

Three-Dimension User Preferred Trajectories Flight Trials Project .......................... 76

Increasing Civilian Access to Special Use Airspace (SUA) ................................... 77

Elimination of Unnecessary ATC-Preferred Routes ................................................. 78

Oceanic En Route Procedures ................................................................................... 78

Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) ....................................................... 79

Reduced Horizontal Separation Minima (RHSM) ................................................. 79

Terminal Area/Approach Procedures ....................................................................... 79

Removal of 250 Knot Speed Limit for Departing Aircraft in Class B Airspace .... 80

Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches (SCIA) .................................... 80

Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA) ............................................. 81

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES..................... 83

Communications......................................................................................................... 83

Current Communication Capabilities..................................................................... 84

Planned Communication Enhancements ............................................................... 84

Aeronautical Data Link Systems......................................................................... 84

Controller to Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) ..................................... 85

Next Generation Air/Ground Communication System (NEXCOM) ................. 86

Flight Information Service and Cockpit Information System ............................. 87

Navigation ................................................................................................................. 87

Current Navigation Capabilities............................................................................ 87

Planned Navigation Enhancements ...................................................................... 88

GPS Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) ................................................ 88

GPS Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) .................................................. 89

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

Current Surveillance Capabilities .......................................................................... 90

Planned Surveillance Enhancements ..................................................................... 90

Automated Dependent Surveillance (ADS) ....................................................... 90

Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE-3) and

Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS) ............................................. 91

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

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

Planned Weather Enhancements........................................................................... 93

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

Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) ............................................................. 94

Air Traffic Management ............................................................................................. 94

Current Air Traffic Management Capabilities ....................................................... 94

Planned Air Traffic Management Enhancements .................................................. 95

Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS)

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

Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) ............................................................. 96

Center Terminal Radar Approach Control Automation System (CTAS),

Traffic Management Advisor (TMA), and Passive Final Approach

Spacing Tool (pFAST) ......................................................................................... 97

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

Surface Movement Advisor (SMA) .................................................................... 99
8 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1998 ACE PLAN
Figure 1-1. Distribution of Aviation Activity at U.S. Airports .................................... 14

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-2. Air Traffic Control Facilities..................................................................... 15

Figure 1-3. Trends in Operations and Enplanements............................................... 19

Figure 1-4. Top 100 Airports by 1997 Enplanements............................................. 20

Figure 1-5. Continental Air Route Traffic Control Centers ........................................ 20

Figure 1-6. ARTCC Operations .................................................................................. 21

Figure 1-7. Share and Value of U.S. Imports and Exports Shipped by Air ............. 22

Figure 1-8. Top 25 U.S. Airports by Total Cargo ..................................................... 22

Figure 1-9. U.S. Air Carrier Large Jet Aircraft by Type ............................................ 23

Figure 1-10. Regional/Commuter Aircraft Percent ..................................................... 24

Figure 1-11. FAA Capacity Goals............................................................................... 26

Figure 1-12. Delay by Cause ...................................................................................... 27

Figure 1-13. Operations Delayed 15 Minutes or More Per 1,000 Operations ....... 28

Figure 1-14. Operations and Delays at Ten of the Busiest U.S. Airports................... 29

Figure 1-15. Average Delay by Phase of Flight at the 29 Large Hub Airports ......... 30

Figure 1-16. Airports Exceeding 20,000 Hours of Annual Delay

in 1997 and 2007 ................................................................................. 31

Figure 1-17. Total Aviation Delay Costs to Air Carriers, 1993-1996........................ 32

Figure 1-18. Percentage of U.S. Population within 20 miles of an Airport ................ 35

Figure 2-1. Free Flight Phase 1 Capabilities Summary ............................................ 41

Figure 2-2. Expected Capacity/Efficiency Benefits of Safe Flight 21

Operational Enhancements ................................................................... 41

Figure 3-1. Sources of Airport Funding .................................................................... 44

Figure 3-2. Distribution of AIP Grants by Airport Type, 1997 .................................. 44

Figure 3-3. 1997 Participants In The Military Airport Program ............................... 47

Figure 3-4. Runways and Runway Extensions Completed from 1995 to 1998

at the Top 100 Airports .......................................................................... 48

Figure 3-5. Runways and Runway Extensions Planned, Proposed, or Currently

Under Construction at the Top 100 Airports. ........................................ 50

Figure 3-6. Completed Airport Capacity Studies..................................................... 53

Figure 3-7. Completed Airport Capacity Studies and their Recommendations ...... 55

Figure 4-1. DFW Arrival Traffic Before Airport and Airspace Enhancements.......... 65

Figure 4-2. DFW Arrival Traffic After Airport and Airspace Enhancements ............ 65

Figure 4-3. Proposed Airspace Design for Chicago ................................................ 67

Figure 4-4. Old TRACON Boundaries and Arrival Routes to LAX............................. 68

Figure 4-5. New SCT Boundary and Arrival Enhancement Procedure to LAX ........ 68

Figure 4-6. Existing SFO North Arrival Routes .......................................................... 69

Figure 4-7. Proposed Straight-In Arrival Routes for SFO .......................................... 69

Figure 4-8. SLC Current Routes.................................................................................. 71

Figure 4-9. SLC Proposed Routes .............................................................................. 71

Figure 5-1. Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach ............................................ 81

Figure 6-1. Candidate Sites for FFP1 Decision Support Technologies .................... 95
10 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1998 ACE PLAN
A recent report by the National Civil Aviation Review Commission (NCARC) on aviation funding concluded that:

 “...growth, without significant capacity improvements,

is already posing a serious challenge to the efficiency of our

air transportation system, and hence the economy at large.

Continued steady growth, without adequate investment in

the air traffic control and airport system, will make this

challenge even more daunting with each passing day.” 1

The purpose of the Aviation Capacity Enhancement

(ACE) Plan is to describe the many FAA initiatives that are

addressing the challenge of keeping pace with the growing demand for aviation services. The ACE Plan provides

an overview of free flight and NAS modernization — two

broad programs that govern the FAA’s capacity investments — as well as specific initiatives in the areas of

airport development, airspace redesign, new operational procedures, and new aviation technologies. The

ACE Plan is produced by the FAA Office of System

Capacity (ASC).

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) recently embarked on a new, intermodal approach to

transportation planning called the ONE DOT management strategy. The FAA will actively participate in ONE

DOT by coordinating with other transportation modes

such as highways and railways in addressing transportation problems, and considering the entire transportation experience for the flying public when determining

its investments in airports and other aviation infrastructure. Consistent with the ONEDOT strategy, the ACE Plan

promotes an integrated approach to transportation planning by keeping officials in all transportation modes

apprised of current and planned aviation capacity enhancements. As this strategy evolves, future ACE Plan

publications will include highlights of intermodal capacity initiatives.

1. www.faa.gov/NCARC/reports/pepele.htm, pg 13.

INTRODUCTION
12 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1998 ACE PLAN
THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYST

CHAPTER 1:

EM

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

grow steadily. This increased demand will be placed on an aviation

system where key airports and terminal areas are already frequently

congested.

This chapter provides information on the aviation infrastructure

of the U.S., current and projected aviation activity, and changes in

flight delay and other measures of system capacity and performance.

The capacity of the U.S. aviation system is a direct function of the

existing aviation infrastructure. Aviation activity data indicate the

demand on the system; system performance measures indicate the

ability of the aviation system to accommodate the demand.

Aviation Infrastructure

Airports and air traffic facilities can be viewed as static components of the aviation infrastructure that do not change significantly

day to day. In comparison, the air traffic management services provided by the FAA are more dynamic, ensuring that both safety and

capacity are maintained at every moment in constantly changing

weather and traffic situations. The Office of System Capacity (ASC)

works with other FAA organizations, airports, airlines, and other

aviation system users to ensure continuous enhancement of the U.S.

aviation infrastructure and air traffic services, especially in congested

areas of the country.

Airport Capacity in the United States

Approximately 3,300 airports

1

 in the United States are considered

significant to the capacity of the national airspace system (NAS) (see

Figure 1-1). These airports, by inclusion in the National Plan of

Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), are eligible to receive grants

under the Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP).

Of the AIP-eligible airports, 413 are considered primary airports,

handling the vast majority of scheduled commercial service and

enplaning more than 10,000 passengers annually each. These airports,

with their high level of commercial activity, form the vital network of

air transportation needed to ensure the movement of people and cargo

critical to interstate commerce and international competitiveness.

Delay problems are most prevalent at, but not limited to, the 29 largehub primary airports.

1. Airports include landing areas developed specifically for helicopters and

seaplanes as well as conventional fixed wing aircraft landing areas.
14 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1998 ACE PLAN

Air Traffic Control (ATC) Facilities

Communication, navigation, surveillance, and weather resources

permit air traffic controllers to view key information, such as aircraft

location, aircraft flight plans, and prevailing weather conditions, and

to communicate with pilots. These resources reside at, or are associated

with, several aTC facilities: flight service stations (FSS), air traffic

control towers (ATCT), terminal radar approach control facilities

(TRACON), air route traffic control centers (ARTCC), and the Air Traffic

Control System Command Center (ATCSCC) (see Figure 1-2). Controllers

at these facilities work with pilots, air carriers, and each other to assure

that the maximum capacity of the NAS is realized minute-to-minute

and day-to-day. The functions of each of these ATC facilities are

described briefly below.

Primary:

Large Hub

Small Hub

Non Hub

General

Aviation

Reliever

Total

Airport Types

AIP Eligible Airports

More than 10,000 annual passenger

enplanements

At least 1% of passenger enplanements

0.25% to 1% of passenger enplanements

0.05% to 0.25% of passenger enplanements

Less than 0.05% of passenger enplanements;

average of 135 based aircraft

2,500 to 10,000 enplanements annually;

used mainly by GA

Have at least 10 based aircraft and fewer

than 2,500 scheduled enplanements

High-capacity GA airports to improve GA

airport access in major metropolitan areas

Non-AIP Eligible Airports

Low Activity Landing Areas

Commercial Service: Handle all regularly scheduled commercial airline traffic

Medium Hub

Non-Primary:

General Aviation

* Locally-owned aircraft hangared or based at the airport

Number

of

Airports

538

413

29

42

70

272

125

2,807

2,473

334

3,345

14,961

% of

Commercial

Enplanements

99.9%

67.2%

22.2%

7.1%

3.4%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

% of Based

Aircraft*

20.8%

1.3%

3.8%

4.5%

11.2%

3.2%

37.5%

30.0%

91.5%

8.5%

Figure 1-1. Distribution of Aviation Activity at U.S. Airports
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 15

Terminal Radar Approach

Control (TRACON)

• Sequences and separates aircraft as

they approach and depart major Air Traffic Control Tower metropolitan areas • Controls aircraft on the ground

and within 5 nautical miles

of the airport

Air Route Traffic

Control Center (ARTCC)

• Controls aircraft en route

Air Traffic Control

System Command Center

• Monitors air traffic nationally

and communicates with air traffic

facilities and airlines to reduce

congestion and delays

TRACON/

Departure

Control

Flight Service Station

• Flight plan filing and

weather briefings,

primarily for GA

aircraft

Figure 1-2. Air Traffic Control Facilities

Flight Service Stations (FSS)

Over 75 automated flight service stations (AFSS) and staffed flight

service stations (FSS) provide pre-flight and in-flight services such as

flight plan filing and weather report updates, primarily for general

aviation aircraft. Pilots may also obtain flight services from an automated system called the Direct User Access Terminal Service (DUATS).

In addition, pilots can obtain weather briefings through the Telephone

Information Briefing System (TIBS) or private weather briefing vendors.

Airport Traffic Control Towers (ATCT)

Airport traffic control towers (ATCT) at more than 400 airports

control aircraft on the ground, and before landing and after take-off

within approximately five nautical miles of the airport and up to an

altitude of 3,000 feet. Air traffic controllers rely on a combination of
16 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1998 ACE PLAN

technology and visual surveillance to direct aircraft departures and

approaches, maintain safe distances between aircraft, and communicate weather-related information, clearances, and other instructions to

pilots.

Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON)

Over 185 Terminal Radar Approach Control facilities (TRACON)

sequence and separate aircraft as they approach and depart major

metropolitan areas. TRACONs typically control air traffic within a

30mile radius and less than 15,000 feet altitude, exclusive of ATCT

airspace.

Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC)

Twenty Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) control and

monitor aircraft via radar over the continental United States in transit

and during approaches to some airports. Each en route center handles

a different region of airspace, passing control from one to another as

respective borders are reached until the aircraft reaches TRACON

airspace or leaves U.S. airspace. A typical ARTCC has responsibility for

more than 100,000 square miles of airspace extending over a number

of states.

Three ARTCCs −Oakland, New York, and Anchorage−also control

aircraft over the ocean. Controlling aircraft over oceans is very different from controlling aircraft over land. Outside radar range, which

extends only 175 to 225 miles offshore, controllers must rely on

periodic radio communications of position reports to determine the

aircraft’s location.

Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC)

The ATCSCC in Herndon, Virginia monitors traffic flows across the

United States and communicates with ARTCCs, TRACONs, ATCTs, and

Airline Operating Centers (AOC) to minimize congestion and delays

due to adverse weather, equipment outages, closed runways, and other

capacity-related circumstances.

A typical ARTCC has responsibility for

more than 100,000 square miles of

airspace extending over a number of

states.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 17

ATC Services Related to Capacity

All of the services provided by the FAA concern safety, efficiency,

security, or capacity. The services described below are provided by air

traffic controllers to ensure that capacity is optimized in all weather

and traffic conditions.

Separation Assurance

Separation assurance services ensure that aircraft maintain a safe

distance from other aircraft, terrain, obstructions, and certain airspace

not designated for routine air travel. While the primary function of

separation services is to maintain safety, the application of separation

minima also impacts capacity. Air traffic controllers apply separation

standards defined for the various aircraft operating environments to

guide pilots flying under instrument flight rules (IFR). Pilots flying

under visual flight rules (VFR) ensure separation under a “see and

avoid” policy. In the busy airspace surrounding an airport and on the

airport surface, controllers in ATC towers sequence aircraft for takeoffs

and landings, assign aircraft to available runways, and enforce surface

movement procedures.

Traffic Management

Traffic management involves coordinating the large number of

aircraft using the air traffic management (ATM) system at any given

period of time, as well as coordinating the routes that these aircraft fly.

FAA personnel ensure the safe, orderly, and efficient movement of

aircraft under conditions that vary based on a number of different

factors including weather conditions, equipment availability, and

runway constraints.

The current traffic management service is a procedure-based,

manual interaction between ATM specialists and aviation customers,

such as airlines, to ensure that demand is balanced with available

capacity. Traffic management specialists in FAA air traffic control

facilities perform a wide range of traffic management activities:

• Managing ground stop and ground delay programs

• Formulating national flow management plans in coordination

with AOCs

• Balancing air traffic flow within an ARTCC’s airspace

• Sequencing and spacing aircraft on final approach

• Coordinating arrival and departure flows with adjacent facilities

• Formulating taxi sequences and communicating instructions to

pilots for the safe and efficient flow of traffic on the airport

surface

FAA personnel ensure the safe, orderly, and efficient movement of aircraft under conditions that vary based

on a number of different factors including weather conditions, equipment availability, and runway constraints.
18 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1998 ACE PLAN

Aviation Information

The FAA gathers, processes, and disseminates aeronautical information such as weather data, aeronautical charts, and notices to airmen

in support of the safe and efficient operation of aircraft. Recent

enhancements to information exchange enable real-time data link

communications between ATC and the cockpit for flight information

and planning.

Navigation and Landing Services

The FAA establishes, operates, and maintains a majority of the

terrestrial navigational and landing aids used by aircraft to determine

their position en route and to/from the runway. The FAA also designs,

flight checks, and publishes instrument approach procedures which

determine the routes and altitudes that aircraft will fly when approaching a specific airport under marginal weather conditions.

Aviation Activity

Aircraft operations, passenger enplanements, air cargo tonnage,

ARTCC traffic volume, and the number of active aircraft are all indicators of aviation activity and demand for FAA services. This section

describes trends in these indicators.

U.S. Aircraft Operations and Passenger Enplanements

Over the past five years, the number of passenger enplanements

has been increasing at a higher rate than aircraft operations, primarily

due to increasing load factors. From 1992 to 1996 the number of aircraft

operations in the U.S. remained stable at approximately 62 million,

then increased to an estimated 63.4 million in 1997, a 6.3 percent

increase. Air carrier and regional/commuter enplanements on the

other hand, increased steadily from 507 million in 1992 to an estimated

630 million in 1997, a 24 percent increase. By 2009, aircraft operations

are expected to increase to 75.4 million (a 19 percent increase over

1997), and enplanements to 986 million (a 57 percent increase over

1997). The higher growth predicted for passenger enplanements relative to aircraft operations is primarily due to a projected increase in

seating capacity for air carrier aircraft. Figure 1-3 illustrates the trend

in aircraft operations and passenger enplanements nationwide and at

the top 100 U.S. airports.2

2. Based on 1997 passenger enplanements in the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecasts.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 19

Operations 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

1997

19981999

2000

2001

20022003

2004

20052006

2007

20082009

2010

2011

0

15

30

45

60

75

Operations (millions)

Top 100 U.S. Airports

All U.S. Airports

Enplanements 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

19981999

2000

2001

20022003

2004

20052006

2007

20082009

2010

2011

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Enplanements (millions)

Top 100 U.S. Airports

All U.S. Airports

Figure 1-3. Trends in Operations and Enplanements

Aircraft Operations and Passenger Enplanements at the

Top 100 Airports

The top 100 airports in the U.S., as measured by 1997 passenger

enplanements, are shown in Figure 1-4. These 100 airports accounted

for more than 95 percent of the passenger enplanements in the U.S. in

1997, but only 43 percent of operations. The top 100 airports were

busier in 1997 than they were in 1996. From 1996 to 1997, the number

of aircraft operations at the top 100 airports increased more than two

percent, while the number of air carrier and regional/commuter

enplanements increased 4.5 percent.

The number of aircraft operations at the top 100 airports increased

from 25.3 million in 1992 to 27.2 million in 1997, a 7.5 percent increase.

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

enplanements increased from 474 million to 600 million, a 27 percent

increase. By 2012, aircraft operations at the top 100 airports are

projected to increase to 35.4 million (a 30 percent increase over 1997),

and enplanements to 1 billion (a 67 percent increase over 1997).

Operations and enplanement data for 1995, 1996, and 1997 and

forecasts of operations and enplanements for the top 100 airports in

2012 are included in Appendix A.

Traffic Volume in Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs)

The number of aircraft flying under instrument flight rules (IFR)

handled by ARTCCs totaled 41.4 million in 1997, an increase of 2.4

percent over 1996. The five busiest ARTCCs in 1997 were: Cleveland,

Chicago, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., and Indianapolis. By 2009, the

Chicago ARTCC is projected to be the busiest in the U.S. Figure 1-5 is a

map of the 20 ARTCCs in the Continental United States, with the busiest

ARTCCs highlighted in blue. Figure1-6 shows the number of operations by ARTCC for 1997, and forecast operations for 1998 and 2009.

The number of aircraft operations at

the top 100 airports increased from

25.3 million in 1992 to 27.2 million in

1997, a 7.5 percent increase.
20 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1998 ACE PLAN

Figure 1-4. Top 100 Airports by 1997 Enplanements

Figure 1-5. Continental Air Route Traffic Control Centers

Cuba

Florida

Puerto

Rico

Guam

ABQ

BOI

BUR

COS

DFW DAL

ELP

LAS

LAX

LBB

OAK

ONT

PDX

PHX

RNO

SAN

SEA

SFO

SJC

SLC SMF

SNA

TUS

GEG

ATL BHM

BNA

BUF

GSP

CHS

CLE

CLT

CMH

CVG

DAY

DEN

DSM

DTW

GRR

GSO

IAD

ICT

IND

JAX

LIT

MCI

MDT MDW

MEM

MKE

MSP

OKC

OMA

ORD

PIT

RDU

RIC

ROC

SDF STL

SYR

TUL TYS

ALB

BDL

BWI

DCA

EWR

LGA

JFK

ORF

PHL

PVD

ISP

BOS

PWM

KOA

HNL

OGG

ITO

ANC LIH

GUM

AUS

FLL

HOU

IAH

MCO

MIA

MSY

PBI

RSW

SAT

SRQ

TPA

SJU

SAV

PSP CAE

PNS

ZSE

ZOA

ZLA

ZLC

ZDV

ZAB

ZFW

ZHU

ZKC

ZMP

ZAU

ZID

ZME ZTL

ZDC

ZOB ZNY

ZBW

ZMA

ZJX

ZNY

Busiest ARTCCs in FY97

Cleveland ZOB

Chicago ZAU

Atlanta ZTL

Washington ZDC

Indianapolis ZID

Busiest ARTCCs in FY09 - Forecast

Chicago ZAU

Cleveland ZOB

Washington ZDC

Atlanta ZTL

Indianapolis ZID
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 21

Air Cargo

Air transportation, a preferred mode of shipment for high-value,

lightweight, perishable, and time-sensitive goods, is increasingly

important to the economy of the U.S. From 1990 to 1997, the share of

U.S. imports shipped by air increased from 18 percent to 24 percent by

dollar value. Over the same time period the share of U.S. exports

shipped by air increased from 28 percent to 32 percent by dollar value

(see Figure 1-7).3 During the next 20 years, worldwide air cargo traffic

is expected to more than triple, outpacing passenger growth.4

Air cargo is transported in the baggage compartments of scheduled

passenger aircraft and by all-cargo aircraft. In 1995 there were approximately 1,200 all-cargo aircraft worldwide. The world freighter fleet is

projected to nearly double by 2015, with a net addition of more than

1,000 jet freighter aircraft; 70 percent of the dedicated cargo fleet will

be converted passenger planes.5 Most all-cargo flights are scheduled

during off-peak periods and do not substantially contribute to airport

congestion and delay problems. Figure 1-8 lists the top 25 U.S. airports

by tonnage of cargo loaded and unloaded for 1996 and 1997 and the

Figure 1-6. ARTCC Operations Albuquerque (ZAB) Atlanta (ZTL) Boston (ZBW) Chicago (ZAU) Cleveland (ZOB)

Denver (ZDV)

Fort Worth (ZFW)

Houston (ZHU)

Indianapolis (ZID)

Jacksonville (ZJX)

Kansas City (ZKC)

Los Angeles (ZLA)

Memphis (ZME)

Miami (ZMA)

Minneapolis (ZMP)

New York (ZNY)

Oakland (ZOA)

Salt Lake City (ZLC)

Seattle (ZSE)

Washington (ZDC)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Operations (000)

1997

Actual Forecast

1998 2009

3. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Report FT920.

4. Boeing, www.boeing.com/commercial/value/8_cg_a.html.

5. Boeing, www.boeing.com/commercial/value/8_cg_a.html.
22 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1998 ACE PLAN

percentage change in tonnage. The tonnage shipped at these 25

airports increased ten percent from 1996 to 1997. The top five U.S.

airports by cargo tonnage are Memphis, Los Angeles, Miami, John F.

Kennedy (New York), and O’Hare (Chicago).

1990 1996 1997

Imports 18% $89B 23% $186B 23% $213B

Exports 28% $110B 31% $196B 32% $220B

Figure 1-7. Share and Value of U.S. Imports and Exports Shipped by Air

(Percent and Billions of Dollars)

City

Memphis, TN

Los Angeles, CA

Miami, FL

New York, NY

Chicago, IL

Louisville, KY

Anchorage, AK

Newark, NJ

Atlanta, GA

Dayton, OH

Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX

San Francisco, CA

Oakland, CA

Indianapolis, IN

Toledo, OH

Honolulu, HI

Philadelphia, PA

Boston, MA

Denver, CO

Ontario, CA

Seattle-Tacoma, WA

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN

Cincinnati, OH

Washington, DC

Houston, TX

Total

Memphis International

Los Angeles International

Miami International

John F. Kennedy International

O'Hare International

Louisville Standiford Field

Anchorage International

Newark International

Hartsfield Atlanta International

Dayton International

Dallas-Ft. Worth International

San Francisco International

Metropolitan Oakland International

Indianapolis International

Toledo Express

Honolulu International

Philadelphia International

Boston Logan International

Denver International

Ontario International

Seattle-Tacoma International

Minneapolis-St. Paul International

Greater Cincinnati International

Washington Dulles International

George Bush International

Airport ID

MEM

LAX

MIA

JFK

ORD

SDF

ANC

EWR

ATL

DAY

DFW

SFO

OAK

IND

TOL

HNL

PHL

BOS

DEN

ONT

SEA

MSP

CVG

IAD

IAH

1996

 1,934

 1,719

 1,710

 1,636

 1,260

 1,369

 1,269

 958

 800

 767

 775

 712

 615

 609

 345

 436

 494

 406

 390

 396

 388

 361

 289

 309

 310

20,257

1997

 2,233

 1,873

 1,766

 1,668

 1,407

 1,346

 1,260

 1,043

 865

 813

 811

 780

 678

 663

 521

 501

 486

 442

 437

419

 394

 379

 363

 350

 328

21,826

%

16%

9%

3%

2%

12%

-2%

-1%

9%

8%

6%

5%

10%

10%

9%

51%

15%

-2%

9%

12%

6%

1%

5%

26%

13%

6%

8%

Thousands of

Metric Tons

Change

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

Figure 1-8. Top 25 U.S. Airports by Total Cargo*
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 23

U.S. Commercial Air Carrier Aircraft

In 1997, there were 85 U.S. commercial airlines, of which 62 were

passenger airlines and 23 were all-cargo carriers. The estimated total

number of jet aircraft in this category was 4,953. By 2009, the number

of air carrier jet aircraft is expected to increase by almost 50 percent to

7,419. New commercial aircraft orders totaled 1,181 in fiscal year 1997,

an increase of 11.6 percent over 1996. The demand for narrowbody

(single aisle) aircraft has continually outpaced the demand for widebody

(more than one aisle) aircraft. Widebody aircraft are expected to

account for 20.6 percent of the fleet by 2009, up from 17.6 percent in

1997.6 See Figure 1-9.

6. FAA Aviation Forecasts Fiscal Years 1998-2009.

7. FAA Aviation Forecasts Fiscal Years 1998-2009.

Narrowbody

Widebody

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1997 2009

Number of Aircraft

Figure 1-9. U.S. Air Carrier Large Jet Aircraft by Type

Regional/Commuter Aircraft

The regional/commuter airline industry is defined as air carriers

that provide regularly scheduled passenger service with fleets that are

primarily composed of aircraft with 60 seats or fewer. Its main role is

to provide feeder service to large hubs served by the major commercial

air carriers. In 1997, the regional/commuter traffic grew at almost the

same rate as that of larger commercial air carriers. Regional/commuter

enplanements increased 3.0 percent from 1996 levels, compared to a

3.5 percent increase in commercial enplanements.

The regional/commuter aircraft fleet is projected to increase 2.9

percent annually, from 2,121 aircraft in 1997 to 2,996 in 2009, a total

predicted increase of 41 percent. The composition of the fleet will also

be changing with significant increases in aircraft with 40 or more seats.

This change in fleet composition will enable an 89 percent increase in

regional/commuter enplanements by 2009.7

 Figure 1-10 illustrates the

distribution of aircraft by number of seats in 1997 and 2009 projections.
24 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1998 ACE PLAN

More than 40

20-40

15-19

Less than 18

Number of Seats

41%

14%

30%

15%

2009

37%

24%

1997

26%

13%

Figure 1-10. Regional/Commuter Aircraft Percent

General Aviation (GA) Aircraft

General aviation encompasses all segments of the aviation industry except commercial air carriers (including commuter/regional aircraft) and military. There were approximately 189,000 active general

aviation and air taxi aircraft in the U.S. in 1997. The FAA projects that

the number of active aircraft will increase 12 percent by 2009, with

business use of GA expanding more rapidly than personal use of GA.

This projection assumes production of about 4,000 new GA aircraft

annually, and the retirement of approximately 2,000 older aircraft

annually.8 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

and the FAA are currently developing a strategic plan called the GA

Roadmap to stimulate the production and availability of safe, affordable, fast GA aircraft over the next 25 years. The ultimate goal of the GA

Roadmap is to expand GA accessibility to more communities and

provide enhanced personal mobility for U.S. travelers.9

 See Chapter 3

for a discussion of the projected impacts of the next generation of GA

aircraft on airport utilization.

System Performance Measures

Capacity-enhancing programs such as airport expansion, the modernization of air traffic control equipment, and the development of

more efficient air traffic control procedures are targeted at improving

NAS performance. ASC is monitoring the following four aspects of NAS

performance:

• Delay: the difference between actual travel time and unimpeded

travel time

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

allows users to optimize their operations based on their own

objectives and constraints

8. FAA Aviation Forecasts Fiscal Years 1998-2009.

9. General Aviation Roadmap: Investment Strategy Development for NASA Aeronautics Enterprise Strategy, Briefing to the NASA Office of Aeronautics and

Space Transportation Technologies Executive Board, June 22-23 1998.

The FAA projects the number of active aircraft will increase 12 percent

by 2009, with business use of GA

expanding more rapidly than personal use of GA.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 25

• Predictability: the variation in the air traffic management system

as experienced by the user

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

services

Figure 1-11 lists FAA capacity goals addressing these four aspects

of system performance.

Delay

Delay is the traditional measure of NAS performance. Recent

studies suggest that significant aviation capacity enhancements will be

required in the next decade to prevent dramatic and unacceptable

increases in flight delays.10

Delay by Cause: Weather, Equipment, and Volume

Approximately 245,000 flights were delayed 15 or more minutes in

1997, a decrease of 9.6 percent from 1996. Sixty-eight percent of the

delays were due to weather and 22 percent were due to terminal

volume.11

There were fewer weather-related delays in 1997 than the four

previous years, and 16.9 percent fewer than in 1996. The number of

flights delayed due to terminal volume, however, increased nine

percent from 1996 to 1997, indicating that airport development and

the adoption of streamlined terminal area procedures did not keep pace

with increasing traffic.

Figure 1-12 illustrates trends in the distribution of flights delayed

15 minutes or more by primary cause.

10. Free Flight: Preserving Airline Opportunity, Captain Russell G. Chew, American Airlines, September 22, 1997. The Economic Impacts of Air Traffic Congestion, April 1998, Peter F. Kostiuk, Eric Gaier, Doug Lou, Logistics Management

Institute, study funded by NASA.

11. The data source is the Air Traffic Operations Management System (ATOMS).

ATOMS is a record of aircraft delayed in excess of 15minutes by cause during

any phase of flight. A delay is recorded if an aircraft is delayed during taxi out

or in any en route center. Aircraft delayed by less than 15 minutes are not

included in ATOMS. Thus, an aircraft could be delayed 14minutes during taxi

out and 14 minutes in each ARTCC it passes through and not be recorded. Taxiin delays are not counted.

There were fewer weather-related

delays in 1997 than the four previous

years, and 16.9 percent fewer than in

1996.
26 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1998 ACE PLAN

Decrease System Delays

Air Traffic Volume

• Reduce delays due to volume

Equipment

• Reduce delays due to equipment outages

• Accelerate NAS modernization by reducing the time it takes to acquire and field systems

• Put into operation all systems necessary to deliver modernized NAS capabilities as

documented in the NAS architecture

Weather

• Develop and demonstrate the capability of new systems to reduce weather-related delays

• Reduce weather-related delays due to restrictive instrument approach procedures

Airports

• Increase system capacity attributable to airport infrastructure at the 50 busiest airports

• Maintain 93 percent of runway pavement in good or fair condition at all NPIAS airports

Increase System Flexibility

Decision Making

• Involve system users more frequently in operational decision making

Routing

• Reduce the amount of extra flight miles associated with ATC-preferred routes

• Increase the percentage of flight segments flown off the ATC-preferred routes

Increase Predictability

Flight Time

• Improve en route and ground movement time predictability

Increase User Access

Airspace

• Improve civilian access to special use airspace (SUA) when not in use by military

Flight Services

• Reduce the average flight service call waiting time

Airports

• Publish a minimum of 500 non-precision Global Positioning System (GPS) approaches per

year over the next three years

• Increase access to airports in IFR weather conditions

• Provide for and maintain public-use airports that are accessible to 98 percent of

U.S. residents

Figure 1-11. FAA Capacity Goals
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 27

Distribution of Flights Delayed Greater than 15 Minutes by Cause*

Cause

Weather

Terminal Volume

Center Volume

Closed Runways/Taxiways

NAS Equipment

Other

Total Operations

Delayed (000s)

1996

75%

201.0

18%

49.8

0%

0.3

3%

7.9

2%

5.9

2%

6.6

272

1993

72%

197.9

22%

59.4

0%

0.2

3%

8.0

2%

4.7

2%

5.5

276

1994

75%

184.6

19%

47.5

0%

0.2

2%

5.7

2%

4.0

2%

5.8

248

1995

72%

171.5

18%

43.6

0%

0.1

3%

6.7

3%

6.3

4%

8.5

237

1997

68%

167.0

22%

54.3

0%

0.1

3%

8.1

3%

6.4

4%

9.6

245

* Listed in percentages of delay and thousands of operations delayed

Figure 1-12. Delay by Cause

Identification of Delay-Problem Airports

From 1996 to 1997, the proportion of air carrier flights delayed 15

minutes or more decreased at 29 of the 51 airports at which the FAA

collects air traffic delay statistics. Figure 1-13 lists the number of

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

to 1996 at these 51 airports. Newark International and LaGuardia

airports, both in the New York area, have the highest delay rates in the

country (58 and 49 delays per 1,000 operations, respectively). Honolulu International and Kahului airports, both in Hawaii, have the

lowest delay rates in the country (0.25 and 0.10 delays per 1000

operations, respectively).

Figure 1-14 illustrates trends in operations and delays at ten of the

busiest airports in the United States from 1992 to 1997. At Dallas/Fort

Worth (DFW), Newark (EWR), and Chicago O’Hare (ORD) a smaller

proportion of flights were delayed 15 minutes or more in 1997 than in

1993, while the number of operations increased (see Chapter 4 for a

discussion of the contribution of airspace redesign to reducing delays

at DFW). Delay rates at EWR, however, remain the highest in the

country. The only construction planned at EWR is a runway extension,

with an estimated operational date of 2000. An ongoing airport

capacity study at EWR is assessing ways of increasing capacity given

the current available infrastructure. In addition, the Eastern Triangle

portion of the National Airspace Redesign (see Chapter 4) will assess

ways of addressing delays in the Northeast, including EWR, by

reconfiguring the airspace.

At Atlanta (ATL), Cincinnati (CVG), Los Angeles (LAX), and St.

Louis (STL) airports, operations and delays were higher in 1997 than

they were in 1993. New runways planned for ATL, CVG, and STL

(scheduled to open in 2002, 2004, and 2003, respectively), will increase

capacity at those airports. At LAX, a master plan study, which will

address capacity and growth issues, is currently underway.
28 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1998 ACE PLAN

Airport ID 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

 * 1993 and 1994 data is for Denver Stapleton Airport, which closed in 1995. This accounts for the significant reduction in delay for the 1995 data.

Newark International Airport EWR 87.88 74.29 33.81 65.25 57.89

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 38.32 47.37 33.65 46.22 49.03

San Francisco International Airport SFO 23.79 28.46 54.71 56.57 43.02

Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport ATL 23.28 19.98 24.26 23.88 31.80

Lambert St. Louis International Airport STL 19.54 22.72 33.87 34.04 30.48

Boston Logan International Airport BOS 39.23 29.79 22.15 26.37 25.19

Chicago O’Hare International Airport ORD 47.49 26.83 30.93 34.46 23.52

New York John F. Kennedy International Airport JFK 35.68 35.79 17.38 29.53 18.32

Los Angeles International Airport LAX 9.15 10.96 27.03 24.13 17.69

Philadelphia International Airport PHL 18.75 20.85 6.89 17.95 16.23

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport DFW 33.71 37.65 26.80 19.59 14.61

George Bush International Airport IAH 8.06 5.52 10.79 11.45 12.93

Greater Cincinnati International Airport CVG 6.38 6.40 4.88 10.38 11.86

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport PHX 2.86 3.48 4.97 7.25 9.15

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport DTW 9.05 6.95 10.52 9.10 8.28

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport SEA 6.78 6.09 4.77 6.37 7.07

Miami International Airport MIA 10.48 10.47 11.00 6.79 6.84

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport MSP 7.16 3.52 9.23 9.29 6.66

Washington Dulles International Airport IAD 6.86 8.43 4.54 6.81 5.90

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport CLE 2.37 1.62 3.74 4.68 5.76

Charlotte/Douglas International Airport CLT 3.79 4.90 4.75 6.55 5.73

Washington Ronald Regan National Airport DCA 9.34 10.44 5.61 6.53 4.34

Orlando International Airport MCO 4.72 5.37 3.61 4.59 4.25

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport LAS 0.46 0.78 1.62 3.68 4.13

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 2.98 3.10 4.03 6.70 3.45

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 3.49 2.96 3.36 2.57 3.27

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport SJU 0.30 0.71 5.29 2.92 3.04

Tampa International Airport TPA 3.88 3.22 1.62 4.43 3.02

Portland International Airport PDX 1.94 2.41 1.47 2.41 3.01

Denver International Airport * DEN 37.92 18.14 4.01 1.90 2.94

Greater Pittsburgh International Airport PIT 6.86 4.20 2.99 6.60 2.84

Salt Lake City International Airport SLC 3.86 2.79 3.16 3.53 2.65

San Diego International Lindberg Field SAN 3.91 2.51 4.41 3.31 2.20

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport FLL 3.77 2.92 3.98 1.53 1.95

Indianapolis International Airport IND 0.57 0.45 0.40 0.58 1.88

Baltimore-Washington International Airport BWI 3.94 5.15 2.68 3.67 1.83

Ontario International Airport ONT 1.24 0.96 1.96 1.06 1.76

Kansas City International Airport MCI 1.26 1.82 2.22 0.98 1.43

Memphis International Airport MEM 1.03 0.79 0.86 0.88 1.36

Bradley International Airport BDL 0.95 1.15 1.29 1.36 1.25

Raleigh-Durham International Airport RDU 1.99 1.25 0.50 1.59 0.75

San Antonio International Airport SAT 0.10 0.35 0.87 0.99 0.68

Palm Beach International Airport PBI 0.81 0.39 0.57 0.46 0.65

New Orleans International Airport MSY 0.33 0.21 0.60 0.83 0.58

San Jose International Airport SJC 0.38 0.72 1.03 1.39 0.52

Albuquerque International Airport ABQ 0.27 0.21 0.09 0.14 0.47

Nashville International Airport BNA 2.72 1.55 1.46 0.73 0.37

Dayton International Airport DAY 0.29 0.76 0.24 0.60 0.35

Anchorage International Airport ANC 0.74 0.29 0.51 0.33 0.32

Honolulu International Airport HNL 0.19 0.08 0.17 0.19 0.25

Kahului Airport OGG 0.05 0.03 0.20 0.08 0.10

Figure 1-13. Operations Delayed 15 Minutes or More Per 1,000 Operations
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 29

Consolidated Operations and Delay Analysis System (CODAS)

CODAS is a new FAA database and reporting system containing

delay information by phase of flight for U.S. domestic flights. CODAS is

developed by merging the Airline Service Quality Performance (ASQP)

database with the FAA ’s Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS).

In addition, CODAS contains flight schedule information from the

Official Airline Guide (OAG) and weather data from the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). CODAS contains

actual times for gate out, wheels off, wheels on, and gate in. From this

information gate delays, taxi out delays, airborne delays, and taxi in

delays as small as one minute are computed.12 CODAS measures delay

where it occurs, not where it is caused. The principal purpose of CODAS

is to support analytical studies and not the day-to-day management of

the ATC system.

Figure 1-15 ranks the 29 large-hub airports by average minutes of

delay by phase of flight and overall based on CODAS data. Newark

International Airport (EWR) has the highest average delay, nearly ten

minutes per operation, of all the large hub airports in the country.

ATL BOS CVG DEN DFW EWR LAX MSP ORD STL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

ATL BOS CVG DEN DFW EWR LAX MSP ORD STL

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

Flights Delayed15 Minutes or More Per 1,000 Operations

Operations 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Figure 1-14. Operations and Delays at Ten of the Busiest U.S. Airports

12. For a complete description of the methodology used to develop CODAS, please

visit the web site: www.apo.data.faa.gov and select the Information button.
30 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1998 ACE PLAN

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Airport

EWR

LGA

STL

ATL

MSP

DFW

PHL

DTW

SFO

JFK

ORD

MIA

CVG

IAH

BOS

LAX

DCA

SLC

CLT

HNL

PHX

DEN

LAS

PIT

SEA

SAN

MCO

TPA

BWI

Minutes

Per

11.29

8.59

6.94

6.28

6.27

6.16

5.99

5.87

5.56

5.26

4.96

4.66

4.62

4.48

4.24

4.16

4.09

4.05

3.97

3.71

3.64

3.56

3.45

3.31

2.59

2.29

2.18

2.08

1.93

Departure

TAXI-OUT AIRBORNE TAXI-IN ALL PHASES

Airport

ATL

EWR

PHL

LGA

CVG

BOS

CLT

PIT

SLC

MSP

SEA

JFK

STL

ORD

DTW

MIA

DFW

IAH

SFO

MCO

DCA

TPA

DEN

LAX

BWI

PHX

HNL

SAN

LAS

Minutes

Per

Arrival

6.67

6.45

5.57

4.69

4.58

4.42

4.29

4.15

4.10

3.74

3.29

3.00

2.98

2.94

2.83

2.80

2.69

2.67

2.55

2.20

2.09

1.98

1.96

1.88

1.61

1.48

1.17

1.00

0.93

Airport

DFW

DTW

LAX

ORD

JFK

ATL

MIA

STL

MSP

EWR

PHL

IAH

HNL

LGA

SFO

BOS

DEN

DCA

LAS

PHX

SLC

CLT

SEA

TPA

CVG

PIT

BWI

MCO

SAN

Minutes

Per

Arrival

3.66

3.32

2.40

2.08

1.98

1.92

1.76

1.74

1.63

1.59

1.52

1.52

1.51

1.43

1.37

1.36

1.34

1.31

1.26

1.10

1.04

1.03

0.84

0.70

0.68

0.68

0.67

0.55

0.50

Airport

EWR

ATL

LGA

PHL

DFW

DTW

STL

MSP

JFK

BOS

CVG

ORD

SFO

CLT

SLC

MIA

IAH

LAX

PIT

DCA

DEN

SEA

PHX

LAS

HNL

MCO

TPA

BWI

SAN

Minutes

Per

Operation

9.94

7.64

7.63

6.95

6.42

6.20

6.05

6.00

5.38

5.37

5.20

5.14

5.04

4.91

4.90

4.86

4.61

4.61

4.29

4.02

3.71

3.64

3.53

3.25

3.24

2.77

2.68

2.48

2.34

Data Source: Consolidated Operations and Delay Analysis System (CODAS)

Office of Aviation Policy and Plans (APO)

Figure 1-15. Average Delay by Phase of Flight at the 29 Large Hub Airports

Identification of Airports with More than 20,000 Hours of Delay

Despite ongoing capacity improvements and reduced delay system-wide, certain airports continue to account for significant delay. In

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

1997, with the addition of Memphis International (MEM), the number

increased to 27 airports. Assuming airport capacity is not improved, 31

airports are forecast to exceed 20,000 hours of annual aircraft flight

delay each by the year 2007. All but three of the large hub airports in

the U.S. exceeded 20,000 hours of delay in 1997, and all but one are

projected to exceed 20,000 hours of delay by 2007. Figure 1-16 lists

airports exceeding 20,000 hours of annual delay in 1997 and in 2007,

assuming no capacity improvements.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 31

Annual Aircraft Delay in Excess of 20,000 Hours

1997 2007

Atlanta Hartsfield ATL

Boston Logan BOS

Baltimore-Washington BWI

Charlotte/Douglas CLT

Cincinnati CVG

Atlanta Hartsfield ATL

Boston Logan BOS

Charlotte/Douglas CLT

Cincinnati CVG

Washington Reagan National DCA

Dallas-Ft. Worth DFW

Detroit DTW

Newark EWR

Honolulu HNL

George Bush Intercont’l IAH

New York John F. Kennedy JFK

Las Vegas LAS

Los Angeles LAX

New York La Guardia LGA

Orlando MCO

Chicago Midway MDW

Memphis MEM

Miami MIA

Minneapolis-Saint Paul MSP

Chicago O’Hare ORD

Philadelphia PHL

Phoenix PHX

Pittsburgh PIT

San Diego SAN

Seattle-Tacoma SEA

San Francisco SFO

Salt Lake City SLC

St. Louis STL St. Louis STL

Washington Reagan National DCA

Dallas-Ft. Worth DFW

Detroit DTW

Newark EWR

Honolulu HNL

George Bush Intercont’l IAH

New York John F. Kennedy JFK

Las Vegas LAS

Los Angeles LAX

New York La Guardia LGA

Orlando MCO

Miami MIA

Minneapolis-Saint Paul MSP

Chicago O’Hare ORD

Philadelphia PHL

Phoenix PHX

Pittsburgh PIT

Salt Lake City SLC

Seattle-Tacoma SEA

San Francisco SFO

Denver International DEN

Cleveland CLE

Denver International DEN

Memphis MEM

Figure 1-16. Airports Exceeding 20,000 Hours of Annual Delay in 1997 and 2007

Hours of delay is a function of both the number of operations and

the average delay per operation. In other words, hours of delay is

driven by both the demand on the system and the ability of the system

to accommodate the demand. Therefore, if the delay per operation falls

(due to expanded airport capacity or more efficient air traffic procedures) but the number of operations increases, an airport may continue

to experience more than 20,000 hours of delay.
32 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1998 ACE PLAN

The Costs of Delay

The cost of delay to air carriers is significant, and growing. For

example, with an average aircraft operating cost of about $1,600 per

hour of delay, each of the 27 airports that exceeded 20,000 hours of

delay in 1997 contributed at least $32 million dollars in annual delay

costs. The Air Transport Association (ATA) estimated that the total

aviation delay costs to air carriers exceeded 2.4 billion dollars in 1997

(see Figure 1-17).

Aircraft Operating Costsa

Ground Costsb

Total Cost

Year 1993

$1,502

$800

$2,302

1994

$1,427

$810

$2,237

1995

$1,380

$825

$2,205

1996

$1,571

$840

$2,411

1997

$1,557

$860

$2,417

a. Flight deck crew, fuel, maintenance, equipment charges, cabin crew, etc.

b. Facilities such as gates, holding areas and ramp space, and personnel costs for handling aircraft and passengers.

Figure 1-17. Total Aviation Delay Costs to Air Carriers, 1993-1996 (millions of dollars)13

Strategies to Reduce Delay

Adverse weather is the most common cause of delay. Although

delays due to weather are difficult to influence, the FAA is developing

several automated weather detection and forecasting tools to mitigate

the negative effects of adverse weather conditions on aircraft operations. The FAA is also developing location-specific programs to address

delays due to terminal area traffic volume, the second most prevalent

type of delay. For example, local procedures were developed at Chicago

O’Hare (ORD) that resulted in ten-minute savings in average taxi times

according to the figures of one airline. Minneapolis Tower and its major

carrier have collaboratively developed procedures for schedule changes

to relieve congestion at the busiest times, and Detroit’s new standard

taxi plan and use of converging runways has reduced taxi times.

Preliminary 1998 data indicate that these programs are having a

positive impact on delays due to volume.14 Service improvements in

traffic management and aviation information and the addition of

airport capacity will also reduce delays. Delays created by equipment

outages will be reduced as components of the National Airspace

System (NAS) infrastructure are replaced.

13. Air Transport Association.

14. Air Traffic Services Performance Report, Second Quarter FY98
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 33

Strategies to reduce delays in the 1998-2000 timeframe include the

following:

• As part of the National Airspace Redesign, begin targeting

airspace redesign to reduce volume-related delays (see

Chapter4)

• Implement new procedures that take advantage of additional

runway and airport capacity increases at various locations (see

Chapter 5)

• Field infrastructure replacement programs that will reduce

equipment-related delay. Display System Replacement (DSR)

and the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System

(STARS) will replace an aging display and computing infrastructure that have caused several high-visibility delays (see

Chapter 6)

• Continue development of the Center-TRACON Automation

System’s (CTAS) Passive Final Approach Spacing Tool (pFAST)

and single-center Traffic Management Advisor (TMA). TMA and

pFAST will aid in evaluating and managing the final approach

environment, providing sequencing for departures, and increasing airport acceptance rates (see Chapter 6)

• Implement the Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) and begin

testing the Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) (see

Chapter6)

Flexibility

Airlines, GA pilots, and other aviation system users expect more

from the air traffic management system than the minimization of delay.

They desire the capability to optimize their operations based on their

own objectives and constraints, which vary by flight and user. Measuring the flexibility of the air traffic control system allows the FAA to

evaluate its ability to permit users to adapt their operations to changing conditions. One measure of flexibility is the proportion of flights

that are permitted to operate off ATC-preferred routes.

ATC-preferred routes are important tools that help air traffic

controllers organize traffic flows around major airports. They are

generally not the most direct routes, so any flight activity off the ATCpreferred route is an indication that the ATC system was flexible

enough to grant users their route preferences. Approximately 28

percent of flights cruising above 18,000 feet are subject to ATCpreferred routes. In 1997, approximately 68 percent of the route

segments between cities with published ATC-preferred routes were

actually flown off of the ATC-preferred routes. This ability to deviate

from the ATC-preferred route structure represents a significant portion

of the flexibility allowed to users in the air traffic management system.

Measuring the flexibility of the air

traffic control system allows the FAA

to evaluate its ability to permit users

to adapt their operations to changing

conditions.
34 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1998 ACE PLAN

Strategies to Increase System Flexibility

To increase system flexibility, the FAA is evolving air traffic

services in the direction of the free flight concept (see Chapter 2). To

that end, the FAA will introduce new procedures and ATM infrastructure in the 1998-2000 timeframe that will dramatically change the way

services are provided to system users. Examples of these initiatives

include the following:

• Continue the National Airspace Redesign to ensure efficient and

flexible use of airspace and air traffic facilities for aircraft routing

(see Chapter 4)

• Develop and implement enhanced area navigation procedures

(see Chapter 5)

• Continue to expand the National Route Program (NRP) by using

Departure Procedures/Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (DP/

STAR) as ingress/egress points to the NRP (see Chapter 5)

• Evaluate existing ATC-preferred routes and eliminate those that

are unnecessary (see Chapter 5)

• Improve flexibility in trans-oceanic flights by implementing

Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) and Reduced Horizontal Separation Minima (RHSM) (see Chapter 5)

• Continue to evaluate the impacts of relaxing the 250 knot speed

limit below 10,000 feet in Class B airspace (see Chapter 5)

• Continue fielding the Initial Conflict Probe (ICP). This system

will help to identify potential conflicts with more certainty,

thereby avoiding unnecessary aircraft maneuvers and improving user flexibility (see Chapter 6)

Predictability

Predictability is defined by the variation in the ATM system

experienced by the user. The majority of system users rely on schedules that determine when aircraft should take off and land. These

schedules are central to the operations of almost all commercial flights,

driving crew scheduling, ground-service operations, and other operational components. Even the smallest deviation from the planned

schedule can cause drastic impacts. One of the most unpredictable

portions of a flight is the time the aircraft spends on the ground prior

to takeoff. There are many factors that affect ground movement times,

including level of demand, weather, and airport runway configuration.

The FAA has begun to collect and analyze data on the predictability of

ground movement times at 25 of the busiest airports in the U.S.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 35

Strategies to Increase Predictability

A key strategy for increasing user predictability is improving the

quality and quantity of information available to system users and

involving them in interactive operational decision making. Collaborative decision making between the airline operations centers and the

ATCSCC will be enhanced by capabilities to exchange data. These

capabilities will provide the most current schedules to traffic planners,

resulting in better projections of demand and less disruptive flow

management strategies (see Chapter 6). Additionally, the FAA will

improve the technologies available for disseminating consistent weather

data to controllers and pilots, as weather is a significant contributor to

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

information on technological enhancements related to weather and

predictability, such as WARP and ITWS.

Access

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

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

access to the ATM system for most users is the airport. In 1990, 70

percent of the U.S. population lived within 20 miles of a commercial

service airport, 79 percent lived within 20 miles of a commercial

service or reliever airport, and 98 percent lived within 20 miles of a

commercial service, reliever, or GA NPIAS airport (see Figure 1-18).

Airport Categories

Primary and Other Commercial Service

Primary, Other Commercial Service, and Reliever

All NPIAS Airports

Source: NPIAS

Percentage of U.S. Population

70%

79%

98%

Figure 1-18. Percentage of U.S. Population within 20 miles of an Airport

An indicator of GA access to the ATM system is the timeliness and

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

conditions, flight plan filing, and en route weather updates. While it

is possible to count the number of flight services provided, it is

difficult to assess the quality of those services, the number of visual

flight rules (VFR) users who were denied service, or the number of VFR

users who chose not to request services even though they desired

them. The FAA is trying to gauge the quality of its flight services

through a GA pilot survey. The survey has been administered but the

results have not yet been analyzed.

Collaborative decision making between the airline operations centers

and the ATCSCC will be enhanced by

capabilities to exchange data.
36 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 1998 ACE PLAN

Another critical access issue is the utilization of special use

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

with the Department of Defense (DOD) to improve civilian access to SUA

when the military is not utilizing the airspace for its critical mission.

The FAA has begun operational trials of improved notification procedures and information transfer with respect to selected sections of SUA

(see Chapter 5).

The FAA will increase aircraft access to the Nation’s airports during

IFR weather conditions by accelerating the publication of area navigation (RNAV) approach procedures to provide more accurate course

guidance and increase access to airports in adverse weather conditions.

The FAA plans to publish a minimum of 500 RNAV approaches a year for

the next several years. Before an approach procedure is published, it

must first be developed by a flight procedures specialist. Then the

procedure must be flight-checked and certified, and transferred to the

National Flight Data Center (NFDC) for publication. The NFDC published a total of 352 non-precision RNAV approaches from 1994 through

1996, and 573 approaches in 1997.

Finally, user access will also be enhanced by supplementing GPS

navigation through the development of the Wide Area Augmentation

System (WAAS) and the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) (see

Chapter 6).
The capacity of today’s National Airspace System (NAS) is constrained by rules, procedures, and technologies that require pilots and

air traffic controllers to conduct operations within narrow, often

inefficient guidelines. As air traffic continues to grow, these inefficiencies

and their associated costs are compounded. Responding to these

limitations, the FAA and the aviation industry are working together on

two major, interdependent capacity initiatives — free flight and NAS

modernization. A discussion of Safe Flight 21, a demonstration project

to test and validate the free flight concept on a limited scale, follows the

overview of free flight and NAS Modernization.

Free Flight

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

capability under instrument flight rules (IFR) in which the operators

have the freedom to select their path and speed in real time. Air traffic

restrictions are imposed only to ensure separation, to preclude exceeding airport capacity, to prevent unauthorized flight through special

use airspace (SUA), and to ensure the safety of flight. Restrictions are

limited in extent and duration to correct the identified problem. Any

activity which removes restrictions represents a move towards free

flight.”

1

 The transition to free flight requires changes in air traffic

philosophies, procedures, and technologies.

The principal philosophical change required for free flight is a

shift from the concept of air traffic control (ATC) to air traffic management (ATM). ATM differs from ATC in several ways: the increased extent

of collaboration between users and air traffic managers, greater flexibility

for users to make decisions to meet their unique operational goals, and

the replacement of broad restrictions with user-determined limits and

targeted restrictions only when required.

The procedural changes required for free flight correspond directly to the change in philosophy from ATC to ATM. Under the current

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

routes, which may not be the routes preferred by the pilot or airline.

Air traffic controllers direct pilots to change their direction, speed, or

altitude to avoid adverse weather or traffic congestion. In contrast, free

flight will grant pilots substantial discretion in determining their

routes. Many decisions will be collaborative, taking advantage of the

best information available to the pilot and air traffic manager to ensure

safe, efficient flights.

RTCA Task Force 3, a joint government/industry workgroup on free

flight, identified 46 procedural and technological recommendations

for moving towards free flight. Several free flight procedural initiatives

that are currently being tested or implemented are described in

Chapter 5. Six free flight-enabling technologies will be implemented at

select locations by the end of 2002 under a NAS modernization program

MAJOR CAPACITY INITIA

CHAPTER 2:

TIVES

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

October 26, 1995.
38 – CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2: MAJOR CAPACITY INITIATIVES 1998 ACE PLAN

referred to as Free Flight Phase 1 (FFP1). FFP1 and other technological

changes required for free flight are described below under NAS

Modernization, and more extensively in Chapter 6.

NAS Modernization

To achieve the free flight concept and accommodate projected

increases in air traffic, the FAA is modernizing and replacing much of

the equipment, computers, and software used to manage air traffic and

assure safe operations. Modernization of the NAS will give users new

abilities such as flexible departure and arrival routes and increased

usage of preferred flight trajectories. Ultimately, NAS modernization

will increase the flexibility and efficiency of the NAS, improve traffic

flow and weather predictability, and reduce user operating costs. The

schedule and interdependencies of the many technological advances

required for NAS modernization and free flight are outlined in the NAS

Architecture. The FAA must balance the need to sustain and replace

critical ATC infrastructure with the desire to provide new capabilities

to NAS users. The NAS Architecture provides an integrated approach

to modernization that matches expected FAA funding levels.

The principle NAS modernization changes affecting capacity are

categorized into five functional areas: communications, navigation,

surveillance, weather, and air traffic management. The transition

between the current and future NAS and the new capabilities created

by this change are described below.

Communications

In the future, communication between aircraft and ground facilities will require less radio voice communication and greater use of

electronic data transmitted to and from the flight deck via digital data

link technology. Changes in the communication system will create the

following capabilities:

• Integration of voice and data communications

• More efficient use of the frequency spectrum

• Improved quality and clarity of ATC messages to aircraft

• Better flight and traffic information services, such as weather

graphics and proximity traffic data

• Seamless communications across all operational domains (airport, terminal, en route, and oceanic)

• Information sharing with all NAS users

• An effective interchange network to support dynamic airspace

usage

Modernization of the NAS will give

users new abilities such as flexible

departure and arrival routes and

increased usage of preferred flight

trajectories.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 2: MAJOR CAPACITY INITIATIVES

CHAPTER 2 – 39

Navigation

Navigation will become increasingly reliant on the satellite-based

Global Positioning System (GPS). Existing ground-based stations will

be decommissioned as new ground-based systems designed to augment the accuracy of GPS are deployed. An augmented GPS system will

create the following capabilities:

• Increased prevalence of user-preferred routing

• Increased access to airports under Instrument Meteorological

Conditions (IMC) through more precision approaches

• Reduced separation standards

• Decommissioning of some costly ground-based navigation and

landing systems

Surveillance

In the future, replacing verbal aircraft position reports with an

onboard system known as Automated Dependent Surveillance (ADS)

will enhance surveillance coverage and accuracy. ADS transmits position information that will be combined with radar images to ensure the

system’s accuracy. Analog radar will be replaced by digital radar. The

implementation of ADS and digital radar will create the following

capabilities:

• Continuous surveillance of all positively controlled aircraft

• More precise monitoring of aircraft separation and flight progression in oceanic airspace

• Enhanced airport surface surveillance

Weather

Today’s fragmented weather gathering, analysis, and distributions

systems will be enhanced by a more harmonized, integrated system.

Incremental improvements in weather detection sensors, processors,

dissemination systems, and displays will also occur. Improved weather

technologies will allow the following advancements:

• Common situational awareness among service providers and

users through the use of integrated weather products

• NAS-wide availability of distributed weather forecast data

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

• Better separation of aircraft from convective weather

• Integrated weather information into associated air traffic automation systems
40 – CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2: MAJOR CAPACITY INITIATIVES 1998 ACE PLAN

Air Traffic Decision Support

Managing air traffic and airspace utilization will be increasingly

augmented with computer-based decision support systems. These

systems will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of NAS-wide

information, enhancing all phases of surface and flight operations. The

use of advanced automation and decision support systems will enable

the following capabilities:

• Greater collaboration on problem resolution through dynamic

airspace management

• More efficient use of airports through improved sequencing and

spacing of arrival traffic and assigning aircraft to runways

• Improved acquisition and distribution of flight-specific data

• More information from static and dynamic data (e.g., route

structures, NAS infrastructure status, special use airspace restrictions, aircraft position and trajectories)

• Improved accommodation of user preferences through improved

traffic flow management, conflict detection and resolution, sequencing, and optimal trajectories

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

Free Flight Phase 1 (FFP1)

To reach consensus among the many parties affected by NAS

modernization, in January 1998 the FAA Administrator established the

NAS Modernization Task Force consisting of representatives from

industry groups, airlines, unions, and the Federal Government. The

Task Force modified the NAS Architecture with the goal of expediting

the evolutionary deployment of new operational capabilities in time to

meet growing needs of the aviation community. The FFP1 initiative, set

to begin in 1998 and to end in 2002, is a result of Task Force

recommendations directed at mitigating short-term risks associated

with modernization efforts. This initiative focuses on implementing

six low-risk NAS technologies at select sites. The primary objective of

FFP1 is to demonstrate and measure the immediate benefits of NAS

modernization to users. Results of FFP1 will be important in expediting

and validating further NAS modernization planning and funding

activities. The capabilities and the impacts of the six technologies to be

demonstrated during FFP1 are described briefly in Figure 2-1.

FFP1 technologies and other capacity-enhancing technologies associated with NAS modernization are described in greater detail in

Chapter 6.

The FFP1 initiative, set to begin in 1998

and to end in 2002, is a result of Task

Force recommendations directed at

mitigating short-term risks associated

with modernization efforts.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 2: MAJOR CAPACITY INITIATIVES

CHAPTER 2 – 41

Capability

• NAS Status Information

• Enhanced Graphical Plan Display

• Collaborative Routing

• Miles-in-Trail

• Meter-Fix List Schedules

• Runway Assignment

• Arrival Sequencing

• Aircraft-to-Airctaft Conflict Probe

• Aircraft-to-Airspace Conflict Probe

• Aircraft Surveillance Information

• Initial Contact

• Altimeter Setting Message

• Pre-Defined Controller Messages

Capacity/Efficiency Benefits

• Better planning by all NAS

participants

• User control of departure times

• Collaboratively planned solutions

when excess demand in system

• Load ballancing between feeder fixes

• Optimize runway usage

• Efficient use of runway capacity

• Improved safety through better

situational awareness

• Controller decision aid

• Reduce altitide and speed restrictions

• Optimize ground and ramp resources

• Reduce communication errors

• Reduce frequency congestion

• Improved communications efficiency

Environment

Pre-Flight

Planning

En Route

En Route

Terminal

Terminal

En Route

Terminal

En Route

Program/System

Collaborative

Decision Making

(CDM) and NAS

Information

Traffic Management

Advisor (TMA)

Passive Final

Approach Spacing

Tool (pFAST)

Intital Conflict

Probe (ICP)

Surface Movement

Advisor (SMA)

Controller to Pilot

Data Link

Communication

(CPDLC)

Figure 2-1. Free Flight Phase 1 Capabilities Summary

Capacity/Efficiency Benefits

• Increased availability of flight services

• Increased timeliness and quality of weather information

• Increased access to airspace

• Reduced flight times and distance

• Increased access to airports

• Increased arrival rates

• Reduced arrival and departure delays

• Increased predictability of arrival times

• Increased flexibility of arrival scheduling

• Increased pilot access to traffic information for

situational awareness

• Increased access to airspace

• Reduced flight delays and distances flowwn

• Increased predictability of flight times and distances

flown

• Increased flexibility in routes flown

• Reduced taxi delays

• Increased predictability of taxi times

• Increased access to airspace

• Increased arrival and departure rates

• Reduced flight delays and distances flown

• Increased predictability of flight times and distances

flown

• Reduced deviations from the intended route

• Increased flexibility in the routes flown

• Increased flexibility in routing into terminal airspace

• Increased access to airspace

Environment

En Route

Terminal

Terminal

En Route

Terminal

Terminal/

En Route

Terminal

Operational

Enhancement

Use of FIS to receive

current and forecasted

weather information and

SUA status

Use of ADS-B and CDTI

to improve approaches in

low visibility conditions

Provide traffic information

electronically to the cockpit

to improve pilot situational

awareness

Use of CDTI and ADS-B

to allow delegation of

separation authority to the

cockpit

Use of a moving map and

augmented GPS to

improve the efficiency of

surface operations

Use of ADS-B to improve

surveillance capabilities in

non-radar airspace

Integration of ADS-B and

radar data and conflict alert

to determine if separation

standards can be reduced.

Figure 2-2. Expected Capacity/Efficiency Benefits of Safe Flight 21 Operational Enhancements
42 – CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2: MAJOR CAPACITY INITIATIVES 1998 ACE PLAN

Safe Flight 21

Safe Flight 21 is a five-year government/industry initiative to

demonstrate and validate, in a real-world environment, the capabilities of advanced communication, navigation, surveillance (CNS) and air

traffic procedures associated with free flight. Safe Flight 21 is the new

name for the restructured Flight 2000 program. The changes to Flight

2000 resulted from input provided by RTCA at the request of the FAA

Administrator.

The objective of Safe Flight 21 is to show that integrated CNS

technological capabilities provide sufficient operational benefits to

justify the costs of implementation. Safe Flight 21 will also accelerate

implementation of technologies and approval of procedures required

to achieve free flight efficiencies, while minimizing the long-term risk

and cost of transition to the remainder of the NAS.

The FAA and participants from the user community will work

together to address the risks and challenges of fielding advanced CNS

systems such as ADS-B, cockpit display of traffic information (CDTI),

and Flight Information Services (FIS). FAA policies and decisions

regarding future utilization of these technologies and associated procedures will be based upon the ongoing results of this program.

Operational Enhancements Affecting

System Capacity and Efficiency

Most of the operational enhancements to be demonstrated by Safe

Flight 21 will result in system capacity and efficiency benefits as well

as safety benefits. Figure 2-2 lists seven operational enhancements to

be demonstrated by Safe Flight 21, their expected capacity benefits,

and the operating environment where the benefits will be realized.

Program Execution

The operational enhancements to be demonstrated by Safe Flight

21 will evolve incrementally. In 1999, Safe Flight 21 will build on a

Cargo Airline Association (CAA) evaluation of ADS-B to address ADS-B

technology issues, cockpit human factors issues, and CDTI procedures.

Work will also begin in Alaska to develop initial procedures, test

avionics, and deploy ground systems supporting the technologies to be

tested. In 2000, testing will continue with increased equipage of CAA

and Alaska participants. Demonstration and validation of the operational enhancements will continue from 2001 through 2003, prior to

transition to the rest of the NAS.

The objective of Safe Flight 21 is to

show that integrated CNS technological capabilities provide sufficient

operational benefits to justify the costs

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

United States. To meet the capacity demands generated by a prosperous economy, it is essential to expand the Nation’s airport infrastructure. Discussed in this chapter are the airport improvements and

expansions required to meet increasing aviation capacity demands.

Financing of Airport Capital Development

Airport capital development is funded by a combination of public

and private sources: airport revenue from airline terminal leases,

landing fees, concessions, and other fees; tax-exempt bonds; airport

improvement program (AIP) grants; passenger facility charges (PFCs),

and state and local grants. In 1996, the 3,345 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) airports obtained approximately $7

billion for capital development. Fifty-eight percent of this funding came

from tax-exempt bonds, 20 percent from AIP grants, and 16 percent

from PFCs (see Figure 3-1).1

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grants

AIP grants are administered by the FAA. They are intended

primarily to: promote safety and security; stimulate capacity-enhancement projects such as the construction of runways, taxiways, and

aprons; help finance small and general aviation airports; and pay a

significant part of noise and environmental mitigation cost. Terminal

development projects, such as expanding commercial space and parking garages are typically not eligible for AIP grants. AIP grants also

cannot be used to pay interest on debt.

From 1985 to 1993, AIP grants financed 14 percent of all capital

spending at large commercial airports, 28 percent at medium-sized

commercial airports, and 41 percent at small airports (small commercial

airports as well as reliever and GA facilities).2

 In 1997, the FAA funded

1,066 AIP grants for a total of $1.47 billion dollars. Primary airports

received 73.3 percent of the AIP funds (see Figure 3-2).3

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3:

1. Airport Financing: Comparing Funding Sources with Planned Development.

GAO/T-RCED-98-129.

2. The Securities Data Company, Database of Municipal Bond Issues, 1995; FAA,

AIP Program, Twelfth Annual Report, FY93.

3. www.faa.gov/arphome.htm. FY97 Airport Improvement Program: Number of

Grants Awarded.
44 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN

Funding Source

Tax-Exempt Bonds

Airport Improvement

Program Grants (AIP)

Passenger Facility

Charges (PFC)

State and Local

Contributions

Airport Revenue

Total

1996 Amount

(in billions)

$4.1

$1.4

$1.1

$0.28

$0.15

$7.03

Tax-Exempt

Bonds (58%)

AIP (20%)

PFC (16%)

State &

Local (4%)

Airport

Revenue (2%)

Figure 3-1. Sources of Airport Funding

Airport Type

Primary

Other Commercial

Reliever

General Aviation

Other (State block grants and system plans)

Total

Number of

Grants

561

66

124

251

64

1,066

Grant

Amount

$1,083.0 M

$71.0 M

$101.0 M

$140.0 M

$82.0 M

$1,477.0 M

Percent of

Grants

73.3%

4.8%

6.8%

9.5%

5.5%

100%

Figure 3-2. Distribution of AIP Grants by Airport Type, 1997

4. Airport Financing: Funding Sources for Airport Development, March 1998,

GAO/RECD-98-71, pg 20.

Passenger Facility Charges (PFC)

Public agencies controlling commercial service airports, after

receiving approval from the FAA, can charge enplaning passengers a

$1, $2, or $3 PFC. PFC revenues are used primarily for terminal and

airport access projects and paying the interest on debt; they are also

used for developing airport runway, taxiway and apron infrastructure.

The PFC program currently generates approximately $1.2 billion annually from approximately 130 airports. As of January 1998, 75 percent

of large-, medium-, and small-hub airports imposed a PFC, while only

45 percent of non-hub and fewer than ten percent of other commercial

service airports imposed a PFC.

4
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 45

Capacity Enhancements Funded by FAA

Facilities and Equipment (F&E) and Research

Engineering and Development (RE&D) Funds

Full realization of the capacity benefits of new and extended

runways and other airport improvements frequently requires the

installation of an air traffic control tower and equipment such as

Instrument Landing Systems (ILS), Runway Visual Ranges (RVR), VHF

Omnidirectional Ranges (VOR), approach lighting, and Precision Runway Monitors (PRM). FAA F&E and RE&D funds are used to finance the

development, installation, and maintenance of these and other air

traffic management facilities and systems on the airport grounds. Due

to funding limitations, installation of equipment must be staggered to

give priority to the needs of the most capacity-constrained airports.

Operational improvements to expand airport capacity, such as

improved Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) approach procedures and

reduced separation standards for arrivals, are primarily funded by the

FAA’s R,E&D budget. See Chapter 5 for information on several operational improvements under development.

Airport Construction and Expansion

Airport development frequently entails the construction of new

terminals, new and extended runways, and improved taxiway systems. In large metropolitan areas with frequent flight delays and

limited airport expansion possibilities, other options must be explored. New airports, expanded use of existing commercial-service

airports, civilian development of former military bases, and joint

civilian and military use of existing military facilities are some of the

additional options available for meeting expanding aviation needs.

Construction of New Airports

The largest NAS capacity gains result from the construction of new

airports. However, given the high cost of airport construction (e.g.,more

than $4 billion for the new Denver International Airport, which

opened in 1995), building a new airport is not a common capacityenhancement technique.

Currently, the only significant new airport development is the

conversion of Bergstrom Air Force Base in Austin, Texas into a civilian

airport to replace Robert Mueller Airport, which can no longer meet

growing demand (also see Conversion of Military Airfields, below).

The new airport is called Austin-Bergstrom International Airport. Its

terminal and air cargo facilities are three times as large as those at

Robert Mueller Airport, and it has two runways spaced one mile apart

which will allow independent parallel approaches in IFR conditions.

The 12,250 foot east runway, which includes the existing main runway

from the Air Force Base, has been in use by cargo operations since June

1997. The new 9,000 foot west runway was recently completed. The

Currently, the only significant new airport development is the conversion

of Bergstrom Air Force Base in Austin,

Texas into a civilian airport to replace

Robert Mueller Airport, which can no

longer meet growing demand.
46 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN

airport will be opened for passenger and GA operations on May 1,

1999. The total estimated project cost is currently $585 million. Robert

Mueller Airport will close upon completion of the new airport.

Conversion of Military Airfields to Civilian Airport Facilities

To date, 19 military airfields have been converted to civil use

airports under the DOD Base Realignment and Closure program (BRAC).

This has resulted in the addition of 27 runways of lengths ranging from

8,000 feet to 12,000 feet to the national civil airport system. Eleven

BRAC airports have participated in the Military Airport Program

(MAP). The MAP, funded by an AIP set-aside, provides grants to current

or former military airports with the potential to improve the capacity

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

fiscal years following their initial designation as participants. There

were twelve MAP participants in 1997, six reliever airports, five primary commercial service airports, and one other commercial service

airport. Figure 3-3 lists current MAP participants. Several MAP projects

are described below:

• As described previously, in Austin, Texas Bergstrom Air Force

Base is being converted to a civilian airport to replace Robert

Mueller Airport.

• The former Williams Air Force Base has been converted to a civil

use reliever airport for Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. The airport was renamed Williams Gateway Airport. It will

serve most categories of civil aircraft with its three runways

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

will add capacity for over 290,000 potential annual aircraft

operations to the Phoenix airport system.

• The former Memphis Naval Air Station has been converted to a

civil use reliever airport for Memphis International Airport. The

airport was renamed Millington Municipal Airport. It will serve

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

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

Other MAP participants include: San Bernardino International

Airport, California (a reliever for Los Angeles and Ontario), and Dade

County-Homestead Regional, Florida (a reliever for Miami Airport).

Thirty-six additional military airfields are potential candidates for

conversion to civil airports. If most of these conversions are accomplished, 60,000 acres of airport property will be added to the National

airport system, including over 50 runways, and 7 million potential

aircraft operations, of which about 2 million would be in congested

metropolitan areas.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 47

Civilian Name

Myrtle Beach

International

Laredo International

Airport

Smyrna Airport

Pease International

Airport

San Bernardino

Austin-Bergstrom

Homestead Regional

Millington Municipal

Williams Gateway

Alexandria

International Airport

Rickenbacker

International Airport

Sawyer Airport

Military Name

Myrtle Beach AFB

Laredo AFB

Smyrna AFB

Pease AFB

Norton AFB

Bergstrom AFB

Homestead AFB

Memphis NAS

Williams AFB

England AFB

Rickenbacker AFB

K.I. Sawyer AFB

Location

Myrtle Beach, SC

Laredo, TX

Smyrna, TN

Portsmouth, NH

San Bernardino, CA

Austin, TX

Homestead, FL

Memphis, TN

Williams, AZ

Alexandria, LA

Columbus, OH

Gwinn, MI

Airport Type

Primary

Primary

Reliever

Primary

Reliever

Primary

Reliever

Reliever

Reliever

Primary

Reliever

Commercial Service

Remarks

1991 BRAC Closure

Former Military

Airfield

Former Military

Airfield

1988 BRAC Closure

1988 BRAC Closure

1991 BRAC Replaces

Mueller Field

1993 BRAC Closure

1993 BRAC Closure

1991 BRAC Closure

1991 BRAC Replaces

Esler

1991 BRAC Closure

1993 BRAC Replaces

Marquette Co.

Figure 3-3. 1997 Participants In The Military Airport Program

Construction of New Runways and Runway Extensions

Of the top 100 airports (based on 1997 passenger enplanements),

18 completed runway construction projects from 1995 to 1998. Eight

additional airports are presently constructing new runways or runway

extensions, and 59 airports have proposed or planned new runways or

runway extensions.

The construction of new runways and extension of existing

runways is the most direct and significant action to improve capacity

at existing airports. Large capacity increases, under both visual flight

rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR), result from the addition

of new runways that are properly placed to allow additional independent arrival/departure streams. For example, in October 1996, a new

$300 million north/south runway 17L/35R opened at Dallas/Fort Worth

International Airport (DFW). The additional runway increased the

total number of available runways to seven, and allowed the airport to

accommodate four simultaneous precision instrument approaches.

The new runway also gave the airport nearly equal capacity during IFR

and VFR operations, thereby reducing delays during low-visibility

weather at DFW, as well as throughout the NAS.

The construction of new runways and

extension of existing runways is the

most direct and significant action to

improve capacity at existing airports.
48 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN

Figure 3-4 lists new runways and runway extensions that were

completed from 1995 to1998. Figure 3-5 lists runways that are planned,

proposed, or currently under construction at the top 100 airports.

Of the 27 airports exceeding 20,000 hours of air carrier flight delay

in 1997 (see Figure 1-16), 17 are planning or constructing new runways

or runway extensions. Of the 31 airports forecasted to exceed 20,000

hours of annual air carrier delay in 2007, 19 are planning or constructing new runways or runway extensions.

Airport Development Implications of

Next-Generation Aircraft

As new types and sizes of aircraft are produced, ASC is evaluating

their operational impacts on the U.S. airports system.

Airport Enhancements for New Large Airplanes (NLA)

New Large Airplanes (NLA) — also referred to as very large civil

transport and very large aircraft — offer the potential of meeting the

expected increase in passenger volume in the foreseeable future with

a minimal increase in aircraft operations. NLA seating capacities are

expected to be in the 600-800 passenger range and will provide added

cargo capacity. In response to announced plans to build NLA by the

year 2004, the FAA has formed an NLA Facilitation Group, which will

Operational

Airport Runway Date

Anchorage (ANC) Runway 32 extension 1996

Bergstrom (new Austin) (BSM) 17L/35R renovation 1997

Boise (BOI) 10L/28R extension 1997

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

Cincinnati (CVG) 18R/36L extension 1995

Dallas-Ft. Worth (DFW) 17L/35R new parallel 1996

Grand Rapids (GRR) 18/36 extension 1997

Indianapolis (IND) 5L/23R parallel 1997

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

Louisville (SDF) 17R/35L Parallel 1997

Memphis (MEM) 18L/36R new parallel 1998

Milwaukee (MKE) 7L/25R realignment 1996

Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) 4/22 extension 1996

Omaha Eppley Field (OMA) 14R/32L extension 1996

Palm Springs Regional (PSP) 31L/13R extension 1998

Port Columbus (CMH) 10L extension 1997

28R extension 1996

Portland (PDX) 28L extension 1998

Richmond (RIC) 16/34 extension 1997

Figure 3-4. Runways and Runway Extensions Completed from 1995 to 1998

at the Top 100 Airports
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 49

draw on internal and external expertise in airports, air traffic control,

aircraft rescue and fire fighting, manufacturing, operations, security,

and other relevant areas. This group will address the criteria and

conditions under which NLA will operate in the United States, including required infrastructure alterations.

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

parking areas with minimal modifications, the maximum fuselage

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

already exceeded by some NLA proposals. Other issues include aircraft

turning radius, the effects of the landing gear on pavement, and the

effects of engine thrust on other operations and the airport environment.

The operation of NLA may affect departure and landing separation, as well as ground handling procedures. Such issues as wake

vortices and obstacle clearance must be reviewed and special handling

procedures may need to be developed. These could include mandatory

taxi routes, remote holding or remote gates during infrequent

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

Derivative aircraft, such as the B777-300, which in May 1998

became the longest commercial airplane ever certified, indicate the

need for near-term attention to these issues. At 242.3 feet, the fuselage

length of the B777-300 exceeds that of the B747-400 by more than ten

feet. It began passenger service in mid-1998.

The Impacts of Next-Generation GA Aircraft on

Airport Utilization

NASA, in conjunction with the FAA, is investing in the development of an advanced small aircraft transportation system (SATS). This

new generation of GA aircraft will be faster, quieter, and more affordable then the GA aircraft currently in operation. As envisioned by

NASA, the new aircraft will use digital datalink radios to bring realtime graphical weather and traffic information into the cockpit for

display on satellite navigation moving maps. Coupled with wide

availability of GPS-based instrument approaches that provide access

for landings in all but the most severe weather conditions, and the use

of Automated Dependent Surveillance — Broadcast (ADS-B) systems

for air traffic separation and sequencing, these new aircraft will allow

more people to fly directly to their destinations.

Currently, approximately 22 percent of the public use airports in

the U.S. are equipped for precision instrument approaches. When

precision approaches are possible at most public-use airports due to

the availability of differential GPS, the new GA aircraft will increase

access to suburban and rural communities that are currently not well

served by hub-and-spoke facilities. Direct flights from any airport to

suburbs and rural areas without passing through a hub airport will be

commonplace, thus freeing up capacity at larger, capacity-constrained

airports. In this way, the proposed SATS is projected to increase

capacity at small, underutilized airports, and relieve congestion at

overutilized airports, thus helping to reduce delays.

This new generation of GA aircraft will

be faster, quieter, and more affordable then the GA aircraft currently in

operation.
50 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN

Est Cost Operational Under

Airport Runway ($M) Date Construction

Albany (ALB) 10/28 extension 5.8 2000

1R/19L parallel 7.5 2010

Albuquerque (ABQ) 12/30 extension 14.0 2000

Atlanta (ATL) 5th E/W parallel 440.0 2002

Austin Bergstrom (BSM) 17L/35R parallel 46.0 1999 X

Baltimore (BWI) 10R/28L parallel TBD 2003

Birmingham (BHM) 5/23 extension 27.0 TBD

Boise(BOI) 10R/28L third parallel TBD 2015+

Boston (BOS) 14/32 20.0 TBD

Charlotte (CLT) 18W/36W third parallel 140.0 2001

18R/36L extension 20.0 2006

Cincinnati (CVG) 18R/36L third parallel 233.0 2004

9/27 extension 12.0 2003

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

5R/23L extension 40.0 2005

Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) 18L/36R extension 25.0 2000

18R/36L extension 25.0 2001

18R/36L parallel 268.0 2003

17C/35C extension 15.0 2000

Denver Intl (DEN) 16R/34L parallel 103.0 2002

Des Moines (DSM) 5/23 extension 31.0 2001 X

Detroit (DTW) 4/22 parallel 116.5 2001

El Paso (ELP) 22 extension 8.0 2000

Fort Lauderdale (FLL) 9R/27L extension 300.0 2005

Fort Myers (RSW) 6R/24L parallel 80.0 2004

Greensboro (GSO) 5L/23R parallel 150.0 2003

14/32 extension 27.0 2002

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

3L/21R extension 34.1 1999

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

8L/26R parallel 95.0 2002

9R/27L parallel TBD TBD

Guam (GUM) 6L/24R extension 30.0 2004

6R/24L extension 30.0 2010

Hilo (ITO) 8/26 east extension 25.0 2010

Indianapolis (IND) 5R/23L parallel 80.0 2008

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

John Wayne (SNA) 1L/19R extension TBD TBD

Kahului (OGG) 2/20 extension 47.0 2001

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

Lihue (LIH) 17/35 extension 30.0 2003

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

12R/30L extension 50.0 TBD

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

Lubbock (LBB) 8/26 extension 5.0 2005

Memphis (MEM) 18C/36C extension & reconst 103.0 2000

Miami (MIA) 8/26 parallel 180.0 2002

Milwaukee (MKE) 7R/25L parallel 160.0 TBD

7L/25R extension 1.9 1999 X

Figure 3-5. Runways and Runway Extensions Planned, Proposed, or Currently

Under Construction at the Top 100 Airports.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 51

Est Cost Operational Under

Airport Runway ($M) Date Construction

Minneapolis (MSP) 17/35 air carrier 175.0 2003

4/22 extension 10.0 2000

Nashville (BNA) 2E/20E parallel TBD TBD

2R/20L extension TBD TBD

New Orleans (MSY) 18/36 near parallel 400.0 2010

Newark (EWR) 4L/22R extension 55.0 2000 X

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

Oklahoma City (OKC) 17R/35L extension 8.0 2014

17L/35R extension 8.0 2014

17R/35L parallel 13.0 2012

13/31 extension 5.0 2005

Omaha Eppley (OMA) 14L/32R extension TBD TBD

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

17R/35L extension TBD TBD

Palm Beach (PBI) 9L/27R extension 12.9 2000

Philadelphia (PHL) 8/26 parallel-commuter 220.0 1999 X

9L/27R relocation TBD TBD

Phoenix (PHX) 7/25 3rd parallel 180.4 1999 X

8L/26R extension 7.0 2000

Pittsburgh (PIT) 4th parallel 10/28 150.0 TBD

5th parallel 10/28 TBD TBD

Port Columbus (CMH) 10S/28S parallel 100.0 2020

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

3rd parallel TBD TBD

Richmond (RIC) 16/34 extension 45.0 2001+

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

4/22 extension 4.0 2000+

10/28 extension 3.2 2000+

Sacramento (SMF) 34L/16R north extension TBD TBD

34R/16L north extension TBD TBD

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

12N/30N parallel 400.0 TBD

San Jose (SJC) 12L/30R extension 54.3 2000

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

14/32 extension 5.1 2002+

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

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

Spokane (GEG) 3L/21R 11.0 TDB

Syracuse (SYR) 10L/28R parallel 55.0 TBD

10R/28L extension TBD TBD

Tampa (TPA) 17/35 3rd parallel TBD TBD

9/27 extension TBD 2010+

18L/36R extension TBD 2005+

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

Tulsa (TUL) 18L/36R parallel 115.0 2010

Washington Dulles (IAD) 1W/19W parallel TBD 2009

12R/30L parallel TBD 2010

Wichita (ICT) 1R/19L extension TBD TBD

Total of Available estimated costs: $7,114.7M

TBD = no data available at press time

Figure 3-5. Runways and Runway Extensions Planned, Proposed, or Currently

Under Construction at the Top 100 Airports.
52 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN

Potential Capacity Benefits of Civil Tiltrotor (CTR)

Aircraft to Airport Capacity

The FAA is conducting a multi-year program to identify the ATM

and operational procedures that will permit the safe operation of civil

tiltrotor (CTR) aircraft and advanced helicopters in the modernized

NAS. Major aircraft manufacturers are planning to build large passenger CTRs that will be flying by the second decade of the 21st century.

These aircraft have tremendous potential to contribute to capacity by

operating from vertiports in urban areas, freeing up slots at congested

airports that are now taken by short-haul airplanes carrying forty

passengers or fewer. In addition, the development of CTR terminal

operational procedures will ensure that these aircraft will be able to

operate in busy terminal areas with no impact on existing traffic.

Airport Capacity Studies

As environmental, financial, and other constraints continue to

restrict the development of new airports in the United States, increased

emphasis has been placed on the redevelopment and expansion of

existing airport facilities. The FAA’s Office of System Capacity (ASC)

forms Airport Capacity Design, Tactical Initiative, and Regional Design Teams to focus on maximizing the capacity at existing airports

through improvements in runways and taxiways, navigational and

guidance aids, and operational procedures. In addition to forming

these teams, ASC participates as a team member on additional airport

development projects and works with regional and local Air Traffic

offices and facilities to assist in the development of initiatives to

improve operational efficiencies. Figure 3-6 lists the completed airport

capacity, tactical initiative, and regional studies and the year in which

they were published.

Airport Capacity Design Teams

Airport Capacity Design Teams address capacity problems at

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

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

appropriate FAA Region; airport operators; airlines; general aviation;

and other aviation industry representatives.

Airport Capacity Design Teams consider capacity improvement

alternatives. Alternatives that are considered technically feasible are

evaluated by computer simulation modeling conducted by the FAA

Technical Center’s Aviation Systems Analysis and Modeling Branch.

The product of the study is a capacity enhancement plan containing a

set of capacity-enhancing recommendations and their annual delay

savings. The presence of a recommended improvement in a capacity

enhancement plan does not obligate the FAA to provide F&E or AIP

funds.

Environmental, socioeconomic, and political implications, while

not evaluated by the design teams, are addressed by the FAA and local

authorities if and when the airport authority chooses to pursue one or

These aircraft have tremendous

potential to contribute to capacity

by operating from vertiports in urban

areas, freeing up slots at congested

airports.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 53

Study Date

Capacity Enhancement Plans

Albuquerque Int’l 1993

Boston Logan Int’l 1992

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l 1991

Chicago Midway 1991

Chicago O’Hare Int’l 1991

Cleveland-Hopkins Int’l 1994

Dallas-Ft. Worth Int’l 1994

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 1988

Eastern Virginia Region 1994

Norfolk Int’l

Righmond Int’l

Newport News Int’l

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l 1993

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l 1991

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l 1987

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Update 1995

Honolulu Int’l 1992

Houston Intercontinental 1993

Indianapolis Int’l 1993

Kansas City Int’l 1990

Lambert St. Louis Int’l 1988

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l 1994

Los Angeles Int’l 1991

Memphis Int’l 1988

Memphis Int’l Update 1997

Miami Int’l 1989

Miami Int’l Update 1997

Minneapolis-Saint Paul Int’l 1993

Nashville Int’l 1991

New Orleans Int’l 1992

Oakland Int’l 1987

Orlando Int’l 1990

Philadelphia Int’l 1991

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l 1989

Port Columbus Int’l 1993

Portland Int’l 1996

Raleigh-Durham Int’l 1991

Salt Lake City Int’l 1991

San Antonio Int’l 1992

San Francisco Int’l 1987

San Jose Int’l 1987

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín Int’l 1991

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l 1991

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Update 1995

Washington Dulles Int’l 1990

Tactical Initiatives

Charlotte Douglas Int’l 1995

Los Angeles Int’l (Commuter Gates) 1996

Los Angeles Int’l (TBIT Expansion) 1993

New York La Guardia Airport 1994

Orlando Int’l 1995

Figure 3-6. Completed Airport Capacity Studies
54 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN

more of the capacity enhancement alternatives. See Environmental

Constraints on Airport Capacity, below, for a description of environmental issues.

Recommendations from Previous Airport Capacity Studies

Since 1985, more than 40 Airport Capacity Design Team studies

have been conducted. The typical Airport Capacity Design Team

considers 20 to 30 alternatives for increasing capacity. Figure 3-7 lists

completed airport capacity studies and their recommendations according to generalized categories of improvements, and indicates those

recommendations that have been implemented, completed, or are no

longer under consideration.

Airfield improvements were recommended for all of the airports

studied. Common airfield recommendations include building or extending runways and taxiways and improving exits and staging areas

to increase the efficiency of existing runways. More than two-thirds of

the airports studied implemented at least one of the recommended

airfield improvements. Airfield improvements such as construction of

new runways and runway extensions may take more than ten years

from proposal to completion due to financing constraints and the need

to study and address environmental concerns.

Common recommendations for improving capacity through investments in aviation facilities and equipment at an airport are the

installation or upgrade of Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) to improve

runway capacity during IFR operations, and the installation of Runway

Visual Range (RVR) and approach lighting systems. Improvements to

facilities and equipment are generally less expensive and time consuming to implement than airfield improvements. However, like airfield

improvements, the ability to obtain and install new equipment is

contingent upon available financing. Improvements such as the installation of RVRs and approach lights generally coincide with the completion of a new runway or runway extension.

Common procedural recommendations include improved IFR approach procedures and reduced separation standards for arrivals.

Enhancement of the reliever and general aviation airport system is also

a frequent recommendation for moderating the demand on a given

airport. Improved IFR approach procedures and reduced separations

between arrivals have been implemented at several of the airports

studied by the Capacity Design Teams.

Airfield improvements such as construction of new runways and runway

extensions may take more than ten

years from proposal to completion

due to financing constraints and the

need to study and address environmental concerns.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 55

Chicago Midway √ √√ C C √

Airports

Recommended Improvements 1Airfield Improvements

Construct third parallel runwayConstruct fourth parallel runway 2

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

Facilities and Equipment Improvements

Install/upgrade ILSs

Install/upgrade RVRs

Install/upgrade lighting systemInstall/upgrade VOR

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

Operational Improvements

Airspace restructure/analysisImprove IFR approach procedures

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

Segregate trafficDe-peak airline schedulesEnhance reliever and GA airport system

1. Recommendations summarized and grouped in generalized improvement categories.

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

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

Dallas-Ft. Worth C √ C C C C C

Boston √√√√ √ √ √ C C

Richmond √√ √ √ √ √ √

New Orleans C √ √ C C C C

Norfolk √ √ √ √ √

Newport News √ √ √ √

Oakland √ √ √

Seattle-Tacoma √ C √ √ √ C √

Salt Lake City C CC CCC C C C √ √ √ √

St. Louis √ √√ C √√ √ C C C √

Albuquerque CCCC C √√ √ √ √ √

Charlotte-Douglas C C √ √√ √ √√ √ √ C

Orlando √ √ √ √ √ √√ √ √ √ C C

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

San Antonio √ √ √ √ C CC √ √ √ √√ √ √

San Jose C CC C

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

San Fransisco √√ √ √√ C C √ C

Los Angeles C C √√√ CC C √

Las Vegas √ √ C C C √ √ √ C

Kansas City √ √ C √√√ √ √ C √ √ √

Honolulu √ √√√ √√ √ C

Cleveland √ √ √√ √ √ √√ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ Recommended

C Completed

√ No Longer Under

Consideration

Port Columbus √√√ √ √√√ √ √ √√√ √ C √ √ √ √

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

Indianapolis √ √ C √ √ √ √√√ √ √ C C √ √

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

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

Philadelphia √ √ √ √ √√√ √ √

Pittsburgh √ C C C √ √

Atlanta (original study) C CC CC CCC C √ √ √ C

Atlanta (update study) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Miami (original study) C CC CC C C C √ C

√

Chicago O’Hare √ √ √ C C C √ C

Memphis (original study) C √√ √ C C C √ √

Memphis (update study) √√ √√ √ √ √ √ C √ √

Miami (update study) √ √ √√ √ √ C

Nashville √ √√ √ CC C C √ √ √ √ √

Phoenix √ √ √ √ √√√ √√ C CC C C C

Portland √ √ √ √ √ √ C √

Figure 3-7. Completed Airport Capacity Studies and their Recommendations
56 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN

1998 Airport Capacity Design Team Studies

Ongoing and recently published Airport Capacity Design Team

studies and updates of previous studies are summarized below.

Reno/Tahoe International Airport (RNO)

Growth at Reno/Tahoe International Airport (RNO) has been steady

over the last decade. This growth is exhibited in the doubling of

passenger enplanements from 1.4 million in 1983 to 3.2 million in 1997.

As a result, an Airport Capacity Design Team for RNO is continuing to

study capacity-enhancing alternatives including the construction of a

new apron, a new concourse, de-icing facilities, and runway and

taxiway extensions. Possible F&E improvements under consideration

include development of precision approaches and the installation of

Doppler radar and RVR systems. Procedural improvements include

adoption of land-and-hold-short procedures (LAHSO).

Miami International Airport Update (MIA)

Miami International Airport (MIA) was ranked the seventh-busiest airport in total operations for 1997. Aircraft operations have been

on the rise, increasing more than 69 percent between 1983 and 1995.

Passenger enplanements at MIA have increased more than 61 percent

during this same time period. According to FAA projections, this

growth at MIA will keep it on the list of airports experiencing over

20,000 hours of annual delay through the year 2007, if no capacity

improvements are made.

In 1986, an Airport Capacity Design Team for Miami International

Airport was formed and in 1989 published recommendations for

increasing capacity and reducing delays. Changes in computer simulation model inputs, growth in traffic at MIA, and the need to reassess

and further analyze capacity enhancement alternatives resulted in a

second Airport Capacity Design Team in September 1995.

The Design Team’s analysis showed that delay costs and annual

delays will continue to grow at a substantial rate as demand increases

if no improvements in airfield capacity are made. The recommendations that will reduce delays the most are a new non-precision air

carrier runway (parallel to and 800 feet north of existing Runway

9L/27R), establishment of a third departure heading for jets (day-only

operations), and the use of intersection departures for cargo aircraft on

runway 27L. Currently, an environmental impact study of the new

runway is being prepared. The update of the MIA plan was published

in December 1997.

Newark International Airport (EWR)

The Airport Capacity Design Team study of Newark International

Airport (EWR) is still in progress. At this point, the study is examining

new approach procedures to the converging runway and innovative

dual approach procedures to the closely spaced parallel runways. In
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 57

support of the study of these new approach procedures the following

simulations have been completed at EWR: parallel dual visual approaches, reduced in-trail separation, and localizer directional aid

(LDA) offset approaches for north flow traffic. The expected completion date of the EWR study is 1999.

Tampa International Airport (TPA)

The Airport Capacity Design Team study of Tampa International

Airport (TPA) is currently underway. The study is analyzing airfield

improvements including taxiway and runway extensions, a proposed

new runway, and holding pads. Operational improvements such as

dependent converging instrument approaches to Runways 27 and 36L,

utilization of Runway 18L/36R, and independent precision instrument

approaches to the parallel runways are being investigated. The study

is being conducted in conjunction with a master plan update for

Tampa. Completion of the study is expected in 1999.

Additional Airport Capacity Activities

ASC also acts as a team member in other airport capacity projects.

ASC is currently a participant with projects involving Los Angeles,

Dallas Fort Worth, and Hartsfield Atlanta International Airports.

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is ranked fourth in the

U.S. for number of operations for 1997, is a leader in air cargo, handling

approximately 1.87 million tons of goods in 1997, and currently is one

of 27 U.S. airports with over 20,000 hours of annual delay. LAX has

experienced steady growth over the past five years in both passenger

enplanements and airport operations. This growth at LAX is predicted

to continue, and if no improvements are made the excessive delays are

predicted to continue as well.

LAX is currently in the process of addressing the need for growth

through an Airport Master Planning effort that is underway. Thirty

proposals for modernization were initially evaluated and the field has

been narrowed to three. ASC has been asked to assist the LAX Master

Plan review team in the evaluation of those proposals. The common

elements in each of the proposals are:

• Center parallel taxiways in between both sets of parallel runways

• Extension of the north-side inner parallel runway to 12,000 feet

• A fifth runway that is between 6,000 and 7,000 feet in length

• A new west terminal
58 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW)

Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) ranked first in U.S. airport operations in

1997, with 903,006 operations. Operations at DFW are expected to

increase by 55.4 percent by 2012. DFW is also one of the airports

expected to have over 20,000 hours of annual delays through 2007, if

no additional capacity improvements are made.

Runway and taxiway plans are being explored at DFW to compensate for predicted increases in aircraft traffic. A new west runway is

scheduled for commissioning in 2003, which will allow the airport to

support simultaneous quadruple parallel arrival streams. An extension

of Runway 18R/36L to 16,000 feet is being considered to accommodate

extended range B777 for non-stop service to the Far East. Also being

looked at is the placement of perimeter taxiways around the ends of the

runways to alleviate departure delays due to runway crossings.

Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport (ATL)

The Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport (ATL) Capacity Design Team recommended a commuter/general aviation (GA) runway

complex in its March 1987 Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan. This

concept was later modified to a 6,000 foot long fifth parallelcommuter

runway, 4,200 feet south of existing Runway 9R/27L. A December 1995

update of the Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan showed this runway

would provide significant delay savings benefits at ATL. Construction

of the new runway is expected to begin in early 1999 and be completed

in March 2002. This runway will allow triple simultaneous arrivals to

ATL in instrument conditions using the new Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) technology. A runway dedicated to commuter aircraft

arrivals will reduce airborne delay for these aircraft and air carrier

aircraft operating on the four existing runways. A reduction in delays

at a major hub airport such as ATL will reduce delays in the entire NAS.

1998 Tactical Initiative Teams

Tactical Initiative Teams focus on providing immediate relief to

airports with chronic delay. The recommendations of Tactical Initiative Teams generally focus on procedural changes that can be implemented quickly with little financial investment. Ongoing Tactical

Initiative projects in 1998 are summarized below.

La Guardia Airport (LGA)

The FAA Office of System Capacity (ASC) and the FAA’s William J.

Hughes Technical Center conducted a study of the capacity and delay

implications of introducing the Boeing 767-400 into the aircraft fleet at

La Guardia Airport (LGA). An analysis was conducted based on five

runway configurations. The analysis focused on determining any

special operating procedures that would be required for the B767-400.

The study determined that no additional runway considerations were

necessary, but found two potential taxiway clearance problems. The
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 59

final conclusion reached was that the introduction of the B767-400

does not appear to have any significant capacity or delay impact on

taxiway operations at LGA. The report The Capacity/Delay Impacts of

767-400 at LGA was issued in April 1998.

San Diego International Airport (SAN)

The San Diego study continues and the expected completion date

is late 1998. The Tactical Initiative Team has been investigating the

effect of another terminal, ground flow, and other short-term improvements such as an additional terminal concourse, taxiway development,

and remote aircraft parking areas already approved in the Immediate

Action Plan. A Master Plan study, which will address capacity and

growth issues of San Diego International-Linbergh Field is currently

underway. Completion of the Master Plan study is expected early 1999.

Air Traffic Control (ATC) Ground Simulations

At the request of regional Air Traffic offices and local Air Traffic

facilities, ASC has initiated ATC ground simulations at Las Vegas

McCarran International Airport (LAS), Salt Lake City Airport, and

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX). The goal of the

ground simulation initiatives is to improve the operational efficiencies

at these airports.

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (LAS)

A ground simulation initiative is being conducted in support of an

effort with Air Traffic to improve ground operations at Las Vegas

McCarran International Airport (LAS). LAS recently added an additional gate complex, Terminal D, to the airport. The FAA is examining

the impacts of an increase in traffic on existing taxiways and gates and

ways to increase the tower efficiency of ground operations. In addition,

the ability of the new terminal complex to accommodate future traffic

levels is being tested. Also being studied are different runway scenarios and their impact on noise abatement efforts. Expected completion of the initiative is 1999.

Salt Lake City Airport (SLC)

An initiative instituted at Salt Lake City Airport (SLC) will assist

Air Traffic in finding ways to improve ground operations. This study

is examining the effect of additional taxiways on ground operations

efficiency. The impact of new terminals and the relocation of existing

terminals on ground operations is also being studied. In addition,

initiatives to improve operational efficiency during times of reduced

visibility are to be examined. The planned conclusion of this initiative

is 1999.
60 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX)

An initiative to assist Air Traffic with ground operations efficiency,

similar to airport initiatives at LAS and SLC, is being conducted at

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX). The goal is to

determine a more efficient use of runways for arrival and departure

operations, based on both the present runway configuration and also

during construction of a new runway and the repair of existing

runways. Several runway configuration scenarios are being considered during the construction of a third runway and the subsequent

reconstruction of the existing runways. The third runway is being

constructed to prevent additional delays, reduce aircraft operating

costs and passenger travel times, and provide the capability to perform

simultaneous instrument operations. One of the most challenging

aspects involved in the construction of the third runway is the

relocation of facilities that lie in its path. This initiative is expected to

be complete in 1999.

1998 Regional Capacity Design Teams

Looking beyond the individual airport and its immediate airspace,

the Office of System Capacity conducts regional studies. Regional

Capacity Design Teams analyze all the major airports in a metropolitan

or regional system and model them in the same terminal airspace

environment. This regional perspective explores how capacity-producing improvements at one airport will affect air traffic operations at

other airports and within associated airspace.

Northeast Region Capacity Design Study

Phase One of the Northeast Region Study examined the capacity

impacts of passengers migration from the primary airports (BOS, EWR,

JFK, and LGA) to surrounding commercial passenger service airports.

Phase Two is a planned expansion of the study to the major Washington area airports (DCA, BWI, and IAD) and Philadelphia (PHL). The

Design Team is working with the Volpe National Transportation

Systems Center on this effort. Phase One was completed in September

1998 and completion of Phase Two is expected in September 1999.

Anchorage Area Airspace Design Team Study

The Anchorage Area Airspace Design Team Study started in April

1997 and expected completion is March 1999. The focus of the study

is to identify the best ways of accommodating existing and future

aircraft operations in the Anchorage area. Anchorage International

(ANC), Lake Hood, Merrill Field, and Elmendorf airports, as well as

private-use airports and heliports in the Anchorage area, are included

in the study. The study is focused on the following considerations: the

impact on operations in the Anchorage area of constructing a new
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 61

runway and runway extension; innovative approach procedures to the

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

and a means of addressing congestion problems caused by more than

one million annual operations transiting over Point McKenzie, a single

fix.

Environmental Constraints on Capacity

Environmental constraints on aviation system capacity can occur

based on a number of categories of concerns. Currently, noise in the

airport environment is the greatest environmental issue affecting

aviation capacity, while the focus on emissions is expected to increase

in the future. Other categories of environmental issues include community disruption, relocation, surface and air traffic changes, changes to

sensitive cultural and natural resources (e.g., preservation of wildlife

refuges, national parks and bird sanctuaries), air and water quality,

water and sewer demand, energy demand, aesthetics, site clean up, and

concerns about electromagnetic fields. Collectively, these constraints

affect where and how aircraft are allowed to fly, the airports they can

use, and the available airport capacity enhancement options.

The effort to reduce noise is concentrated in three areas: reducing

noise at the source, through operational procedures, and through landuse planning. The major initiative to reduce noise at the source is the

phase out of Stage 2 aircraft (noisier aircraft) by December 31, 1999.

This deadline requires airlines to replace their Stage 2 aircraft or

retrofit their older aircraft with “hushkits” or new engines that meet

Stage 3 noise standards (quieter aircraft). Noise mitigation also occurs

through implementation of certain operational procedures. Airlines,

airports, and the FAA work together to route traffic away from residential areas. Examples of procedural steps taken are takeoffs and landings

routed over large bodies of water or industrial areas and pilots

adjusting power settings on take-off — applying maximum power

while climbing and then reducing power when flying over residential

areas. Land-use planning is another way the FAA is working to reduce

noise effects on communities. The FAA, through Airport Improvement

Program (AIP) funding, provides grants to airport proprietors for

soundproofing homes, schools, churches, and other structures near

airports. Airport proprietors also can use AIP grant funding to buy

homes outright and resell them for commercial development that is

more compatible with the airport.

The push for aircraft emissions reduction is coming from three

primary sources: the International Civil Aviation Organization Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (ICAO/CAEP), the Kyoto

Protocol (an agreement for industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next 10-14 years), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 1993, ICAO/CAEP mandated a 20

percent decrease in the allowable emissions levels of oxides of nitrogen

(NOx) from aircraft engines. A future recommendation is likely to be a

reduction of NOx emissions by an additional 16 percent. The Kyoto

Protocol is a driving force in the reduction of emissions into the upper

atmosphere in the effort to protect the planet from global warming.

Noise in the airport environment is

the greatest environmental issue

affecting aviation capacity, while the

focus on emissions is expected to

increase in the future.
62 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN

The Protocol sets varying targets for individual countries; the U.S. has

agreed to a 7 percent reduction from 1990 greenhouse gas emission

levels. The EPA focus is on reducing emissions of particulates, thereby

improving public health.

Federal actions with environmental impacts are subject to the

provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Preparation of environmental assessments (EA) and/or mitigation measures by

or for the FAA is usually required for major airport changes requiring

FAA approval and for significant airspace changes. Examples of situations in which an EA is required are when a new runway is proposed,

when major runway extension or strengthening is proposed, prior to

installing an instrument landing system, or when altering an airport’s

arrival or departure tracks. If significant environmental impacts are

determined from the assessment, then FAA must prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). The environmental process, from an EA

through an EIS, can consist of up to 44 different steps and can take a

number of years to complete. Although frequently prepared by the

airport operator, the resulting EIS is adopted by the FAA and is the

FAA’s environmental commitment and responsibility.
The FAA Office of System Capacity (ASC) has a long-established

airspace capacity program which has sponsored more than twenty

projects over the past nine years aimed at increasing capacity and

decreasing delay in the National Airspace System (NAS). Airspace

development studies strive to relieve congestion and reduce delays by

determining how to restructure airspace and modify arrival, departure, en route, and terminal flow patterns. En route airspace studies

may extend to one or more Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs),

encompassing traffic flowing into and out of several airports. In

contrast, terminal airspace studies, undertaken to ensure that traffic

patterns resulting from new runways, runway extensions, and traffic

increases can be accommodated efficiently, usually encompass only

about a 40 mile radius around the airport.

This chapter begins by describing the role of several new airspace

planning organizations. It continues with a summary of the capacity

benefits that resulted from the implementation of airport and airspace

enhancements in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, and descriptions of

ongoing and recently completed en route and terminal airspace studies. It concludes with a short description of the FAA’s involvement in

a relatively new airspace frontier, commercial space transportation.

New FAA Airspace Management and

Development Organizations

In 1996 the FAA established the Airspace Management Program

Office (ATA). The purpose of this division is to develop, test, and

analyze current airspace design using modeling and simulation and to

manage changes to airspace design, efficiency, and utilization. Any

significant proposed airspace changes are evaluated by ATA, which

assesses the impacts of the changes from a national perspective.

The Airspace Liaison Team (ALT) provides a forum within the FAA

for airspace management issues and activities. The ALT includes

representatives from ATA, other FAA headquarters offices (such as the

offices of System Capacity, Air Traffic Operations, and Commercial

Space Transport), and airspace managers from all nine FAA Regional

Offices. Input from air carriers and other airspace users are communicated to the ALT through the Regional airspace managers.

RTCA Special Committee 192, National Airspace Review Planning

and Analysis, is providing guidance to the FAA for the review and

management of national airspace redesign. The committee represents

the views and perspectives of all airspace users and stakeholders, and

addresses issues associated with all types of domestic and oceanic

airspace.

AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 4:
64 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN

Efficiency Benefits of Airspace and Airport

Enhancements in the Dallas/Fort Worth

Metroplex

In 1987, an ambitious study was developed by the Dallas/Fort

Worth (DFW) airport board in conjunction with the FAA that addressed

navigation and communication facilities and equipment, airspace

realignment, and procedural development in the Dallas/Fort Worth

Metroplex. The study focused on both the need for additional runways

to accommodate increased operations and the redesign of approach

streams for arrivals and departures. The study’s goals were to ensure

that the airspace and airport capacities in the Dallas/Ft. Worth areas

kept pace with the predicted increases in demand. Specific recommendations included modifications for DFW traffic flows to establish

demand-responsive dual jet arrival routings over each cornerpost,

establishing additional terminal departure routings, and segregating

DFW arrival traffic from satellite operations in the terminal area. The

new airspace design included an expansion of TRACON airspace 15 NM

into the existing en route system to incorporate moving the cornerpost

navigational aids. Implementation of the study’s recommendations has

begun and the results are even better than the simulations predicted.

In the first year after implementation of the new airspace design for

the DFW Metroplex area, VFR arrival rates reached as high as 156 planes

per hour, an increase of more than 40 percent over previous rates, and

much higher than the airspace analysts had predicted. The flight-time

savings in 1997 compared to 1996 totaled 57,634 hours, equating to an

estimated savings of $92 million in aircraft operating costs. Cumulative

savings over the next 20 years due to reduced flight-time are estimated

to exceed $12 billion. Figures 4-1 illustrates DFW arrival traffic before

airspace and runway changes. The wavering flight paths are evidence

of path stretching required to moderate the traffic coming into the

terminal area over a single fix. Figure 4-2 illustrates the flight tracks of

DFW arrival traffic after airspace and runway changes. The prevalence

of straight flight paths is evidence of the operational benefits of the

new dual arrival fix and runway.

The Metroplex plan is currently entering its final phase with the

addition of a new north/south runway at DFW International Airport.

This runway will provide additional capacity and include a new air

traffic procedure: quadruple simultaneous instrument landing system

(ILS) approaches.

Implementation of the study’s recommendations has begun and the

results are even better than the simulations predicted.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 4 – 65

Figure 4-1. DFW Arrival Traffic Before Airport

and Airspace Enhancements

Figure 4-2. DFW Arrival Traffic After Airport

and Airspace Enhancements

Ongoing Airspace Studies

In mid-1998 the FAA initiated a large-scale analysis of the national

airspace structure, referred to as the National Airspace Redesign. The

FAA is also currently involved in en route airspace studies in Chicago;

the West Coast, including Northern California, Southern California

and Las Vegas; Salt Lake City; Cincinnati; the Southern Region,

including Atlanta, central Florida and Miami; and the Caribbean. In

addition, the FAA has recently initiated a terminal airspace study at

Phoenix International Airport.

National Airspace Redesign

The goal of the National Airspace Redesign is to ensure that the

design and management of our national airspace is consistent with new

requirements as the NAS evolves towards free flight. The National

Airspace Redesign will consist of incremental changes to the national

airspace structure consistent with evolving air traffic technologies and

avionics and NAS operational concepts. Environmental issues will be

addressed in parallel with capacity and efficiency analyses.

In July 1998, the first phase of the National Airspace Redesign was

initiated in the Eastern Triangle. The Eastern Triangle is associated

with the ARTCCs and TRACONs serving Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, Cincinnati, Cleveland,

and Chicago. Initial efforts for 1998 and 1999 will focus on problem

identification in the airspace of New York and New Jersey. That region

is a priority because its airspace is the most congested in the nation. By

the year 2000, the FAA expects to have completed problem identification

and alternative evaluations, and begun environmental evaluations for

the Eastern Triangle.

The National Airspace Redesign will

consist of incremental changes to the

national airspace structure consistent

with evolving air traffic technologies

and avionics and NAS operational

concepts.
66 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN

Chicago Terminal Airspace Project (CTAP)

The Chicago Terminal Airspace Project (CTAP) is an outgrowth of

efforts that began ten years ago to efficiently service aircraft demand

within the region. In 1988, the FAA conducted a Chicago System Safety

& Efficiency Review because of concerns over operational errors,

continued regional growth, and increased delays to the users. In 1989,

the Chicago Delay Task Force was established to identify initiatives to

enhance safety, improve efficiency, and reduce controller workload. In

1991, the FAA initiated a three-phase program of improvements for NAS

users in the Chicago metropolitan area. Phase II CTAP includes proposed modification of the existing airspace design and procedures,

quantification of user benefits, and preparation of an Environmental

Impact Statement.

The basic structure of the Chicago regional airspace has not

changed in over 20 years, but the number, performance, and mix of

aircraft using the airspace has changed. The existing airspace limits

flexibility for controllers operating in an extremely complex environment. For aircraft destined to the region, en route in-trail spacing is

conservative to avoid saturation of arrival streams. Arriving aircraft

are sequenced into a single stream at each cornerpost. En route and

terminal arrival spacing and sequencing are achieved through ground

holds, speed control, and delay vectors (S-Turns).

A significant modification proposed by the CTAP program is

transfer of portions of the Chicago ARTCC airspace to Chicago TRACON

airspace along the existing high-altitude arrival gateways, thus expanding TRACON airspace from today’s 40 miles to between 50 and 60

miles. Other components of the CTAP proposal include:

• One additional high-altitude arrival route, two modified arrival

routes, and more flexible use of existing departure corridors for

Chicago O’Hare International Airport

• A more direct route for aircraft arriving from the northwest and

northeast destined for Chicago Midway Airport, Chicago Meigs

Airport, Gary Airport, and other general aviation/reliever airports

• One new high-altitude arrival route separating Milwaukee General Mitchell Airport and reliever/satellite airport traffic

The expected benefits of the proposed CTAP modifications include:

• Enhanced safety by reducing complexity of arrival procedures

• Improved on-time service for the flying public

• Fewer miles flown en-route — offering potential fuel savings

• Reduced ground-hold delays

• More flexible use of existing departure corridors

• Redundant back-up during radar outages

Figure 4-3 illustrates the proposed CTAP airspace modifications.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 4 – 67

Figure 4-3. Proposed Airspace Design for Chicago

West Coast Airspace Analysis

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

coast of the United States, ranging from San Francisco/Oakland in the

north, to Los Angeles in the south, and extending to Las Vegas to the

east. Arrival procedures to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)

were recently modified to take advantage of the air traffic management

capabilities made possible by the new Southern California TRACON

(SCT). ASC analyzed the airspace of the Northern California TRACON

(NCT) (under construction) to capitalize on potential efficiency and

capacity gains in that region.

Southern California TRACON (SCT) Airspace Analysis

The SCT controls airspace in the Los Angeles-San Diego area. By

consolidating the operations of five TRACONs into a single facility, the

SCT enhanced controller flexibility for merging and sequencing aircraft. In addition, the LAX approach control area was expanded,

allowing earlier use of airborne precision navigation and terminal

separation criteria (three miles in trail), providing additional flexibility

in maneuvering aircraft and making runway assignments.

Prior to construction of the SCT, LAX arrivals from the east were

funneled into the Los Angeles Basin via an arrival procedure which

merged various airways into a single arrival stream over CIVET intersection. During peak arrival rushes, the single arrival stream over

CIVET did not have the capacity to support the heavy traffic from the

east. The traffic bottleneck caused by the single arrival stream fre-
68 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN

quently required the use of ground stops and en route flow restrictions, resulting in flight delays and underutilization of available

runway capacity at LAX.

In February 1998, an arrival enhancement procedure (AEP) for LAX

was implemented, providing dual arrival streams for flights landing at

LAX from the east. Figures 4-4 and 4-5 show a comparison of flight

tracks for the old arrival procedures and traffic flows under the AEP,

respectively. Annualized cost savings due to reduced flight times as a

result of the AEP are projected to be $13 million at baseline traffic

levels. By 2005, savings are expected to increase to $65 million

annually. ASC is currently conducting a post-implementation analysis

of the airspace changes to assess the actual flight time and delay

savings.

BURBANK HEC

TRACON

ONTARIO

TRACON

COAST TRACON

LOS ANGELES

TRACON

SAN DIEGO

TRACON

DAWNA

TNP

LAX RUSTT

Jet Arrival Route

ABREE

ARNES CIVET

FUELR

Legend

Fix/Intersection

LA International Airport

VORTAC

J107

J128

J10

Figure 4-4. Old TRACON Boundaries and

Arrival Routes to Los Angeles

International Airport

BURBANK HEC

AREA

EMPIRE

AREA

NEW LAX

FEEDER

COAST AREA

LOS ANGELES

AREA

SAN DIEGO

AREA

DAWNA

TNP

LAX

SCT Airspace

RUSTT

Jet Arrival Route

ABREE

GEORG

ARNES

PDZ REBCA

CIVET

DENAY

FUELR

Fix/Intersection

LA International Airport

Legend

GOLDI

VORTAC

J107

J128

J10

Figure 4-5. New SCT Boundary and Arrival

Enhancement Procedure to Los

Angeles International Airport

Northern California TRACON (NCT) Airspace Analysis

The proposed NCT will consolidate four existing northern California TRACONs into a new facility. This restructuring and expansion of

terminal airspace will provide an opportunity for implementing airspace changes with the specific goal of improving efficiency of airspace

usage by enhancing controller flexibility for merging and sequencing

aircraft.

ASC investigated two proposals for using the NCT to enhance

airspace efficiency in northern California when the Southeast Plan

configuration is in effect in instrument meteorological conditions. The

Southeast Plan, used approximately ten percent of the time under

certain wind and weather conditions, limits arrivals and takeoffs at

San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to one runway. The first

proposal would reduce congestion in northbound traffic by establishing an offshore arrival route for Oakland Airport (OAK) to remove
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 4 – 69

Oakland-bound traffic from the San Francisco arrival stream. The

second proposal is a straight-in arrival route for flights from the north,

northwest, and northeast to reduce controller workload and eliminate

the need for path-stretching during heavy traffic.

Figures 4-6 and 4-7 show a comparison of existing SFO arrival

routes from the north and the proposed straight-in arrival route,

respectively. Annual aircraft operating cost savings resulting from the

SFO straight-in and OAK offshore arrival routes are estimated at

$6.6million at baseline traffic levels.

PYE

ENI

ILA

RBL

SWR

Pacific Rim

Pacific

Northwest

Polar & Upper

Midwest

Northern

Rockies

Reno/Tahoe

Modesto

Offload

Short

Haul

SFO

JetArrivalRoute

Legend

SanFransiscoInternationalAirport

VORTAC

VOR/DME

Figure 4-6. Existing SFO North Arrival

Routes

ILA

RBL

SWR

Pacific Rim

Pacific

Northwest

Polar & Upper

Midwest

Northern

Rockies

Reno/Tahoe

Modesto

Offload

ENI

PYE

Short Haul

UPEND

SFO

Jet Arrival Route

Legend

San Fransisco International Airport

VORTAC

VOR/DME

Figure 4-7. Proposed Straight-In Arrival

Routes for SFO

Las Vegas Airspace Analysis

In 1995, Las Vegas had 29 million tourists. Of these, over 14 million

traveled by air. By 1997, the number of tourists increased to more than

34 million, with more expected as new hotel rooms continue to be

built. The consistent increase in visitors to Las Vegas has strained the

operations at McCarren International Airport (LAS), which experienced more than 20,000 hours of delay in 1997, and for which

continued delays are projected if no capacity improvements are made.

Twenty-six new gates opened in 1998, and an additional twelve gates

are under construction. Although one runway was recently upgraded

to accommodate air carrier aircraft, this improvement will probably

not be sufficient to accommodate projected demand. Airspace north of

McCarren is constrained by the significant airspace reserve of Nellis

Air Force Base, which limits the maneuvering room of flights in that

region.

Most GA flights, primarily VFR sightseeing tours, now operate out

of North Las Vegas Airport (VGT), which has relieved capacity pressures on LAS. In addition, Clark County, which owns and operates LAS,

recently purchased Henderson Airport for the purpose of developing

it into a reliever airport for LAS to accommodate the significant

residential growth south of Las Vegas.
70 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN

The Las Vegas airspace analysis encompassed the airspace of the

Los Angeles ARTCC, including LAS and VGT. The study assessed

modifications to arrival and departure routings and runway use to

enable the FAA to better service the dramatic growth in air traffic

demand in the Las Vegas area. As a result of the analysis, a new

cornerpost structure for LAS arrivals and dedicated arrival and departure runways are being implemented in phases. These modifications

are expected to reduce flight times by more than 65 hours daily, and

delays greater than fifteen minutes by more than 82 percent.

The use of VGT instead of LAS by GA operations relieved capacity

pressures on LAS, but not on the surrounding airspace, because tour

operations are still required to traverse the McCarren approach to do

their business. Therefore, the FAA is also analyzing the effect on

controller workload of GA flights using the McCarren approach, and

assessing how to best route GA operations so that they are compatible

with other flights within the Las Vegas TRACON.

Cincinnati Airspace Analysis

Air traffic has grown significantly at Cincinnati (CVG) in recent

years due to increases in Delta Airlines and Comair hub operations.

Traffic growth exceeded seven percent annually from 1994 to 1997,

well above the national average. Two factors complicate Cincinnati’s

airspace: a parachute jump area to the northeast and a military

operations area (MOA) 35 miles east of the airport. Under the current

route structure, if arrivals from the northeast are required to hold in

the air, the only airspace available for the holding pattern is between

the arrival route and the MOA, airspace usually used by eastbound

departures. Thus, if airborne holding is required by northeast arrivals,

at least some eastbound departures are forced to hold on the ground.

Air traffic controllers have been forced to use traffic-management

initiatives, including ground-delay programs (GDPs), to avoid excessive airborne holding. This increases both departure delays and airport

surface congestion.

An FAA taskforce is now addressing airspace issues at Cincinnati

by developing new routes and procedures that will eliminate the need

for regular GDPs. The taskforce is also working with Department of

Defense representatives to improve the real-time communication of

MOA activation times. Better knowledge of MOA activation times

should allow greater civilian use of the airspace. Increasing the ceiling

height of the terminal airspace, adding new FMS-based arrival routes,

and adding parallel routes through each departure gate are other

possibilities for increasing airspace utilization and reducing delays.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 4 – 71

Salt Lake City En Route and Terminal Airspace Analyses

Air traffic activity at the Salt Lake City Airport (SLC) has increased

significantly in the past few years, from 317,000 operations in 1992 to

385,000 operations in 1997. SLC is a hub for Delta and SkyWest

Airlines, and Federal Express is in the process of building a cargo hub

operation there. SLC experienced more than 20,000 hours of delay in

FY97, and if no further capacity enhancements are made it will

continue to exceed 20,000 hours of delay annually. Routing options for

SLC are limited by the Utah Test and Training Range (UTT) special use

airspace west of the airport, and limited radar coverage and maneuvering room to the east due to mountainous terrain. The Salt Lake City

airspace analysis began in April 1997. The purpose of the study is to

reduce traffic flow complexity en route and in the terminal area to

accommodate expected traffic growth, including traffic growth projections for the upcoming 2002 Winter Olympic games.

Under the existing en route air traffic structure, certain sectors

handle both arrivals and departures, which is not ideal from a workload

and efficiency standpoint. To address these shortcomings, ASC developed a proposed cornerpost structure for arrivals with redefined sector

boundaries. ASC then developed four routing alternatives for the

terminal area in conjunction with the en route modifications. Of the

four terminal area options evaluated, the largest flight time savings are

projected for the east and west downwind terminal option. Specifically,

this terminal option would result in $2.7 million of annual operating

savings today and $7.7 million by the year 2010. Figures 4-8 and 4-9

compare routing under the current structure to routing under the east

and west downwind terminal option with a four-cornerpost en route

structure, for the north and south flow operations, respectively.

45

42

41

29

06

16

05

44

46

03

32 04

07

40

2

UTT

UTT

WEST ARRIVALS

SOUTHEAST ARRIVALS

SOUTHWEST ARRIVALS

NORTHEAST ARRIVALS

NORTHWEST ARRIVALS

LowAltitudeSectors

Figure 4-8. SLC Current Routes

45

42

41

06

16

05

44

46

03

07

40

UTT

SOUTHEASTARRIVALS

NORTHEASTARRIVALS

NORTHWESTARRIVALS

LowAltitude

Sectors

UTT

47 31

08

32 33

WESTARRIVALS

SOUTHWESTARRIVALS

Figure 4-9. SLC Proposed Routes
72 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN

Southern Region Multi-Center Study

A multiple-ARTCC (Multi-Center) study is being performed in

FAA’s Southern Region with the objective of creating GPS-based userpreferred trajectories (UPTs) between Atlanta, the central-Florida

complex of airports (Tampa, Orlando, Daytona Beach, and Jacksonville), and Miami. In the study, airspace in the Miami, Jacksonville,

and Atlanta ARTCCs airspace is being redesigned for use by aircraft

equipped with advanced navigation systems. Ultimately, UPTs will

connect the departure-runway end to the arrival-runway end via a

series of waypoints. The portion of the trajectory in the en-route

airspace will allow direct flight to the maximum extent possible, given

the origin and destination airport configurations, active special-use

airspace, complex traffic areas, and weather conditions.

Both departure and arrival routes will be modified for the new

UPTs. Multiple UPTs will be created in each departure sector and the

extension of these trajectories to variable points with the adjacent

ARTCC’s airspace will create Free Flight opportunities. New waypoints

will be established that will allow GPS-equipped aircraft to fly new,

published transitions to arrival routes. In effect, GPS departure/arrival

corridors will be created to integrate transitioning aircraft to and from

the en-route airspace.

In the en-route airspace, GPS-based “flyways” will be designed by

a group of FAA representatives with inputs from system users. Initially, flyways will be developed and tested between the Atlanta and

Miami airports. With successful implementation of these flyways,

others will be designed for use within Southern-Region airspace and,

ultimately, to airports outside of Southern Region.

RNAV Route Development in the Bahamas and Caribbean

Over the past few years, numerous hurricanes and tropical storms

have reduced ATC equipment in the Caribbean area to two beacon-only

radars and five navigational aids. Establishing and maintaining ATC

equipment in the Caribbean is expensive and difficult; on many

islands, reliable commercial power and transmission media are not

available, and maintenance personnel must be flown in at significant

cost. At the same time, Caribbean air traffic continues to increase at

approximately eight percent per year.

These difficulties make the Caribbean an ideal place for early

development of advanced-navigation, non-ground-based routes. These

routes are expected to be eight nautical miles wide with at least two

nautical miles between parallel routes. The maximum flight time on a

given route would be two hours. The routes would be usable by aircraft

equipped with GPS and other RNAV systems. Although the ultimate

goal is to design routes for aircraft in a non-radar environment, the

routes will be tested on traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS)

equipped aircraft in a radar environment for 90 days, evaluated, and

then tested again in a radar environment for another 90 days. If the test

results are favorable and all participants agree, the project will be

expanded to a non-radar environment.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 4 – 73

FAA Flight Standards specialists are presently evaluating the new

routes. The short-term goal is to implement the new routes by the third

quarter of 1999. See Chapter 5 for more information on the development of RNAV routes.

Phoenix Terminal Airspace Analysis

Due to a significant increase in operations, a terminal airspace

study has been initiated in Phoenix. The study, which also involves the

Albuquerque Center, began in the fall of 1997. This team is addressing

the expected increase of arrival and departures in the Phoenix area.

Commercial Space Transportation

The FAA, through the Associate Administrator for Commercial

Space Transportation (AST), regulates the U.S. commercial space transportation industry, licenses commercial launches and launch sites, and

manages the airspace required for commercial launches to assure

safety. Most commercial space launches contain communications,

scientific, weather, or remote-sensing satellites. Launches are financed

by private corporations, states, the Air Force, and NASA. Unlike

airports, where the FAA builds and maintains air traffic control

facilities, the FAA has no infrastructure at launch sites.

As of April 1998, there had been 94 licensed launches; all but two

launched from one of the following Federal launch sites: Cape Canaveral,

White Sands Missile Range, Vandenberg, Wallops Island, and Barking

Sands, Hawaii.

In January 1998, the first launch from a non-Federal space launch

site took place from Spaceport Florida, located at Cape Canaveral,

which was licensed to operate by the FAA in 1997. The FAA has licensed

two other commercial spaceports — the California Spaceport at

Vandenberg and the Virginia Space Flight Center at Wallops Island.

The FAA is currently working with Alaska, Nevada, and New Mexico

on other proposed commercial launch sites. The FAA is preparing

regulations for licensing commercial launches and launch sites.

AST is currently developing a concept of operations that will

address the challenge of integrating new and existing commercial

space operations with current air traffic operations in a manner that

best promotes system efficiency and safety. The concept of operations

will examine Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) operational characteristics and airspace requirements, as well as operational and economic

impacts of commercial space transportation vehicle operations on

other NAS users, from 2005 through 2015.

In January 1998, the first launch from

a non-Federal space launch site took

place from Spaceport Florida, located

at Cape Canaveral.
74 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1998 ACE PLAN
NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 5:

This chapter describes recent and developing air traffic control

procedures that require little or no investment in new technology. The

procedures described in this chapter are grouped by operating environment: en route, oceanic, and terminal/approach procedures. These

programs will increase capacity by giving pilots more flexibility in

determining their routes, altitude, speed, and departure and landing

times. Modernization of the National Airspace System (NAS) equipment over the next decade will provide additional opportunities to

develop procedures that take advantage of new technological capabilities.

En Route Procedures

Several procedural initiatives will improve pilots’ ability to plan

and fly direct routes. These direct routing procedures allow increased

system capacity, efficiency, and economy. A few of these procedures,

as well as other en route procedures, are described below.

Area Navigation (RNAV)

RNAV is a generic term that refers to any instrument navigation

performed outside of conventional routes defined by the groundbased navigational aids or by intersections formed by two navigational

aids. Technologies such as Flight Management Systems (FMS), LORAN-C,

and inertial guidance systems have offered RNAV capability to aircraft,

especially commercial carriers, for nearly two decades. With the

introduction and widespread acceptance of Global Positioning System (GPS) to civilian aviation in the 1990s, even more aircraft have acquired

this capability.

While RNAV offers the potential for more flexibility and greater

airspace efficiency, its use is often restricted by air traffic control

procedures that are based on established route structures. This is the

case in high-density terminal airspace where air traffic controllers rely

on the use of departure procedures (DP) and standard terminal arrival

routes (STAR) to align and sequence traffic. It is often difficult for

controllers to simultaneously accommodate non-standard RNAV arrival and departure procedures with traditional DP and STAR procedures. For this reason, RNAV arrival and departure routes are typically

restricted to periods of low traffic.

To make greater use of RNAV capabilities in terminal airspace, the

FAA has begun to develop RNAV arrival and departure procedures for

the top 50 airports. Four airports currently have published RNAV

procedures: Seattle-Tacoma, Milwaukee, Boston, and Houston George

Bush. The FAA is currently developing an RNAV departure procedure

out of Los Angeles.

For major airports within 500 NM of each other (e.g., Phoenix and

Las Vegas), the FAA is exploring the concept of city pair DP

/STAR routes

whereby the STAR would begin where the DP ends, and en route air

traffic control services would not be required. Six RNAV routes have
76 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 1998 ACE PLAN

already been implemented in the Caribbean between Florida and the

Dominican Republic, San Juan, and Puerto Rico.

Approximately 70 additional RNAV procedures are in various

stages of development and the FAA is awaiting commitment from

industry carriers to move forward with more RNAV procedures. The

FAA is also working on making RNAV routes eligible in non-radar

environments, since many flights occur outside of radar range.

The National Route Program (NRP)

The NRP gives airlines and pilots increased flexibility in choosing

their routes. Aircraft operating under the NRP are not subject to route

restrictions such as published preferred IFR routes, letter of agreement

requirements, and standard operating procedures. NRP flights are only

subject to route limitations within a 200 NM radius of take-off or

landing. This flexibility allows airlines to plan and fly the most costeffective routes and increases the efficiency of the aviation system. NRP

operations are currently authorized at or above FL290 across the

contiguous United States. The FAA accommodates all flights that want

to take advantage of the NRP.

The FAA estimates that approximately 1,200 flights per day participated in the NRP in 1997, saving the aviation industry as much as $65

million, or about $150 per flight. As of February 1998, an average of

1,500 flights a day (more than seven percent of eligible flights)

participated in the NRP, with a peak day numbering 1,967. Participation rates are higher on longer flights.

In an effort to expand the NRP and increase participation rates, the

FAA has begun to eliminate the 200 NM requirement by developing DP/

NRP/STAR procedures. DP/NRP/STAR procedures allow a pilot to enter

the NRP using a DP and to exit the NRP using a STAR. DP/NRP/STAR

procedures at Denver, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis, and Albuquerque

were implemented in May 1998. Procedures are being developed for a

number of airports including Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, Kansas City,

St.Louis, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Atlanta,

Nashville, and Memphis, with implementation planned for fall of

1998. The FAA plans to develop and publish additional DP/NRP/STAR

procedures every four months, thereby continually improving availability of NRP procedures.

Three-Dimension User Preferred Trajectories (3D UPT)

Flight Trials Project

The purpose of the 3D UPT Flight Trials Project is to quantify the

savings associated with unrestricted flight. The 3D UPT project differs

from the NRP in that it allows unrestricted climb and descent. Under

the 3DUPT procedures, the airline operations center plans the route for

each phase of flight to maximize efficiency and cost savings. The 3D

UPT route includes priority initial departure, unrestricted climb to

cruise altitude, and priority descent. After reaching an initial cruise

altitude, the pilots fly within a block altitude of 2,000 feet and are free

NRP flights are only subject to route

limitations within a 200 NM radius of

take-off or landing.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 5 – 77

to fly at optimal altitudes based on favorable winds and aircraft

performance information.

Five air carriers are taking part in the trials and a sixth may

participate in the future. The first trial between Seattle and Minneapolis occurred in February 1998. The trials will continue to run through

December 1998 during periods of low traffic (primarily on “red-eye”

flights) between three departure airports (Seattle, San Francisco, and

Los Angeles) and fourteen arrival airports.

Currently 25 3D UPT flights occur each day. Preliminary time

savings estimates range from 10 to 22 minutes per flight compared with

non-UPT flights during periods of low traffic. The final results of the

trials will be used to quantify the time and money savings that are

possible using 3D UPT and to identify those tools needed to allow 3D

UPT during periods of moderate to high traffic density.

Increasing Civilian Access to Special Use Airspace (SUA)

Commercial and general aviation (GA) users seek access to Special

Use Airspace (SUA) in order to fly more fuel-efficient routes. The FAA

is working with the Department of Defense (DOD) and NAS users to

develop procedures which will permit greater civilian access to SUA.

For these procedures to be effective, more real-time information on SUA

availability is needed. Providing civilian users with this information

requires the development of software for recording SUA time and

altitude availability and ensuring that users have access to the data.

Other initiatives to increase access to SUA include cooperative decision-making between the DOD and the FAA on which hours SUA will be

active and redefining some SUA boundaries.

An operational trial conducted within the Edwards R-2508 airspace complex demonstrated that improved information exchange on

the status of SUA can increase civil aircraft use of these military areas.

Users also reported fuel savings from these procedures. Due to the

success of this trial, the FAA continues to disseminate SUA information

on a real-time basis and to allow flights to file flight plans that

transverse the Edwards R-2508 airspace complex when not in use by

the military.

In a similar effort to expand SUA access, the Denver ARTCC and the

U.S. Army collaborated to subdivide a large block of Fort Carson SUA

(R-2601) into four smaller blocks defined by altitude. Previously,

R-2601 was designated in use by the military continuously to 35,000

feet. The revised airspace and applicable charts now indicate that the

airspace from 12,500 feet upwards is now open continuously, unless a

NOTAM indicates otherwise.

To maximize the efficiency of SUA usage, the FAA is developing the

Special Use Airspace Management System (SAMS) to track SUA availability and to serve as the central information point for SUA schedules.

Installation of SAMS began in August 1997 and should be completed by

the end of 1998. A second system, the Military Airspace Management

System (MAMS), will allow the military’s SUA information to be

automatically downloaded into SAMS. MAMS will be deployed in 1999.

The FAA is working with the Department of Defense and NAS users to

develop procedures which will

permit greater civilian access to SUA.
78 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 1998 ACE PLAN

These systems will allow more precise and consistent information to be

available to system users and air traffic managers.

Elimination of Unnecessary ATC-Preferred Routes

While the NRP has increased flexibility for aircraft that fly at

higher altitudes and longer distances, flexibility in flights that traverse

lower altitudes is also critical to system capacity. ATC-preferred routes

are important tools that help air traffic controllers organize traffic flows

around major airports and at lower altitudes. There are currently 1,975

ATC-preferred routes. It is estimated that during a given day, pilots

using the low altitude system (below 18,000 feet) add approximately

125,000 miles of extra distance to their flight plans as a result of

published ATC-preferred routes. In an effort to reduce this inefficiency,

the FAA plans to eliminate unnecessary routes.

The primary goal of the published preferred route reduction

program (also called P2R2), is to evaluate and validate ATC-preferred

routes. Routes found unnecessary will be eliminated, while necessary

routes will be maintained or altered. In May 1998, the FAA began the

first stage of reduction by suspending 76 ATC-preferred routes in a sixmonth test phase. If no traffic flow problems arise from the suspension

of a particular ATC-preferred route, that ATC-preferred route will be

permanently eliminated in October 1998. By early fall 1998, the FAA

will begin a second six-month test phase in which 100 or more routes

will be suspended.

Using this same six month testing process, an additional 1,300

routes will be analyzed to assess whether they also can be eliminated.

The FAA’s goal is to eliminate seven percent of the published ATC

preferred routes by December 1998.

Oceanic En Route Procedures

Oceanic separation standards are based on limits in the capability

of ATC to determine the position and altitude of aircraft. Procedures

implemented more than 40 years ago required 2,000 foot separation

above FL290 because altimeters in use at that time were less accurate at

higher altitudes. The current oceanic ATC system uses filed flight plans

and position reports to track an aircraft’s progress and ensure horizontal separation is maintained. Position reports, created using high

frequency (HF) radio, are infrequent (approximately one report per

hour) and require the use of radio operators to relay the messages

between pilots and controllers. HF communication is also subject to

interference. These deficiencies in communications and surveillance

have necessitated horizontal separation minima of 60 to 100 NM

laterally, and 15 minutes longitudinally.

The separation minima currently in effect on many oceanic routes

limits the ability of controllers to grant preferred wind-efficient routes

or preferred altitudes during peak traffic periods. With anticipated

increases in air traffic congestion, the associated delays and unavailablity

of desired routes will only escalate. As a result of improved navigaIn May 1998, the FAA began the first

stage of reduction by suspending 76

ATC-preferred routes in a six-month

test phase.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 5 – 79

tional capabilities made possible by highly accurate altimeters, advanced navigation, satellite communications, and collision-avoidance

systems, however, oceanic separation minima are being incrementally

reduced.

Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM)

The goal of RVSM is to reduce the oceanic vertical separation

between FL290 and FL410 from the current 2,000-feet minimum to

1,000-feet minimum. Operational trials of RVSM began in the North

Atlantic airspace from FL330 to FL370, inclusive, in March 1997. The

trials have shown that fewer flight tracks are required as users take

advantage of the available flight levels on prime tracks. Further

expansion of the RVSM in the North Atlantic from FL310 to FL390 is

planned for Fall 1998. Full implementation for FL290 to 410 should be

complete by the year 2001.

RVSM improves system efficiency by increasing the number of

available altitudes, allowing aircraft to operate closer to optimum

altitudes. It also allows users more flexibility in choosing their desired

altitude. Fuel savings from aircraft flying more optimum routes due to

RVSM in the North Atlantic are projected to range from 13 to 18 million

gallons annually, depending on traffic density.

Based on the successful implementation of RVSM in the North

Atlantic, users have requested RVSM in the Pacific and the FAA

responded by forming a task force to address this user request. The first

implementation of RVSM in the Pacific is expected in the OaklandAnchorage-Tokyo airspace by February 2000.

Reduced Horizontal Separation Minima (RHSM)

In April 1998, oceanic lateral separation standards were reduced

from 100 NM to 50NM in the Anchorage airspace of the North Pacific.

Longitudinal separation minima were also reduced in the North Pacific

in 1998 from the time-based standard of 15 minutes to 50 NM. The FAA

intends to expand the 50 NM lateral and longitudinal separation

standards to the Central Pacific airspace for all qualified aircraft by

December 1998.

The reduced lateral and longitudinal separation minima will

provide increased opportunities for altitude changes to achieve optimum altitudes, fuel efficiency, and time savings. There are also proposed initiatives to further reduce lateral separation minima to 30 NM.

However, there is currently no funding for the enhanced automation

and technology required to support separation reduction initiatives

beyond 50 NM lateral and 50 NM longitudinal.

Terminal Area/Approach Procedures

A number of visual and electronic landing aids at or near airports

assist pilots in locating the runway, particularly during IFR weather

conditions. Approach procedures have been developed based on the

Fuel savings from aircraft flying more

optimum routes due to RVSM in the

North Atlantic are projected to range

from 13 to 18 million gallons annually,

depending on traffic density.
80 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 1998 ACE PLAN

type and accuracy of landing aids available, geography, traffic, and

may other factors. Some of these approach procedures are discussed

below.

Removal of 250 Knot Speed Limit for Departing Aircraft in

Class B Airspace

Aircraft are currently restricted to 250 knots below 10,000 feet

mean sea level (MSL). This restriction can constrain capacity by

limiting departure rates from busy terminal areas. In June 1997, the

FAA began to field test removing the 250-knot speed restriction for

departures from Houston Class B airspace. In that field test, controllers

were given the authority to remove the speed restriction. American

Airlines reviewed a month of efficiency data for 405 Houston departures that participated in the field trial. They found significant savings

of approximately half a minute and 100 pounds of fuel per flight.

The results of that test were evaluated in terms of the impacts on

air traffic controllers, flight crews, and aircraft noise on the ground.

The evaluation found that a substantial number of controllers removed

the speed restriction for departures when authorized to do so. The

evaluation also found that the vast majority of the controllers interviewed believed that it is operationally acceptable for departures to fly

faster than 250 knots below 10,000 feet in Class B airspace. All of the

pilots interviewed during the test also found the concept operationally

acceptable. There were no noise impacts from removing the speed limit

that were perceived by the community surrounding the airports

within the Class B airspace.

The one concern raised by the test was an apparent increase in the

number of aircraft exiting the Class B airspace below 10,000 feet at

speeds greater than 250 knots. It was found that aircraft traded altitude

for speed during the test and tended to exit the Class B airspace at lower

altitudes. Thus aircraft exited through the side of the Class B airspace

rather than the top of the Class B airspace, which had previously been

the case. Procedures for ensuring that the faster aircraft exit the ClassB

airspace at or above 10,000 feet are now being developed.

Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches (SCIA)

Under existing approach procedures, converging runways can be

used for independent streams of arriving aircraft only when the ceiling

is at least 1,000 feet and visibility is at least three statute miles. This

requirement decreases runway capacity in instrument meteorological

conditions (IMC) and causes weather-related delays. Simultaneous

approaches cannot be conducted under IMC if the converging runways

intersect. However, a new missed-approach procedure, requiring a

95degree turn and a Flight Management System in the cockpit, may

enable SCIA at 650-foot minimums. Following validation and further

flight testing, these minimums could be reduced to as little as 500 feet.

In 1997, the Converging Approach Standards Technical Work

Group (CASTWG) continued to work toward increasing operational

The evaluation also found that the

vast majority of the controllers interviewed believed that it is operationally acceptable for departures to fly

faster than 250 knots below 10,000

feet in Class B airspace.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 5 – 81

efficiency for users by refining and applying new converging approach

procedures. Much of the CASTWG’s efforts focused on applying SCIA

at Chicago O’Hare’s runways 4R and 9R. This application of SCIA would

not have increased arrival capacity, but would have removed arrival

traffic from the north side of airport, greatly increasing departure

capacity and reducing departure delays. However, SCIA will not be

applied at O’Hare until concerns about controller’s visual contact with

aircraft flying FMS-based missed approaches in the busy Chicago

airspace are resolved. Efforts to apply SCIA are also being directed

toward sites other than Chicago O’Hare; two potential candidates are

New Orleans and Houston George Bush airports.

Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA)

A new combination of technology and procedures called Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches is now under development. This

combination has the potential to increase airport capacity and reduce

delays at airports with closely spaced parallel runways. Using a

Precision Runway Monitor, an offset ILS localizer and glide slope, and

a new procedure, it may be possible to significantly reduce the

minimums for simultaneous approaches to parallel runways with

centerlines as close as 700 feet apart. This procedure, illustrated in

Figure 5-1, could be applied at San Francisco International Airport and

could reduce approach minimums to a ceiling of 1,600 feet and

visibility of four miles from the current minimums of 3,000 feet and

fivemiles.

No Transgression Zone

3° Offset ILS

Straight In ILS

Figure 5-1. Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach

In the SOIA procedure, pilots on the offset approach would fly a

straight-but-angled instrument (and possibly autopilot) approach

until descending below the cloud cover. At that point, they would

have a period of time to visually acquire the traffic on the other

approach until they reach the missed approach point (MAP). If, as

expected, the pilots visually acquire the traffic on the other approach

before the aircraft reaches the MAP, they would switch to a visual

approach and hand-fly the aircraft to the runway.

Other potential candidate sites for SOIA include Newark and

Cleveland.
82 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 1998 ACE PLAN
Over the next two decades, the FAA will introduce numerous

technologies to the civil aviation system that promise to improve safety

and increase the capacity and efficiency of the National Airspace

System (NAS). Many of these technologies are being adopted worldwide as part of the transition from traditional air traffic control (ATC),

a system based on radio communications, radar surveillance, and

ground-based navigation, to a more flexible and efficient airspace

management system using digital communications and satellite navigation.

The technologies discussed in this chapter, selected based on their

projected benefits to airspace and airport capacity, are described in

more detail in the FAA’s Capital Investment Plan (CIP), Plan for

Research, Engineering, and Development (R,E&D), and NAS Architecture. Several of these technologies are the result of cooperative efforts

between the FAA and other governmental organizations, most notably

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Defense (DOD), National Weather Service (NWS), National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and International

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

Two NASA programs are particularly important as they focus

directly on developing technologies to improve air traffic efficiency

and capacity. The Terminal Area Productivity (TAP) program seeks to

increase capacity and reduce delays by decreasing air traffic spacing

requirements between aircraft approaching an airport and by expediting ground operations. The objective of the TAP program is to achieve

clear-weather capacity under instrument flight rules (IFR) through the

application of innovative technologies. NASA’s Advanced Air Transport Technologies (AATT) program is assisting the FAA in developing

advanced computer-based analysis, prediction, and display technologies. These technologies are designed to increase the effectiveness of

NAS operations by assisting air traffic controllers, dispatchers, and

pilots in making decisions that affect the efficiency of flight and

surface operations.

Chapter six is divided into five areas: Communications, Navigation, Surveillance, Weather, and Air Traffic Management. For each

area, the characteristics of the current system are described, followed

by a description of planned enhancements and the key technologies

that will make those enhancements possible.

Communications

The exchange of information is vital to all flight operations. This

is especially true for large commercial operations that require continual interaction with flight planning and ATC facilities to obtain

information concerning weather forecasts, clearances, taxi instructions, expected delays, position reports, air traffic advisories, airport

information, etc. Problems in the communication system, such as

frequency congestion and interference, impact the overall efficiency of

operations. Planned improvements to the communications systems

will greatly improve the quality, clarity, and amount of information

exchanged among and between aircraft and ground facilities.

CAPACITY ENHANCING T

CHAPTER 6:

ECHNOLOGIES
84 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1998 ACE PLAN

Current Communication Capabilities

In domestic airspace, information is typically transmitted and

received using voiced air/ground ultra high frequency (UHF) and very

high frequency (VHF) radio. As the number of aircraft operations has

grown and the demand for information exchange continues to rise,

frequency congestion has become increasingly problematic, especially

within terminal airspace. This congestion limits the effectiveness of

communication, increases controller/pilot workload, creates delays,

and increases the likelihood of missed or misinterpreted information.

Frequency congestion is largely a result of increased demand for the

spectrum available to the FAA. Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and

Atlanta airspace are already out of available channels. As early as 2004,

the FAA will be unable to provide additional channel assignments.

In oceanic airspace, long-range air/ground communication is performed through third-party high-frequency (HF) radios — a communication system that is often hampered by lengthy delays and subject

to atmospheric interference. The shortcomings inherent in the HF

radio system make position reports and ATC approvals for routine pilot

clearance requests (i.e., altitude changes for favorable winds) difficult

to obtain due to communication delays and uncertainties concerning

the location of nearby air traffic.

Planned Communication Enhancements

Between now and 2003, the NAS will add digital communication

capabilities through the expanded use of VHF, HF, and satellite data

link. As a result of this transition, the volume of information transmitted among aircraft and ground facilities will increase while frequency

congestion, interference, delays, and misunderstandings are minimized. Data, especially in the form of text and graphical information,

will constitute a much larger portion of all air/ground communications

than today.

Aeronautical Data Link Systems

The term data link refers to the overall system for entering,

processing, transmitting and displaying voice, alphanumeric, and

graphic information between aircraft and ground facilities. Conceptually, data link can be thought of as an information pipeline. Many

systems connect with this pipeline, including ground automation,

avionics, applications, subnetworks, and transmission equipment.

Today’s analog-based data link system — a technology developed

over 20 years ago — remains widely in use by airlines for text

messaging to aircraft. While useful, the analog system has many

technical and capacity limitations due to its slow data transmission

rate. To improve data link capabilities, the FAA has adopted the VHF

Digital Link (VDL). VDL, being digital, can transmit data at a much

higher rate, with greater frequency spectrum efficiency, and with less
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 85

interference than existing analog systems. The development of VDL is

vital to the free flight concept as it supports advances being made in

communications, navigation, surveillance, and decision support technologies.

Technical improvements enabled by advanced data link systems

and associated services will encompass all domestic operational environments, from the airport surface through all phases of flight. In the

oceanic environment, a satellite data link network will be combined

with a High Frequency Data Link (HFDL) to improve the exchange of

voice and data messages in oceanic airspace. The satellite and HFDL

technologies will vastly improve communications coverage, surveillance capabilities, and flexibility in requesting course changes over the

ocean.

These new systems will allow for greater on-demand access to

important aeronautical information such as airport arrival, departure,

and taxi clearance schedules; airborne and surface traffic surveillance

information; NAS infrastructure status; and real-time weather. Expanded use of data link technologies in the cockpit will increase the

effectiveness of pilot and air traffic controller communications, situational awareness, and collaborative decision making. These changes

will improve capacity by reducing congestion on the voice channels

and improving airspace usage by allowing more efficient routing,

spacing, and sequencing of traffic.

Controller to Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC)

The Controller to Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) is a data

link service that will improve the speed, quality, and reliability of

controller/pilot communications in the terminal and en route environment. To achieve this, the CPDLC will replace sets of controller/pilot

voice messages with data messages displayed in the cockpit. By

permitting more timely and effective communication of ATC messages,

CPDLC will improve airspace use and capacity by reducing frequency

congestion and operational errors resulting from verbal miscommunication.

The initial version of CPDLC, which uses a combination of analog

and digital data link technologies and supports four uplink messages

with corresponding pilot response messages, provides an incremental

step for implementing en route data link. CPDLC is a Free Flight Phase

1 (FFP1) technology that will be tested in the en route airspace of the

Miami ARTCC. Initial operating capability is expected at Miami by the

end of 2001, and national availability by 2003.

The final version of CPDLC, expected in the year 2011, will be an

all-digital system that will be fully integrated with air traffic management decision support systems.

CPDLC will improve airspace use and

capacity by reducing frequency

congestion and operational errors.
86 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1998 ACE PLAN

Next Generation Air/Ground Communication System (NEXCOM)

Demand for air-to-ground communication frequency assignments

is expected to increase four percent annually, a rate unsustainable

under the current communications system. If the frequency spectrum

is exhausted, overall NAS system expansion will be constrained. To

illustrate this, an analysis by the FAA Joint Research Council indicates

that of 21 airports planning new runways, 16 will have insufficient

frequency spectrum to support them unless communications systems

are improved.1

In addition to frequency shortages, other deficiencies of the

current, analog-based communication system include a lack of data

link capability, an inability to overcome channel blockage, and a lack

of security against unauthorized users. If not resolved, these deficiencies

will increase delays and prevent implementation of new services, or

will lead to a curtailment of existing services. Moreover, investment in

NAS modernization will not yield expected productivity and efficiency

gains.

The Next Generation Air/Ground Communication (NEXCOM) is a

digital radio system designed to alleviate the problems of the current

system while meeting future requirements. NEXCOM radios will be

compatible with existing analog radios. When fully operational,

NEXCOM will:

• Increase the number of available voice circuits

• Provide for simultaneous use of frequency for both voice and

data communications

• Increase capacity within the available VHF frequency spectrum

• Provide new data link communications capability to all users

• Enable new operational capabilities of advance digital technologies

• Reduce frequency change errors

• Reduce air/ground radio frequency interference

• Provide consistent voice quality over a range of operating

conditions

In May 1998, the FAA Joint Resources Council approved the first

implementation segment of the NEXCOM program. In this initial

segment (2002-2008) ground-based analog radios currently used to

transmit voice communications between pilots and controllers will be

replaced with new radios installed for communication with aircraft in

high and super-high en route airspace. Communications with aircraft

flying in the remaining airspace will transition to the new radios in

later program segments. Full operational capability is planned for

2015.

1. Vincent Schultz, “Investment Decision for Next-Generation Air/Ground

Communication (NEXCOM),” briefing to the FAA Joint Resource Council,

May 5, 1998.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 87

Flight Information Service (FIS) and

Cockpit Information System (CIS)

The FIS will use a ground-based data server and data links to

provide a variety of non-operational control information to the cockpit

such as weather products, traffic information, Special Use Airspace

(SUA) status, Notices to Airmen, and obstruction updates. The Cockpit

Information System (CIS) will process and display FIS information and

integrate it with navigation, surveillance, terrain, and other data

available in the cockpit. When fully operational, the CIS will also be

capable of sending and receiving route requests, via data link, to the

air traffic controller. Weather information will be obtained via data

link from a ground-based source or from other aircraft. SUA information may be stored prior to flight or may be updated real time while in

flight. The primary capacity benefits of FIS/CIS technology are enhanced situational awareness leading to greater flexibility and predictability, and reduced delays resulting from improved planning and

more direct routes made possible by current and accurate traffic,

environmental, terrain, and NAS resource information. The FAA does

not expect to provide significant FIS until deployment of NEXCOM.

Navigation

Aviation navigation systems in use today vary considerably in

terms of accuracy, coverage, reliability, and capabilities. The current

navigational airways structure and most approach and landing charts

are designed principally around the geographic location and technical

characteristics of ground-based navigational aids. Future initiatives

will enhance the current navigation system by using a more flexible

satellite-based system augmented by ground-based systems.

Current Navigation Capabilities

The primary means of aircraft en route navigation in the United

States today is the VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) — a system made

up of a series of ground stations that broadcast directional signals.

These signals are used by aircraft to determine bearings to or from VOR

stations. If the VOR and aircraft are equipped with Distance Measuring

Equipment (DME), the signals can also be used to determine the

distance to VORs. Navigating using VORs typically consists of flying

airways (specific radials connecting VOR stations). The location of VOR

stations often leads to indirect, inefficient flight paths between an

aircraft’s origin and destination. However, some avionics are capable of

interpreting VOR and/or DME signals to provide Area Navigation

(RNAV), allowing for more direct routing of flights. Most new large

commercial aircraft are equipped with a Flight Management System

(FMS) having multiple DMEs that improve RNAV VOR accuracy.

Landing navigational systems are similar to and in some cases the

same as en route systems. Landing aids are classified as precision and

non-precision. Precision landing aids refer to systems that can, with a

high degree of accuracy, align an aircraft’s vertical and horizontal path

The primary capacity benefits of

FIS/CIS technology are enhanced

situational awareness leading to

greater flexibility and predictability,

and reduced delays.
88 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1998 ACE PLAN

with a runway to allow for low visibility landings. The Instrument

Landing System (ILS) is the primary system used for precision navigation today. The capabilities of ILS systems are defined in three categories, with Category I being the least accurate and Category III being the

most accurate.

The satellite-based U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS), managed

by DOD, is an alternative to land-based navigation systems that has

been steadily gaining in popularity among civil aviation users for

much of the last decade. The current GPS system available to civilian

users, while not as accurate as many of the ground-based navigational

aids, offers several advantages such as: RNAV capability; ease of use;

worldwide coverage; and horizontal and vertical position information

— a capability lacking in ground-based navigational aids (with

the exception of certain precision landing aids). These combined

attributes offer pilots more flexibility in determining routes and

provide for non-precision approach to any runway. GPS has been

extensively tested and is already being used as a primary means of

navigation in the oceanic environment.

Planned Navigation Enhancements

The GPS navigation system in use today will become more prevalent, accurate, available, and will have greater integrity. Current GPS

capabilities will be further augmented by ground facilities that will

allow for precision guidance to landing, thereby expanding the number of precision approaches available during instrument meteorological conditions. On the ground, innovative navigation technologies will

assist in efficiently and safely guiding aircraft during low visibility

operations. Many existing ground navigation systems will be phased

out as these advanced GPS systems come on line.

GPS Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)

The Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) is an augmentation

of GPS that includes integrity broadcasts, differential corrections, and

additional ranging signals; its primary object is to provide the accuracy, integrity, availability, and continuity required to support all

phases of flight. In doing this, the WAAS system will allow GPS to be

used for en route navigation and non-precision approaches throughout the NAS, as well as for making Category (CAT) I approaches to

selected airports. WAAS will allow a pilot to determine a horizontal and

vertical position within six to seven meters as compared to 100 meter

accuracy available from basic GPS service. The wide area of coverage

for this system includes the entire United States and some outlying

areas.

WAAS consists of a network of ground reference stations that

monitor GPS signals. Data from these reference stations are data-linked

to master stations, where the validity of the signals from each satellite

is assessed and wide area corrections provide a direct verification of the

integrity of the signal from each satellite in view. The signals broadcast

WAAS will allow a pilot to determine

a horizontal and vertical position

within six to seven meters as

compared to 100 meter accuracy

available from basic GPS service.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 89

from the WAAS geo-stationary satellites act as additional sources of GPS

ranging signals, thereby improving the availability of the GPS WAAS

system.

The last of 25 initial WAAS reference stations was installed in June

1998. Operational and testing activities in preparation for initial WAAS

system commissioning will be completed in July 1999, with fulloperational WAAS certification expected by December 2001. Most IFR

aircraft are anticipated to equip with GPS/WAAS receivers by 2005, at

which time the FAA plans to begin reducing VOR/DME, NDB, and ILS

service based on the anticipated decrease in the use off these conventional ground-based navigational aids.

Until WAAS is certified as a sole-means precision approach aid,

CAT I ILSs will be installed at newly qualifying runways only if there

is a clear indication that the benefits exceed the costs. Once GPS/WAAS

is available to support CAT I approaches, no new CAT I ILS’s will be

installed.

GPS Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS)

The Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) is a differential GPS

(DGPS) system which provides localized measurement correction signals to basic GPS signals to improve navigation accuracy, integrity,

continuity, and availability of GPS. With these increased capabilities,

LAAS will allow for stringent CAT II/III precision landing minimums.

The system also provides accurate navigation signals for aircraft and

vehicles on the airport surface.

The LAAS system relies on precisely surveyed ground stations,

called psuedolites, which are located within the airport area and are

used to calculate differential correction and integrity information.

This corrected information is transmitted to aircraft within a radius

25-30 nautical miles. One LAAS system can provide service for multiple

runways as long as the runway approaches are within the LAAS

operational range. By making precision approach procedures available

to more airport runways and by extending precision navigation to the

airport surface, the LAAS will improve the safety, efficiency, and

capacity of airports and surrounding airspace.

An FAA Joint Resources Council decision in January 1998 approved the development and acquisition of 143 LAAS systems (31 CAT I

and 112 CAT III systems). In 1998, the FAA will begin performing

specification validation testing of a prototype LAAS ground station

located at the FAA Technical Center. Acquisition of LAAS systems is

planned to begin in 2003, with full operational capability expected by

2006.

Surveillance

Knowing the position and intended path of aircraft relative to

other aircraft — both on the ground and in the air — is necessary to

ensure safe separation. The accuracy and certainty with which aircraft

positions can be tracked determines the procedures and spacing

The LAAS will improve the safety,

efficiency, and capacity of airports

and surrounding airspace.
90 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1998 ACE PLAN

allowed into maintaining safe operations. Enhancing surveillance

improves the efficiency of airspace usage by allowing for reduced

separation requirements. In order to realize reduced separation standards, the free flight concept imposes particularly high demands on

the ability to accurately and reliably locate and track the movement of

aircraft with greater precision and at a faster update rate than is used

today.

Current Surveillance Capabilities

Separation is ensured today by visual confirmation, radar imaging,

and pilot position reports. Visual separation is common in both general

aviation and commercial air transport operations, though its use is

limited to clear weather conditions. Radar imaging allows air traffic

controllers to see a wide view of aircraft movements and makes

possible the task of monitoring and sequencing large numbers of

aircraft. Pilot position reports are used particularly in areas where

radar coverage is poor or absent and where visual contact cannot be

assured.

Planned Surveillance Enhancements

Surveillance coverage and accuracy will be enhanced by incorporating aircraft navigation information with existing radar. This information will be translated into 4-D (three dimensional position plus

time) information and made available to pilots and controllers to

enhance situational awareness, improve the efficiency of aircraft spacing, allow for greater route flexibility, and heighten conflict avoidance

capabilities.

Automated Dependent Surveillance (ADS)

To augment existing surveillance procedures and radar, a new

system known as Automated Dependent Surveillance (ADS) will be

used. Unlike radar, which tracks aircraft using interrogating radio

signals, ADS transmits position reports based on onboard navigational

instruments. ADS relies on data link technologies to transmit this

information. Presently there are two forms of ADS: ADS-Address

(ADS-A) and ADS-Broadcast (ADS-B). The ADS-A system exchanges

point-to-point information between a specific aircraft and air traffic

management facility, while the ADS-B system broadcasts information

periodically to all aircraft and all air traffic management facilities

within a specified area. The primary objective of ADS-A and ADS-B

technology is to improve surveillance coverage, particularly in areas

having poor or no radar coverage.

ADS-B will enable transmission of GPS position information, aircraft identification, altitude, velocity vector, and intent information.

Airborne surveillance will be obtained using the Cockpit Display of

Traffic Information (CDTI) system that will show pilots the relative

position and movement of ADS-equipped aircraft in their vicinity. Air

traffic controllers will verify ADS positions by superimposing them

Unlike radar, which tracks aircraft

using interrogating radio signals, ADS

transmits position reports based on

onboard navigational instruments.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 91

over primary radar reports. In areas not covered by radar, ADS-B will

allow separation requirements for participating aircraft to be reduced

from current procedural separation standards, providing greater capacity and increasing the number of approvals for user preferred

routes and altitudes.

In the oceanic environment, where separation is now maintained

through pilot position reports, the use of ADS-B will have a particularly

beneficial impact. Optimum altitudes and speeds will be achieved

through the expanded use of oceanic in-trail climb and descent

procedures and aircraft will have the flexibility to change routes midflight if winds are not as forecast. Because separation requirements will

be reduced, more efficient merging of traffic from multiple oceanic

tracks onto arrival routes will be possible.

On the airport surface, ADS-B will be used to assist in taxi

operations. ADS-B-equipped aircraft will be displayed directly to flight

crews and air traffic controllers on an appropriate overlay map. This

capability will give the flight crew information to better evaluate the

potential for runway and taxiway incursions, especially at night or in

poor visibility, than is available today. The FAA plans to add ADS-A

capabilities in Oakland and New York oceanic airspace in the year 2000.

With deployment of Standard Terminal Automation Replacement

System (STARS) and replacement of the Host computer, the FAA can

begin to initially use interrogation of aircraft to receive the ADS-B

information, then add additional ground stations to increase surveillance coverage. A fully operational ground system is not scheduled

until 2008.

Prior to planned FAA deployment for ADS systems, three cargo

carriers will participate in a limited evaluation of the technology. The

FAA will provide equipment for the ATC ground stations. Three phases

of this initiative will test:

• Aircraft detection using ADS-B information verified by actual

traffic information

• Conflict detection and alerting capabilities

• Resolution advisories and evasive maneuvers

This evaluation will take place prior to Safe Flight 21 demonstrations and should help to resolve issues that would otherwise slow the

Safe Flight 21 schedule.

Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE-3) and Airport

Movement Area Safety System (AMASS)

During periods of low visibility caused by conditions such as rain,

fog, and night, the surface movement of aircraft and service vehicles

is drastically reduced. To improve the safety and efficiency of ground

movement operations in low visibility, controllers require improved

monitoring of traffic and early warnings of potential conflicts. Two

systems currently being deployed have been designed to meet this

In areas not covered by radar, ADS-B

will allow separation requirements

for participating aircraft to be reduced

from current procedural separation

standards.
92 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1998 ACE PLAN

objective: Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE-3) and Airport

Movement Area Safety System (AMASS).

ASDE-3 is a high-resolution ground mapping radar that provides

surveillance of taxiing aircraft and service vehicles at high activity

airports. AMASS enhances the function of the ASDE-3 radar by providing automated alerts and warnings to potential runway incursions and

other hazards. AMASS can visually and aurally prompt tower controllers to respond to situations which potentially compromise safety.

Combined, ASDE-3 and AMASS allow for more efficient and safer

airport surface movement operations during low visibility conditions

which are currently responsible for numerous airport delays. AMASS

and ASDE-3 systems are scheduled for installation and commissioning

at 40 airports by the year 2000.

The ADS-B system, using the navigational accuracy of GPS LAAS

and combined with upgrades to AMASS, will eventually display

accurate surface movement information to pilots and controllers,

which may eliminate the need for ADSE-3. To further improve the

efficiency of low visibility operations, NASA’s Taxi Navigation and

Situation Awareness (T-NASA) system combines ADS-B and GPS LAAS

technology with advanced visual displays and an audible groundcollision-avoidance system. Early simulations of T-NASA technology

have shown that taxi speeds can be safely increased by as much as 25

percent in low visibility operations. Eventually, T-NASA and other

surface surveillance technologies being researched by NASA may

replace or augment AMASS/ASDE-3 capabilities.

Weather

Weather is the single largest contributor to delay in the civil

aviation system and is a major factor in aircraft safety incidents and

accidents. Short-term forecasts and timely, accurate weather information on hazardous weather are critical to ensure safe flight and to plan

fuel and time-efficient flight plans.

Many of the inefficiencies in today’s weather system can be

attributed to limitations in the accuracy, predictability, analysis,

transmission, coordination, and display of weather data. To mitigate

these issues, the FAA will incorporate technologies and procedures to

improve the dissemination of consistent, timely, and user-friendly

aviation weather information in graphical format available to all users

of the aviation system, both ground and airborne. Further, weather

information will be improved through the use of better sensors,

sophisticated computer modeling, and new automated systems.

Current Weather Capabilities

The timeliness, reliability, and clarity of weather information

available to pilots and air traffic controllers is largely determined by the

degree of communication and coordination among the many organizations and technical systems that gather and disseminate that information. Weather information is not always accessible to all parties when

AMASS can visually and aurally prompt

tower controllers to respond to situations which potentially compromise

safety.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 93

needed, especially real-time, route-specific information. Even when

weather can be predicted accurately and reliably, the air traffic system

cannot operate with the same efficiency as in good weather conditions.

To maintain safe separation in poor visibility, for example, procedures

require that spacing between aircraft is increased due to limitations of

current communication, navigation, and surveillance technologies.

These procedures create delays both on the ground and in the air.

Planned Weather Enhancements

The FAA is working in conjunction with other agencies such as

NASA, National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to improve NAS capacity though

better forecasting, detection, and dissemination of adverse weather

conditions. Other weather-related technology enhancements include

new information systems designed to integrate a wide range of weather

data into a single database where it can be analyzed using new models.

The output of these analytic tools will be displayed in the form of

enhanced graphics on new display systems in ATC facilities and in the

aircraft cockpit. Data link will be an essential element in the timely

dissemination and coordination of weather information to flight crews.

Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS)

The Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) is a fully-automated weather-prediction system installed at ARTCCs that will give

both air traffic personnel and pilots better information on near-term

weather hazards in the airspace within 60 NM miles of an airport. ITWS

will work by integrating data from radar, weather sensors, and

automated aircraft reports and present the information in easily

understood graphics and text. ITWS can generate predictions of

weather phenomena such as microbursts, gust fronts, storm cell

movements and runway winds up to 30 minutes in advance. ITWS can

also display data on the presence of lightning, hail, and tornadoes.

Additionally, the system will display weather data in tower cabs,

TRACONs, and ARTCCs to facilitate coordination among air traffic

control personnel. ITWS will free controllers from the labor-intensive

task of manually interpreting data from the various weather sensors

and will allow them to concentrate on controlling air traffic. Airline

dispatchers will receive ITWS data and pilots will receive a simplified

version of the ITWS products via the Terminal Weather Information for

Pilots program.

ITWS will improve the FAA’s ability to minimize the delays caused

by localized, hazardous weather, and will increase the margin of safety.

Additionally, ITWS will improve traffic flow due to earlier warnings of

weather impacts to an airport. By providing accurate, predictive wind

information, ITWS will enhance the capabilities of decision-support

tools that rely on making accurate aircraft trajectory predictions.

Having better wind information will also improve the merging and

sequencing of aircraft in the terminal area. In prototype testing,

ITWS will work by integrating data

from radar, weather sensors, and automated aircraft reports and present

the information in easily understood

graphics and text.
94 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1998 ACE PLAN

controllers at Dallas-Fort Worth used more accurate wind predictions

from the ITWS Terminal Winds Product to pass requests for windspecific separations to upstream controllers, enabling more accurate

aircraft-to-aircraft separations throughout the terminal area.

ITWS testing will begin in 1999. Upon completion of these tests,

ITWS will be installed at 34 operational sites covering 45 airports with

significant weather hazards. The first system is scheduled to be

operational at Memphis in November 2001, with the last installation

becoming operational at Dayton, Ohio in February 2003.

Weather and Radar Processor (WARP)

Meteorologists working in the weather units of ATC centers do not

have an integrated system for collecting and displaying multiple

weather sensor inputs, but instead rely on time consuming and

inefficient human interpretation of these weather sources. The Weather

and Radar Processor (WARP) will collect and process weather data from

Low Level Windshear Systems (LLWAS), Next Generation Weather

Radar (NEXRAD), Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) and surveillance radar, and disseminate this data to controllers, traffic management specialists, pilots, and meteorologists. In addition to the radar

information, meteorological observations, warnings, forecasts, lightning strikes, satellite data, and oceanographic information will be

received by WARP. Information significant to operations will be sorted

and overlaid on ATC displays as they monitor flights. By providing a

mosaic of weather information to advanced display systems, WARP will

assist meteorologists in analyzing rapidly changing weather conditions and ATC in managing and minimizing weather-related delays.

Initial deployment of WARP is planned for 1999 and 2000.

Air Traffic Management

Air traffic management requires gathering and processing large

volumes of data to make effective decisions according to ever changing

conditions. The development of automated decision support systems

will improve the effectiveness of air traffic information and yield more

efficient use of airspace.

Current Air Traffic Management Capabilities

Air traffic controllers today use a combination of procedures and

automated systems to separate traffic. The decision support systems in

use today, however, provide only limited assistance to air traffic

controllers. Most routine decisions are made based on the training,

experience, and judgment of the individual controllers who must

follow a set of narrowly defined air traffic procedures. As the volume

of air traffic increases and as procedures allow greater pilot discretion,

the efficient management and monitoring of air traffic will require the

use of more advanced decision support systems.

WARP will assist meteorologists in

analyzing rapidly changing weather

conditions and ATC in managing and

minimizing weather-related delays.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 95

Planned Air Traffic Management Enhancements

Numerous technologies are being developed to ensure the efficient

and effective collection, transfer, and display of information. Decision

support systems will augment these initiatives by coordinating information (e.g., flight plans, weather forecasts, infrastructure status,

traffic densities, etc.) from multiple ground, air, and space-based

sources and processing this information to improve, with minimum

intervention, the effectiveness of flight planning, conflict checking

and resolution, and traffic flow management. Graphical output from

these analytic tools will assist users in decision making. Advanced

decision support systems will enable controllers throughout the system to simultaneously provide greater flexibility, reduce delays in

congested airspace, and enhance overall safety.

Several near-term decision support technologies, including five

technologies being evaluated in conjunction with FFP1, are described

in this section. Figure 6-1 shows the test sites proposed for the FFP1

decision-support technologies.

Facilities

Chicago ARTCC

Fort Worth ARTCC

Los Angeles ARTCC

Atlanta ARTCC

Indianapolis ARTCC

Memphis ARTCC

Washington ARTCC

Cleveland ARTCC

Minneapolis ARTCC

Kansas City ARTCC

New York ARTCC

Oakland ARTCC

Miami ARTCC

Denver ARTCC

ATC System Command Center

Airline Operations Centers

•

•

Decision Making

Collaborative

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Traffic Management

Advisor (TMA) –

Single Center

Passive Final

Approach Spacing

Tool (pFAST)

ORD

DFW

LAX

ATL

MSP

STL

Initial Conflict Probe

(ICP)

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Surface Movement

Advisor (SMA)*

ORD

DFW

ATL

DTW

EWR, PHL, TEB

* Full implementation at Atlanta. Limited capabilities at all other FFP1 locations.

Figure 6-1. Candidate Sites for Free Flight Phase 1 Decision Support Technologies
96 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1998 ACE PLAN

Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) and

Display System Replacement (DSR)

The Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS)

will replace outdated air traffic control computers with 21st century

systems at nine large consolidated TRACONS and approximately 173

FAA and 60 DOD terminal radar approach control sites across the

country. STARS will support radar target identification and separation,

traffic and weather advisory services, and navigational assistance to

aircraft. STARS will also provide safety functions such as conflict alert

and minimum safe altitude warning. Improvements, such as better

weather displays, will be introduced on the STARS platform to support

air traffic management decision support functionality. STARS will also

provide the platform for data link communications and Center-TRACON

Automation System (CTAS) and Final Approach Spacing Tool (FAST)

(described below).

The FAA expects an early display configuration (EDC) of STARS to

be operational at Reagan National Airport by March 1999, and an

operational readiness demonstration is scheduled for July 1999. An

EDC of STARS for Boston Logan International Airport is expected to be

operational by the end of 1999. Subsequent deliveries of enhanced

versions of STARS to the FAA and DOD facilities are scheduled through

2007.

The STARS’ counterpart for en route airspace is the Display System

Replacement (DSR). DSR will provide air traffic controllers with a

modern digital display system capable of processing and providing

information in a fast, reliable manner. DSR will support a conflict probe

capability. Twelve DSRs will be delivered to ARTCCs in 1999; full

implementation is expected by May 2000.

Collaborative Decision Making (CDM)

Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) is a joint FAA/industry

initiative designed to improve traffic flow management through increased interaction and collaboration between airspace users and the

FAA. Through improved communication and more efficient use of

airline schedules, CDM reduces the use of Ground Delay Programs

(GDP) and gives NAS users more flexibility in responding to airport

arrival constraints. The FAA runs the GDP programs at major airports

when weather, air traffic control (ATC), system outages, airport operational status, and other factors are affected to the point where restricting the flow of aircraft into or out of affected airports is required.

The Flight Schedule Monitor (FSM), a primary component of CDM,

is a support tool which collects and displays arrival information,

retrieves real-time demand and schedule information, monitors ground

delay performance, and provides “what if” analyses capable of projecting arrival rates, slot availability, and departure delays. The FSM is

shared among CDM participants and is updated as schedules change.

FSM works by giving participants notice of actual and potential

delay issues that can be mitigated or avoided through schedule
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 97

adjustments. For example, when a GDP is proposed for an airport

expected to encounter bad weather, airlines using FSM can cancel a

flight and move another aircraft, delayed by the GDP, to arrive at the

slot opened by the cancelled flight. This process is known as slot

swapping.

Another mechanism for reducing delays using FSM is schedule

compression which moves participating flights into newly available

slots, thereby compressing the departure schedule and reducing

assigned delay. In this process, one airline cancels a flight and offers

this open slot to another airline expecting or experiencing a flight

delay. The slot opened by the moved flight is then offered back to the

original airline for its use, and then to other airlines if it cannot be used

by the original airline. Schedule compression and slot swapping

activities cascade through the flight schedules and benefit all participating airlines, leading to overall reductions in GDP delays.

When adjusting schedules using FSM, airlines can make decisions

concerning individual slot assignments or they can have the FSM

software perform these substitutions automatically. In either case, the

FSM flight schedule and the supporting database are continually

updated to reflect the results of schedule changes. Operational testing

of the FSM prototype was completed in March 1997.

Another component of CDM is the Airline Operations Center

Network (AOCNet). AOCNet is a private intranet that provides an

enhanced capability for the FAA and airline operations control centers

to rapidly exchange and share a single integrated source of CDMrelated aeronautical information concerning delays and constraints in

the NAS. This network allows airlines to access FAA GDP and Aircraft

Situation Display-to-Industry (ASDI) data. ASDI data includes near

real-time position and other relevant flight data for every IFR aircraft

operating within the NAS subject to traffic flow management planning.

Using information provided through the AOCNet, airlines can better

manage flight delays by making informed operational decisions in real

time. Implementation of AOCNet was completed in March 1997.

CDM is in use at four airports: Newark, New York La Guardia, San

Francisco, and St. Louis. Participating airlines include American,

Continental, Delta, Southwest, TWA, United, and USAir. Current

efforts in the CDM project are being directed toward improving the

database of flight information shared between the FAA and the airlines.

Following the completion of those improvements, CDM will be expanded to additional airports. A decision on operational acceptability

or need for continued testing of CDM is due in 1999.

Center Terminal Radar Approach Control Automation System

(CTAS), Traffic Management Advisor (TMA), and Passive Final

Approach Spacing Tool (pFAST)

The Center Terminal Radar Approach Control Automation System

(CTAS) will provide users with airspace capacity improvement, delay

reductions, and fuel savings by introducing computer automation to

assist controllers in efficiently descending, sequencing, and spacing

Another mechanism for reducing

delays using FSM is schedule compression which moves participating

flights into newly available slots.
98 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1998 ACE PLAN

arriving aircraft within 200 nautical miles of an airport. CTAS will

provide two major functional capabilities in the near term: Single

Center Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) and Passive Final Approach

Spacing Tool (pFAST). The TMA will provide en route controllers and

traffic management coordinators with automation tools to manage the

flow of traffic from a single center into selected major airports. It will

result in estimated delay reductions of one to two minutes per aircraft

during peak periods. The pFAST tool will help controllers select the

most efficient arrival runway and arrival sequence within 60 NM of an

airport, resulting in increased arrival throughput. The CTAS and FAST

technologies are part of NASA’s AATT program.

Long term improvements for CTAS include: multi-center TMA

capability, required when multiple ARTCCs meter arrivals into a single

terminal; descent advisor, which will provide optimized descent point

and speed advisories to controllers based on aircraft type; and active

FAST, which will help controllers determine how to vector aircraft onto

final approach.

Prototype CTAS tools have been installed at Denver, Miami, Los

Angeles, Atlanta, and Ft. Worth centers and the Dallas-Ft. Worth

TRACON. Installations of the TMA prototypes at the Miami, Los

Angeles, and Atlanta centers were operated throughout 1997 with

preliminary results showing estimated delay reductions of 1 to 2

minutes per aircraft during peak periods. The FAST prototype at the

Dallas-Ft. Worth TRACON has demonstrated an increase in arrival

throughput ranging from 4.2 percent to 13 percent during peak

periods. Between 2002 and 2004, the FAA is planning to implement

TMA at 15 centers, and pFAST at 22 TRACONS between 2002 and 2006.

Initial Conflict Probe (ICP)

The Initial Conflict Probe (ICP), formerly called the User Request

Evaluation Tool, provides controllers with the ability to identify

potential separation conflicts up to 20 minutes in advance, and to do

this with greater precision and accuracy than possible today. By

estimating current position and predicted flight paths, ICP checks for

potential loss of separation at current and future times. This system can

be triggered automatically or manually.

The ICP display supports the strategic planning function and

reduces the use by air traffic controllers of manual flight strips. Other

potential benefits of ICP include conflict detection in oceanic airspace,

greater route flexibility during weather changes, relaxed boundary

restrictions, and more efficient routings provided well in advance of,

rather than close to, the conflict. A primary capacity benefit of ICP is

that it enables more efficient routings that reduce the frequency and

magnitude of course changes. A prototype ICP was demonstrated in the

Memphis and Indianapolis ARTCCs in 1997; evaluations of the two-way

conflict probe at these locations will begin in 1999.
1998 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 6 – 99

Surface Movement Advisor (SMA)

The Surface Movement Advisor (SMA) is a system developed

collaboratively between FAA and NASA that promotes sharing of

dynamic information among airlines, airport operators, and air traffic

controllers in order to control the efficient flow of aircraft and vehicles

on the airport surface. The system provides prediction capabilities to

controllers to assist them with increased airport capacity and to help

them more efficiently manage operational resources.

SMA uses a decentralized airport situational awareness tool that

presents the effects that previous, current, and future arriving and

departing aircraft have had and are having on the airport system. It

provides help to air traffic controllers, supervisors, and coordinators in

selecting optimum airport configurations and specifics on each aircraft

before an aircraft leaves the gate. SMA also gives airlines and airport

officials touchdown, takeoff, and taxi time predictions.

The SMA software and architecture interfaces with NAS data,

airline data, electronic Official Airlines Guide (OAG), and airport/ramp

tower “pushed-back” and/or “blocked-in” data. The real time data

provided by SMA has potentially huge tactical and monetary value.

Results of the SMA prototype evaluation at the Hartsfield Atlanta

International airport in 1997 show a reduction in taxi times of more

than one minute per operation, or over 1,000 minutes per day. These

taxi time savings can be translated into commercial airline savings that

could potentially be passed on to the customer. Another beneficial

result from the SMA prototype was the increased sharing of information that the system facilitated among airport users. Over the next two

years, a series of assessment activities and demonstration tests are

scheduled for the SMA prototype at the Atlanta airport.
100 – CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 1998 ACE PLAN
AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A:

Denver International Airport replaced Denver Stapleton International

in 1995. Therefore, the data for 1995 reflects the enplanements and

operations for Denver Stapleton International.

Table A-1. .............................................................................................. A-2

Airport Operations and Enplanements,

1995, 1996 and 1997

Table A-2. .............................................................................................. A-5

Airport Enplanements, 1997 and Forecast 2012

Table A-3. .............................................................................................. A-8

Total Airport Operations, 1997 and Forecast 2012

Table A-4. ............................................................................................ A-11

Growth in Enplanements From 1996 to 1997

Table A-5. ............................................................................................ A-14

Growth in Operations From 1996 to 1997

Table A-6. ............................................................................................ A-17

Growth in Operations and Enplanements
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 2

1. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1997 enplanements.

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 1 31,611,635 32,174,494 32,621,596 892,330 909,186 892,665

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 2 27,349,930 30,651,427 31,625,414 747,105 772,597 785,854

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 3 26,146,785 28,247,301 29,105,008 716,293 764,002 780,013

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 4 26,947,281 27,361,201 28,850,595 873,510 869,831 903,006

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 5 16,887,347 18,325,018 19,426,622 436,907 442,281 454,618

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 6 15,722,329 16,077,377 16,640,458 576,609 546,487 545,883

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 7 13,990,302 14,967,807 15,856,203 498,887 531,098 547,350

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 8 14,979,616 15,237,496 15,721,977 487,225 454,234 463,263

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 9 14,332,130 15,003,739 15,524,644 345,263 360,511 362,305

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 10 13,517,238 14,577,015 15,400,209 522,634 544,363 557,746

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 11 13,019,859 14,295,208 15,263,550 508,077 479,625 497,115

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 12 13,446,484 14,204,288 14,810,492 428,703 443,431 461,500

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 13 12,714,579 13,496,561 14,132,514 516,021 517,352 528,746

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 14 12,301,110 13,382,706 14,061,054 466,916 483,570 496,091

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 15 11,954,568 12,250,552 12,745,875 478,253 462,507 473,127

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 16 10,584,116 11,791,816 12,710,365 343,609 341,942 348,506

George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH 17 11,494,226 11,912,957 12,645,469 375,246 391,939 407,844

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 18 11,188,640 11,741,706 12,261,521 382,100 397,591 407,243

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 19 11,072,604 11,264,391 11,633,047 376,224 374,965 382,466

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 20 10,473,627 10,725,530 11,169,789 474,338 457,054 473,800

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 21 10,387,115 10,323,763 10,595,496 346,869 342,618 348,854

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 22 9,986,599 10,108,915 10,343,059 452,900 447,436 454,259

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 23 8,662,126 9,813,187 10,332,701 349,699 373,815 384,907

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 24 8,849,175 9,073,360 10,138,019 409,148 406,121 422,493

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 25 7,095,874 8,782,063 9,523,399 358,203 393,523 413,579

Ronald Reagan National Airport DCA 26 7,380,226 7,227,361 7,231,903 316,404 309,754 311,105

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 27 6,626,050 6,841,862 7,228,689 228,740 243,595 249,735

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 28 6,595,515 6,554,638 6,870,058 296,932 270,156 276,477

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 29 5,675,105 6,229,896 6,509,377 261,617 272,782 279,196

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 30 5,454,342 6,060,665 6,420,974 301,785 305,964 316,644

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 31 5,713,037 6,039,746 6,183,274 311,279 330,439 337,383

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 32 5,333,077 5,429,955 5,710,452 268,097 291,029 300,620

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 33 4,679,592 5,191,494 5,656,758 238,108 236,342 246,257

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 34 4,692,493 4,971,749 5,239,706 207,518 196,405 205,128

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 35 5,050,689 5,025,689 5,216,460 183,082 186,273 188,831

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 36 4,335,906 4,778,998 5,028,532 270,519 278,941 283,258

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 37 4,720,940 4,809,148 4,931,387 502,952 516,498 522,878

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 38 4,215,624 4,579,094 4,731,723 356,294 363,945 380,333

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 39 4,278,735 4,476,761 4,386,408 268,575 254,351 261,511

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 40 4,133,169 4,186,698 4,345,112 177,383 163,210 165,205

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 41 3,925,461 3,965,391 4,088,606 245,603 252,254 255,440

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 42 3,521,360 3,577,067 3,833,147 493,391 474,976 484,038

Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1995, 1996, and 19971

Airport Enplanements Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY95 FY96 FY97 FY95 FY96 FY97
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 3

1. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1997 enplanements.

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 43 3,170,445 3,477,759 3,685,658 245,541 235,940 242,783

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 44 3,308,376 3,460,728 3,666,453 177,010 174,117 182,496

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 45 3,915,839 3,433,435 3,616,408 278,957 226,274 236,235

Dallas-Love Field DAL 46 3,418,261 3,505,076 3,522,009 208,768 220,651 224,971

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 47 3,066,256 3,283,997 3,485,934 238,315 258,265 254,778

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 48 3,079,572 3,235,874 3,412,363 199,114 202,254 205,850

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 49 2,805,286 3,133,068 3,329,803 204,100 211,434 221,852

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 50 2,691,092 3,042,339 3,256,473 151,603 154,234 161,426

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 51 3,216,256 3,096,367 3,241,335 214,011 227,816 236,057

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 52 3,234,261 3,188,397 3,222,359 158,302 153,924 156,500

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 53 2,652,309 2,808,852 2,968,205 201,409 215,055 210,864

Kahului Airport OGG 54 2,763,401 2,801,737 2,930,343 178,602 183,046 192,128

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 55 2,687,516 2,804,201 2,902,804 205,104 202,875 205,884

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 56 2,527,447 2,662,988 2,798,413 209,939 199,584 209,378

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 57 2,519,357 2,667,513 2,792,441 176,382 160,752 163,965

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 58 2,471,234 2,464,662 2,619,946 184,366 184,843 187,945

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 59 1,125,562 2,316,084 2,477,560 206,192 227,201 234,002

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 60 1,989,677 2,088,515 2,248,101 67,026 71,231 77,088

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 61 2,104,169 1,894,953 1,993,525 217,768 283,611 289,943

Guam Int’l GUM 62 1,407,688 1,838,771 1,945,988 59,928 61,156 62,697

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 63 1,816,518 1,823,174 1,937,631 142,786 136,725 144,150

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 64 1,861,059 1,808,991 1,903,492 151,905 140,226 139,375

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 65 1,713,680 1,753,331 1,875,054 238,024 245,929 249,803

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 66 1,787,115 1,764,275 1,864,416 178,646 173,152 181,472

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 67 1,462,172 1,710,151 1,838,820 160,039 159,974 167,412

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 68 1,680,562 1,733,087 1,809,176 149,275 151,828 154,099

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 69 1,494,645 1,631,997 1,748,614 119,701 114,767 121,613

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 70 1,576,745 1,647,923 1,723,077 186,512 199,383 202,888

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 71 1,628,842 1,551,792 1,581,837 153,646 148,404 152,436

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 72 1,846,943 1,448,177 1,542,486 173,259 143,661 150,135

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 73 1,423,899 1,372,199 1,438,941 135,793 139,079 142,930

Birmingham Airport BHM 74 1,229,411 1,351,333 1,428,405 165,295 160,728 165,140

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 75 1,273,827 1,269,245 1,355,096 169,312 163,341 167,845

Boise Air Terminal BOI 76 1,063,795 1,253,019 1,334,821 166,499 179,843 185,650

Lihue Airport LIH 77 1,160,951 1,233,555 1,304,304 94,439 104,782 110,328

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 78 1,249,038 1,213,888 1,293,084 190,053 177,267 183,059

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 79 1,146,240 1,203,305 1,247,768 72,057 73,110 75,520

Providence Green State Airport PVD 80 1,122,944 1,078,836 1,155,958 133,679 119,355 124,284

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 81 1,096,129 1,078,592 1,137,696 153,119 146,105 150,157

Albany County Airport ALB 82 1,055,983 1,003,412 1,053,131 150,986 132,928 138,122

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 83 1,026,957 994,271 1,018,227 153,066 145,512 157,544

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 84 1,174,318 991,908 996,824 151,248 148,343 150,074

Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1995, 1996, and 19971

Airport Enplanements Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY95 FY96 FY97 FY95 FY96 FY97
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 4

1. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1997 enplanements.

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 85 740,458 917,160 972,916 137,043 137,698 139,857

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 86 801,531 837,568 887,842 151,742 138,020 142,457

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 87 783,290 791,734 843,731 145,886 154,833 157,759

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 88 717,226 760,001 802,471 81,497 90,024 92,064

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 89 613,569 734,820 750,701 177,982 182,186 185,233

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 90 750,803 706,168 740,814 137,517 145,025 146,451

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 91 704,493 691,467 731,128 58,978 59,371 62,210

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 92 663,253 689,864 720,888 136,507 131,598 134,209

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 93 567,705 599,210 625,392 95,060 95,472 96,044

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 94 594,641 605,724 620,240 101,944 95,150 89,279

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 95 658,083 595,720 611,688 83,447 78,161 78,903

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 96 565,521 560,144 590,403 188,314 175,750 177,397

Palm Springs Regional Airport PSP 97 457,423 549,218 582,076 102,072 93,584 96,423

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 98 596,761 568,892 580,899 106,544 107,107 107,953

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 99 562,556 564,580 576,880 120,234 115,032 117,070

Pensacola Regional PNS 100 563,788 541,690 571,390 119,795 121,576 122,612

Totals:

1995 Enplanements .......................................................... 546,433,494

1996 Enplanements ................................................................................... 574,571,82

1997 Enplanements ........................................................................................................600,666,080

1995 Operations ................................................................................................................................. 26,407,686

1996 Operations ................................................................................................................................................... 26,534,285

1997 Operations .................................................................................................................................................................... 27,174,071

Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1995, 1996, and 19971

Airport Enplanements Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY95 FY96 FY97 FY95 FY96 FY97
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 5

Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1997 and Forecast 20122

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY97 FY2012 % Growth

2. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1997 enplanements.

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 1 32,621,596 48,498,000 48.7

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 2 31,625,414 46,301,000 46.4

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 3 29,105,008 48,433,000 66.4

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 4 28,850,595 51,335,000 77.9

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 5 19,426,622 32,664,000 68.1

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 6 16,640,458 32,826,000 97.3

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 7 15,856,203 29,272,000 84.6

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 8 15,721,977 23,022,000 46.4

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 9 15,524,644 23,379,000 50.6

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 10 15,400,209 28,755,000 86.7

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 11 15,263,550 31,683,000 107.6

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 12 14,810,492 23,711,000 60.1

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 13 14,132,514 23,728,000 67.9

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 14 14,061,054 24,299,000 72.8

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 15 12,745,875 17,474,000 37.1

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 16 12,710,365 27,680,000 117.8

George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH 17 12,645,469 23,709,000 87.5

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 18 12,261,521 20,103,000 64.0

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 19 11,633,047 18,770,000 61.4

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 20 11,169,789 17,870,000 60.0

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 21 10,595,496 15,414,000 45.5

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 22 10,343,059 16,419,000 58.7

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 23 10,332,701 18,175,000 75.9

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 24 10,138,019 17,269,000 70.3

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 25 9,523,399 20,734,000 117.7

Ronal Reagan National Airport DCA 26 7,231,903 9,354,000 29.3

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 27 7,228,689 12,069,000 67.0

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 28 6,870,058 12,064,000 75.6

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 29 6,509,377 10,604,000 62.9

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 30 6,420,974 12,135,000 89.0

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 31 6,183,274 11,461,000 85.4

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 32 5,710,452 10,062,000 76.2

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 33 5,656,758 11,266,000 99.2

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 34 5,239,706 8,042,000 53.5

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 35 5,216,460 8,300,000 59.1

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 36 5,028,532 9,482,000 88.6

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 37 4,931,387 9,205,000 86.7

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 38 4,731,723 6,950,000 46.9

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 39 4,386,408 7,375,000 68.1

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 40 4,345,112 6,734,000 55.0

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 41 4,088,606 5,945,000 45.4

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 42 3,833,147 7,703,000 101.0
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 6

2. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1997 enplanements.

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 43 3,685,658 6,844,000 85.7

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 44 3,666,453 6,773,000 84.7

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 45 3,616,408 6,334,000 75.1

Dallas-Love Field DAL 46 3,522,009 6,090,000 72.9

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 47 3,485,934 6,571,000 88.5

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 48 3,412,363 6,034,000 76.8

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 49 3,329,803 6,305,000 89.4

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 50 3,256,473 6,526,000 100.4

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 51 3,241,335 5,851,000 80.5

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 52 3,222,359 5,328,000 65.3

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 53 2,968,205 5,374,000 81.1

Kahului Airport OGG 54 2,930,343 5,249,000 79.1

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 55 2,902,804 4,392,000 51.3

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 56 2,798,413 5,176,000 85.0

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 57 2,792,441 4,986,000 78.6

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 58 2,619,946 5,179,000 97.7

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 59 2,477,560 4,429,000 78.8

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 60 2,248,101 4,937,000 119.6

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 61 1,993,525 3,298,000 65.4

Guam Int’l GUM 62 1,945,988 3,864,000 98.6

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 63 1,937,631 3,667,000 89.3

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 64 1,903,492 3,330,000 74.9

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 65 1,875,054 3,714,000 98.1

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 66 1,864,416 3,376,000 81.1

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 67 1,838,820 3,784,000 105.8

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 68 1,809,176 3,089,000 70.7

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 69 1,748,614 3,513,000 100.9

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 70 1,723,077 2,857,000 65.8

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 71 1,581,837 2,332,000 47.4

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 72 1,542,486 2,967,000 92.4

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 73 1,438,941 2,632,000 82.9

Birmingham Airport BHM 74 1,428,405 2,592,000 81.5

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 75 1,355,096 2,652,000 95.7

Boise Air Terminal BOI 76 1,334,821 2,448,000 83.4

Lihue Airport LIH 77 1,304,304 2,182,000 67.3

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 78 1,293,084 2,364,000 82.8

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 79 1,247,768 1,918,000 53.7

Providence Green State Airport PVD 80 1,155,958 2,321,000 100.8

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 81 1,137,696 1,941,000 70.6

Albany County Airport ALB 82 1,053,131 1,850,000 75.7

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 83 1,018,227 1,379,000 35.4

Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1997 and Forecast 20122

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY97 FY2012 % Growth
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 7

2. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1997 enplanements.

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 84 996,824 1,071,000 7.4

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 85 972,916 1,734,000 78.2

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 86 887,842 1,589,000 79.0

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 87 843,731 1,629,000 93.1

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 88 802,471 1,348,000 68.0

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 89 750,701 990,000 31.9

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 90 740,814 1,352,000 82.5

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 91 731,128 1,330,000 81.9

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 92 720,888 1,269,000 76.0

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 93 625,392 1,100,000 75.9

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 94 620,240 839,000 35.3

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 95 611,688 881,000 44.0

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 96 590,403 1,106,000 87.3

Palm Springs Regional Airport PSP 97 582,076 1,134,000 94.8

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 98 580,899 762,000 31.2

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 99 576,880 762,000 32.1

Pensacola Regional PNS 100 571,390 1,046,000 83.1

Totals:

1997 Enplanements ....................................................................................... 600,666,080

2012 Enplanements ............................................................................................................... 1,026,664,000

Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1997 and Forecast 20122

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY97 FY2012 % Growth
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 8

Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1997 and Forecast 20123

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY97 FY2012 % Growth

3. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1997 operations.

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 1 903,006 1,403,000 55.4

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 2 892,665 1,110,000 24.3

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 3 785,854 985,000 25.3

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 4 780,013 1,037,000 32.9

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 5 557,746 789,000 41.5

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 6 547,350 792,000 44.7

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 7 545,883 778,000 42.5

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 8 528,746 700,000 32.4

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 9 522,878 619,000 18.4

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 10 497,115 761,000 53.1

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 11 496,091 685,000 38.1

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 12 484,038 625,000 29.1

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 13 473,800 613,000 29.4

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 14 473,127 527,000 11.4

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 15 463,263 599,000 29.3

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 16 461,500 611,000 32.4

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 17 454,618 640,000 40.8

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 18 454,259 590,000 29.9

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 19 422,493 551,000 30.4

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 20 413,579 716,000 73.1

George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH 21 407,844 648,000 58.9

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 22 407,243 553,000 35.8

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 23 384,907 552,000 43.4

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 24 382,466 510,000 33.3

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 25 380,333 530,000 39.4

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 26 362,305 415,000 14.5

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 27 348,854 397,000 13.8

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 28 348,506 588,000 68.7

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 29 337,383 437,000 29.5

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 30 316,644 443,000 39.9

Ronal Reagan National Airport DCA 31 311,105 329,000 5.8

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 32 300,620 415,000 38.0

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 33 289,943 333,000 14.9

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 34 283,258 348,000 22.9

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 35 279,196 367,000 31.4

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 36 276,477 384,000 38.9

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 37 261,511 318,000 21.6

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 38 255,440 303,000 18.6

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 39 254,778 342,000 34.2

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 40 249,803 272,000 8.9

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 41 249,735 348,000 39.3

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 42 246,257 337,000 36.8
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 9

3. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1997 operations.

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 43 242,783 346,000 42.5

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 44 236,235 276,000 16.8

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 45 236,057 282,000 19.5

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 46 234,002 300,000 28.2

Dallas-Love Field DAL 47 224,971 286,000 27.1

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 48 221,852 280,000 26.2

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 49 210,864 282,000 33.7

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 50 209,378 270,000 29.0

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 51 205,884 222,000 7.8

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 52 205,850 266,000 29.2

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 53 205,128 266,000 29.7

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 54 202,888 222,000 9.4

Kahului Airport OGG 55 192,128 237,000 23.4

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 56 188,831 235,000 24.4

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 57 187,945 247,000 31.4

Boise Air Terminal BOI 58 185,650 237,000 27.7

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 59 185,233 209,000 12.8

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 60 183,059 222,000 21.3

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 61 182,496 251,000 37.5

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 62 181,472 234,000 28.9

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 63 177,397 177,000 -0.2

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 64 167,845 192,000 14.4

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 65 167,412 219,000 30.8

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 66 165,205 204,000 23.5

Birmingham Airport BHM 67 165,140 187,000 13.2

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 68 163,965 207,000 26.2

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 69 161,426 213,000 31.9

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 70 157,759 186,000 17.9

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 71 157,544 190,000 20.6

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 72 156,500 195,000 24.6

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 73 154,099 168,000 9.0

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 74 152,436 182,000 19.4

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 75 150,157 179,000 19.2

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 76 150,135 184,000 22.6

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 77 150,074 176,000 17.3

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 78 146,451 155,000 5.8

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 79 144,150 183,000 27.0

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 80 142,930 165,000 15.4

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 81 142,457 178,000 24.9

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 82 139,857 158,000 13.0

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 83 139,375 144,000 3.3

Albany County Airport ALB 84 138,122 180,000 30.3

Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1997 and Forecast 20123

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY97 FY2012 % Growth
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 10

3. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1997 operations.

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 85 134,209 149,000 11.0

Providence Green State Airport PVD 86 124,284 158,000 27.1

Pensacola Regional PNS 87 122,612 136,000 10.9

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 88 121,613 165,000 35.7

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 89 117,070 131,000 11.9

Lihue Airport LIH 90 110,328 156,000 41.4

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 91 107,953 113,000 4.7

Palm Springs Regional Airport PSP 92 96,423 107,000 11.0

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 93 96,044 104,000 8.3

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 94 92,064 112,000 21.7

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 95 89,279 92,000 3.0

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 96 78,903 81,000 2.7

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 97 77,088 137,000 77.7

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 98 75,520 87,000 15.2

Guam Int’l GUM 99 62,697 74,000 18.0

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 100 62,210 75,000 20.6

Totals:

1996 Operations ............................................................................................. 27,174,071

2011 Operations ............................................................................................................................ 35,369,000

Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1997 and Forecast 20123

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY97 FY2012 % Growth
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 11

Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1996 to 19974

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY96 FY97 % Growth

4. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total enplanments.

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 1 9,073,360 10,138,019 11.7

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 2 5,191,494 5,656,758 9.0

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 3 8,782,063 9,523,399 8.4

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 4 11,791,816 12,710,365 7.8

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 5 2,088,515 2,248,101 7.6

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 6 1,710,151 1,838,820 7.5

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 7 3,577,067 3,833,147 7.2

Providence Green State Airport PVD 8 1,078,836 1,155,958 7.1

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 9 1,631,997 1,748,614 7.1

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 10 3,042,339 3,256,473 7.0

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 11 2,316,084 2,477,560 7.0

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 12 1,753,331 1,875,054 6.9

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 13 14,295,208 15,263,550 6.8

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 14 1,269,245 1,355,096 6.8

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 15 791,734 843,731 6.6

Boise Air Terminal BOI 16 1,253,019 1,334,821 6.5

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 17 1,213,888 1,293,084 6.5

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 18 1,448,177 1,542,486 6.5

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 19 2,464,662 2,619,946 6.3

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 20 3,133,068 3,329,803 6.3

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 21 1,823,174 1,937,631 6.3

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 22 3,283,997 3,485,934 6.1

George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH 23 11,912,957 12,645,469 6.1

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 24 917,160 972,916 6.1

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 25 18,325,018 19,426,622 6.0

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 26 837,568 887,842 6.0

Palm Springs Regional Airport PSP 27 549,218 582,076 6.0

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 28 3,477,759 3,685,658 6.0

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 29 6,060,665 6,420,974 5.9

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 30 3,460,728 3,666,453 5.9

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 31 14,967,807 15,856,203 5.9

Guam Int’l GUM 32 1,838,771 1,945,988 5.8

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 33 691,467 731,128 5.7

Lihue Airport LIH 34 1,233,555 1,304,304 5.7

Birmingham Airport BHM 35 1,351,333 1,428,405 5.7

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 36 1,764,275 1,864,416 5.7

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 37 2,808,852 2,968,205 5.7

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 38 6,841,862 7,228,689 5.7

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 39 14,577,015 15,400,209 5.6

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 40 760,001 802,471 5.6

Pensacola Regional PNS 41 541,690 571,390 5.5

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 42 1,078,592 1,137,696 5.5
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 12

Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1996 to 19974

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY96 FY97 % Growth

4. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total enplanments.

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 43 3,235,874 3,412,363 5.5

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 44 27,361,201 28,850,595 5.4

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 45 560,144 590,403 5.4

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 46 4,971,749 5,239,706 5.4

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 47 3,433,435 3,616,408 5.3

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 48 9,813,187 10,332,701 5.3

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 49 1,808,991 1,903,492 5.2

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 50 4,778,998 5,028,532 5.2

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 51 1,894,953 1,993,525 5.2

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 52 5,429,955 5,710,452 5.2

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 53 2,662,988 2,798,413 5.1

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 54 13,382,706 14,061,054 5.1

Albany County Airport ALB 55 1,003,412 1,053,131 5.0

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 56 706,168 740,814 4.9

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 57 1,372,199 1,438,941 4.9

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 58 6,554,638 6,870,058 4.8

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 59 13,496,561 14,132,514 4.7

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 60 2,667,513 2,792,441 4.7

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 61 3,096,367 3,241,335 4.7

Kahului Airport OGG 62 2,801,737 2,930,343 4.6

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 63 1,647,923 1,723,077 4.6

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 64 689,864 720,888 4.5

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 65 6,229,896 6,509,377 4.5

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 66 11,741,706 12,261,521 4.4

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 67 1,733,087 1,809,176 4.4

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 68 599,210 625,392 4.4

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 69 14,204,288 14,810,492 4.3

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 70 10,725,530 11,169,789 4.1

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 71 12,250,552 12,745,875 4.0

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 72 5,025,689 5,216,460 3.8

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 73 4,186,698 4,345,112 3.8

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 74 1,203,305 1,247,768 3.7

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 75 2,804,201 2,902,804 3.5

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 76 16,077,377 16,640,458 3.5

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 77 15,003,739 15,524,644 3.5

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 78 4,579,094 4,731,723 3.3

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 79 11,264,391 11,633,047 3.3

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 80 15,237,496 15,721,977 3.2

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 81 30,651,427 31,625,414 3.2

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 82 3,965,391 4,088,606 3.1

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 83 28,247,301 29,105,008 3.0

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 84 595,720 611,688 2.7
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 13

Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1996 to 19974

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY96 FY97 % Growth

4. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total enplanments.

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 85 10,323,763 10,595,496 2.6

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 86 4,809,148 4,931,387 2.5

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 87 994,271 1,018,227 2.4

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 88 605,724 620,240 2.4

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 89 6,039,746 6,183,274 2.4

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 90 10,108,915 10,343,059 2.3

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 91 564,580 576,880 2.2

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 92 734,820 750,701 2.2

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 93 568,892 580,899 2.1

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 94 1,551,792 1,581,837 1.9

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 95 32,174,494 32,621,596 1.4

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 96 3,188,397 3,222,359 1.1

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 97 991,908 996,824 0.5

Dallas-Love Field DAL 98 3,505,076 3,522,009 0.5

Ronal Reagan National Airport DCA 99 7,227,361 7,231,903 0.1

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 100 4,476,761 4,386,408 -2.0
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 14

Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1996 to 19975

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY96 FY97 % Growth

5. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total operations.

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 1 145,512 157,544 8.3

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 2 71,231 77,088 8.2

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 3 114,767 121,613 6.0

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 4 136,725 144,150 5.4

Lihue Airport LIH 5 104,782 110,328 5.3

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 6 393,523 413,579 5.1

Kahului Airport OGG 7 183,046 192,128 5.0

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 8 211,434 221,852 4.9

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 9 199,584 209,378 4.9

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 10 174,117 182,496 4.8

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 11 173,152 181,472 4.8

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 12 59,371 62,210 4.8

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 13 154,234 161,426 4.7

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 14 159,974 167,412 4.6

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 15 143,661 150,135 4.5

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 16 363,945 380,333 4.5

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 17 196,405 205,128 4.4

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 18 226,274 236,235 4.4

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 19 236,342 246,257 4.2

Providence Green State Airport PVD 20 119,355 124,284 4.1

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 21 443,431 461,500 4.1

George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH 22 391,939 407,844 4.1

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 23 406,121 422,493 4.0

Albany County Airport ALB 24 132,928 138,122 3.9

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 25 869,831 903,006 3.8

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 26 457,054 473,800 3.7

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 27 479,625 497,115 3.6

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 28 227,816 236,057 3.6

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 29 305,964 316,644 3.5

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 30 73,110 75,520 3.3

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 31 291,029 300,620 3.3

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 32 177,267 183,059 3.3

Boise Air Terminal BOI 33 179,843 185,650 3.2

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 34 138,020 142,457 3.2

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 35 531,098 547,350 3.1

Palm Springs Regional Airport PSP 36 93,584 96,423 3.0

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 37 227,201 234,002 3.0

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 38 373,815 384,907 3.0

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 39 235,940 242,783 2.9

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 40 254,351 261,511 2.8

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 41 442,281 454,618 2.8

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 42 146,105 150,157 2.8
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 15

Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1996 to 19975

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY96 FY97 % Growth

5. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total operations.

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 43 139,079 142,930 2.8

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 44 163,341 167,845 2.8

Birmingham Airport BHM 45 160,728 165,140 2.7

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 46 148,404 152,436 2.7

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 47 483,570 496,091 2.6

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 48 243,595 249,735 2.5

Guam Int’l GUM 49 61,156 62,697 2.5

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 50 544,363 557,746 2.5

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 51 397,591 407,243 2.4

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 52 272,782 279,196 2.4

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 53 270,156 276,477 2.3

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 54 462,507 473,127 2.3

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 55 90,024 92,064 2.3

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 56 283,611 289,943 2.2

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 57 517,352 528,746 2.2

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 58 330,439 337,383 2.1

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 59 764,002 780,013 2.1

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 60 374,965 382,466 2.0

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 61 160,752 163,965 2.0

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 62 454,234 463,263 2.0

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 63 131,598 134,209 2.0

Dallas-Love Field DAL 64 220,651 224,971 2.0

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 65 341,942 348,506 1.9

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 66 474,976 484,038 1.9

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 67 154,833 157,759 1.9

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 68 342,618 348,854 1.8

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 69 202,254 205,850 1.8

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 70 115,032 117,070 1.8

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 71 199,383 202,888 1.8

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 72 772,597 785,854 1.7

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 73 184,843 187,945 1.7

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 74 153,924 156,500 1.7

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 75 182,186 185,233 1.7

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 76 245,929 249,803 1.6

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 77 137,698 139,857 1.6

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 78 278,941 283,258 1.5

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 79 447,436 454,259 1.5

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 80 151,828 154,099 1.5

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 81 202,875 205,884 1.5

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 82 186,273 188,831 1.4

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 83 252,254 255,440 1.3

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 84 516,498 522,878 1.2
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 16

Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1996 to 19975

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY96 FY97 % Growth

5. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total operations.

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 85 163,210 165,205 1.2

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 86 148,343 150,074 1.2

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 87 145,025 146,451 1.0

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 88 78,161 78,903 0.9

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 89 175,750 177,397 0.9

Pensacola Regional PNS 90 121,576 122,612 0.9

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 91 107,107 107,953 0.8

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 92 95,472 96,044 0.6

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 93 360,511 362,305 0.5

Ronal Reagan National Airport DCA 94 309,754 311,105 0.4

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 95 546,487 545,883 -0.1

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 96 140,226 139,375 -0.6

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 97 258,265 254,778 -1.4

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 98 909,186 892,665 -1.8

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 99 215,055 210,864 -1.9

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 100 95,150 89,279 -6.2
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 17

Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements6

Airport % Growth in Enplanements % Growth in Operations

City-Airport ID FY96-FY97 FY97-FY2012 FY96-FY97 FY97-FY2012

6. At the top 100 airports, listed in alphabetical order by Airport Identifier.

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 5.5 76.8 1.8 29.2

Albany County Airport ALB 5 75.7 3.9 30.3

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 5.2 65.4 2.2 14.9

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 3.2 46.4 1.7 25.3

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 5.7 81.1 -1.9 33.7

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 4.7 78.6 2 26.2

Birmingham Airport BHM 5.7 81.5 2.7 13.2

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 5.3 75.1 4.4 16.8

Boise Air Terminal BOI 6.5 83.4 3.2 27.7

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 4 37.1 2.3 11.4

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 1.9 47.4 2.7 19.4

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 6.3 97.7 1.7 31.4

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 4.8 75.6 2.3 38.9

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 2.1 31.2 0.8 4.7

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 4.9 82.5 1 5.8

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 5.2 76.2 3.3 38

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 4.1 60 3.7 29.4

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 6.3 89.4 4.9 26.2

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 7 78.8 3 28.2

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 8.4 117.7 5.1 73.1

Dallas-Love Field DAL 0.5 72.9 2 27.1

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 0.5 7.4 1.2 17.3

Ronal Reagan National Airport DCA 0.1 29.3 0.4 5.8

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 3.2 46.4 2 29.3

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 5.4 77.9 3.8 55.4

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 6.1 78.2 1.6 13

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 5.9 84.6 3.1 44.7

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 5.2 74.9 -0.6 3.3

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 4.3 60.1 4.1 32.4

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 9 99.2 4.2 36.8

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 7.1 100.9 6 35.7

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 6 79 3.2 24.9

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 6.5 92.4 4.5 22.6

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 5.7 81.9 4.8 20.6

Guam Int’l GUM 5.8 98.6 2.5 18

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 3.3 61.4 2 33.3

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 3.1 45.4 1.3 18.6

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 2.4 85.4 2.1 29.5

George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH 6.1 87.5 4.1 58.9

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 2.2 31.9 1.7 12.8

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 6 85.7 2.9 42.5

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 5.4 87.3 0.9 -0.2
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 18

6. At the top 100 airports, listed in alphabetical order by Airport Identifier.

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 5.6 68 2.3 21.7

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 6.3 89.3 5.4 27

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 3.5 50.6 0.5 14.5

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 3.7 53.7 3.3 15.2

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 6.8 107.6 3.6 53.1

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 3 66.4 2.1 32.9

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 2.4 35.3 -6.2 3

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 2.6 45.5 1.8 13.8

Lihue Airport LIH 5.7 67.3 5.3 41.4

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 6.8 95.7 2.8 14.4

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 5.4 53.5 4.4 29.7

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 7.8 117.8 1.9 68.7

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 2.7 44 0.9 2.7

Chicago Midway Airport MDW -2 68.1 2.8 21.6

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 3.3 46.9 4.5 39.4

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 3.5 97.3 -0.1 42.5

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 5.1 85 4.9 29

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 5.1 72.8 2.6 38.1

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 3.8 55 1.2 23.5

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 2.5 86.7 1.2 18.4

Kahului Airport OGG 4.6 79.1 5 23.4

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 4.4 70.7 1.5 9

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 7.5 105.8 4.6 30.8

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 1.1 65.3 1.7 24.6

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 1.4 48.7 -1.8 24.3

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 4.9 82.9 2.8 15.4

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 3.5 51.3 1.5 7.8

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 5.9 89 3.5 39.9

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 11.7 70.3 4 30.4

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 5.6 86.7 2.5 41.5

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 2.3 58.7 1.5 29.9

Pensacola Regional PNS 5.5 83.1 0.9 10.9

Palm Springs Regional Airport PSP 6 94.8 3 11

Providence Green State Airport PVD 7.1 100.8 4.1 27.1

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 2.2 32.1 1.8 11.9

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 4.7 80.5 3.6 19.5

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 5.5 70.6 2.8 19.2

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 7 100.4 4.7 31.9

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 6.5 82.8 3.3 21.3

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 7.6 119.6 8.2 77.7

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 5.7 67 2.5 39.3

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 6.1 88.5 -1.4 34.2

Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements6

Airport % Growth in Enplanements % Growth in Operations

City-Airport ID FY96-FY97 FY97-FY2012 FY96-FY97 FY97-FY2012
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 19

6. At the top 100 airports, listed in alphabetical order by Airport Identifier.

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 4.4 75.9 0.6 8.3

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 5.7 81.1 4.8 28.9

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 4.4 64 2.4 35.8

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 6 68.1 2.8 40.8

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 5.2 88.6 1.5 22.9

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 3.8 59.1 1.4 24.4

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 5.3 75.9 3 43.4

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 5.9 84.7 4.8 37.5

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 7.2 101 1.9 29.1

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 6.6 93.1 1.9 17.9

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 4.7 67.9 2.2 32.4

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 2.4 35.4 8.3 20.6

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 4.5 62.9 2.4 31.4

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 4.6 65.8 1.8 9.4

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 6.9 98.1 1.6 8.9

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 4.5 76 2 11

Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements6

Airport % Growth in Enplanements % Growth in Operations

City-Airport ID FY96-FY97 FY97-FY2012 FY96-FY97 FY97-FY2012
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 20
TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B:

This appendix contains current airport diagrams for the top 100

airports.

1

 For those airports that are considering or have plans for

the construction of new runways or extensions to existing runways,

the diagrams show the proposed runway and runway extension

projects indicated in blue. These diagrams are for illustration only,

and should not be used in any way for airport planning purposes.

Accompanying the diagrams is a brief narrative of construction

projects being planned or considered.

1. Based on 1997 passenger enplanements (see Appendix A, Table A-1).

Cuba

Florida

Puerto

Rico

Guam

ABQ

BOI

BUR

COS

DFW DAL

ELP

LAS

LAX

LBB

OAK

ONT

PDX

PHX

RNO

SAN

SEA

SFO

SJC

SLC SMF

SNA

TUS

GEG

ATL BHM

BNA

BUF

GSP

CHS

CLE

CLT

CMH

CVG

DAY

DEN

DSM

DTW

GRR

GSO

IAD

ICT

IND

JAX

LIT

MCI

MDT MDW

MEM

MKE

MSP

OKC

OMA

ORD

PIT

RDU

RIC

ROC

SDF STL

SYR

TUL TYS

ALB

BDL

BWI

DCA

EWR

LGA

JFK

ORF

PHL

PVD

ISP

BOS

PWM

KOA

HNL OGG

ITO

ANC LIH

GUM

AUS

FLL

HOU

IAH

MCO

MIA

MSY

PBI

RSW

SAT

SRQ

TPA

SJU

SAV

PSP CAE

PNS
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 2

ABQ — Albuquerque Int’l Airport ........................B-3

ALB — Albany County Airport .............................B-4

ANC — Anchorage Int’l Airport ...........................B-5

ATL — Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ...................B-6

AUS — Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport ..B-7

BDL — Bradley Int’l Airport..................................B-8

BHM — Birmingham Airport ................................B-9

BNA — Nashville Int’l Airport.............................B-10

BOI — Boise Air Terminal .................................. B-11

BOS — Boston Logan Int’l Airport .....................B-12

BSM — Austin-Bergstrom Int’l Airport ...............B-13

BUF — Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport ....................B-14

BUR — Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport.......B-15

BWI — Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport.........B-16

CAE — Columbia Metropolitan Airport..............B-17

CHS — Charleston afb Int’l Airport ....................B-18

CLE — Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport...............B-19

CLT — Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport ...............B-20

CMH — Port Columbus Int’l Airport ..................B-21

COS — Colorado Springs Municipal Airport ......B-22

CVG — Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport ..............B-23

DAL — Dallas-Love Field ....................................B-24

DAY — Dayton Int’l Airport................................B-25

DCA — Ronald Reagan National Airport ............B-26

DEN — Denver Int’l Airport ...............................B-27

DFW — Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport ...............B-28

DSM — Des Moines Int’l Airport ........................B-29

DTW — Detroit Metropolitan County Airport ....B-30

ELP — El Paso Int’l Airport .................................B-31

EWR — Newark Int’l Airport...............................B-32

FLL — Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l Airport ....B-33

GEG — Spokane Int’l Airport .............................B-34

GRR — Grand Rapids Int’l Airport ......................B-35

GSO — Greensboro Piedmont Int’l Airport ........B-36

GSP — Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport ....B-37

GUM — Guam Int’l Airport ................................B-38

HNL — Honolulu Int’l Airport ............................B-39

HOU — Houston William P. Hobby Airport ........B-40

IAD — Washington Dulles Int’l Airport...............B-41

IAH — George Bush Int’l Airport ........................B-42

ICT — Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ...............B-43

IND — Indianapolis Int’l Airport ........................B-44

ISP — Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ........B-45

ITO — Hilo Int’l Airport .....................................B-46

JAX — Jacksonville Int’l Airport ..........................B-47

JFK — New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport ...B-48

KOA — Kona Int’l at Keahole .............................B-49

LAS — Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport ............B-50

LAX — Los Angeles Int’l Airport .........................B-51

LBB — Lubbock Int’l Airport ..............................B-52

LGA — New York LaGuardia Airport ..................B-53

LIH — Lihue Airport .......................................... B-54

LIT — Little Rock Adams Field ............................B-55

MCI — Kansas City Int’l Airport .........................B-56

MCO — Orlando Int’l Airport ............................B-57

MDT — Harrisburg Int’l Airport .........................B-58

MDW — Chicago Midway Airport .....................B-59

MEM — Memphis Int’l Airport .......................... B-60

MIA — Miami Int’l Airport .................................B-61

MKE — Milwaukee Int’l Airport ..........................B-62

MSP — Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport .......... B-63

MSY — New Orleans Int’l Airport ......................B-64

OAK — Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport ........B-65

OGG — Kahului Airport .....................................B-66

OKC — Oklahoma City World Airport ................B-67

OMA — Omaha Eppley Airfield..........................B-68

ONT — Ontario Int’l Airport ..............................B-69

ORD — Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport .................B-70

ORF — Norfolk Int’l Airport ...............................B-71

PBI — Palm Beach Int’l Airport ..........................B-72

PDX — Portland Int’l Airport..............................B-73

PHL — Philadelphia Int’l Airport ........................B-74

PHX — Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport ............B-75

PIT — Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport ................B-76

PNS — Pensacola Regional Airport ....................B-77

PSP — Palm Springs Regional Airport ................B-78

PVD — Providence Green State Airport..............B-79

PWM — Portland Int’l Jetport ............................B-80

RDU — Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport .................B-81

RIC — Richmond Int’l Airport ............................B-82

RNO — Reno Tahoe Int’l Airport ........................B-83

ROC — Greater Rochester Int’l Airport...............B-84

RSW — Fort Myers Regional Airport.................. B-85

SAN — San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field ...............B-86

SAT — San Antonio Int’l Airport.........................B-87

SAV — Savannah Int’l Airport ............................B-88

SDF — Louisville Int’l Airport .............................B-89

SEA — Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport ....................B-90

SFO — San Francisco Int’l Airport ......................B-91

SJC — San Jose Int’l Airport ...............................B-92

SJU — San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín Int’l Airport..B-93

SLC — Salt Lake City Int’l Airport.......................B-94

SMF — Sacramento international Airport.......... B-95

SNA — John Wayne Airport - Orange County ....B-96

SRQ — Sarasota Bradenton Airport ....................B-97

STL — Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport .................B-98

SYR — Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport ................B-99

TPA — Tampa Int’l Airport .............................. B-100

TUL — Tulsa Int’l Airport................................. B-101

TUS — Tucson Int’l Airport ............................. B-102

TYS — Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport ......... B-103
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 3

3

26

30

35

12

17

GA Area

Terminal

Cargo

Ramp

ANG Ramp

8

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

21

Control Tower

ABQ — Albuquerque International Airport

A 1,000 ft. extension to

Runway 12/30 is proposed. It is

expected to be operational by

2000, at an estimated cost of $14

million.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 4

28

1

10

19

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

 TOWER

GENERAL AVIATION

 PARKING

NY ANG

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

ALB — Albany County Airport

Construction of an extension

to Runway 10/28 is planned. The

estimated cost of construction is

$5.8 million. A new parallel

Runway 1R/19L, 4,850 ft. in

length, is also planned. The

estimated cost is $7.5 million.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 5

ANC — Anchorage International Airport

14

6R

32

24L

24R

6L

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 6

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 ft. long and

approximately 4,200 ft. south of

Runway 9R/27L, is under design.

Land acquisition is ongoing. The

runway will permit triple

independent IFR approaches

using the PRM. The total estimated cost is $440 million.

Construction is expected to

begin in early 1999. The estimated operational date is early

2002. The new runway will be

used primarily for arrivals by

commuter aircraft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 7

AUS — Austin Robert Mueller Municipal Airport

The airport is being replaced

by the redeveloped Bergstrom

Air Force Base (BSM). See AustinBergstrom International Airport

(BSM) for details.

13R

17

13L

31R

31L

35

TERMINAL BUILDING

 FIRE

STATION

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 8

BDL — Bradley International Airport

6

15

33

1

19

24

CONTROL

 TOWER U.S.

CUSTOMS

CONNECTICUT ANG

 ARMY

NATIONAL

 GUARD

GA PARKING

GA PARKING

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 9

18

23

36

5

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

BHM — Birmingham Airport

A 2,000 ft. extension of

Runway 5/23 is currently proposed in the Airport’s Master

Plan. As proposed, the Runway

23 threshold would be displaced

2,000 ft.. Therefore, Runway 23’s

length available for departures

and arrivals would be 12,000 ft.

and 10,000 ft., respectively.

Runway 5’s available length for

both arrivals and departures

would increase to 12,000 ft. An

environmental assessment for the

runway extension is underway.

The total estimated cost is $27

million. No operational date has

been set.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 10

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 ft. from Runway

2R/20L. In addition, an extension

to Runway 2R/20L is planned.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 11

BOI — Boise Air Terminal

A third parallel runway is

planned for the long-term future.

It is planned 5,400 ft. south of

10R/28L.

10L

10R

28L

28R

 FIRE

CENTER

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 12

4L

4R

6

27

33L

15R

22R

22L

33R

15L

Terminal

Control

Tower

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

SOUTH

North

14

32

BOS — Boston Logan International Airport

A new uni-directional

commuter runway (Runway 14/

32) 4,300 ft. from Runway 15R/

33L, an extension of Runway

15L/33R to 3,500 ft., and a 400 ft.

extension of Runway 9 are being

studied. An Environmental

Impact Study is currently in

progress for the new runway.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 13

BSM — Austin-Bergstrom International Airport

The community approved

and sold approximately $400

million of revenue bonds supporting the redevelopment of the

former Bergstrom Air Force base

into Austin-Bergstrom International Airport; a replacement

airport for the current Robert

Mueller Municipal Airport.

Austin-Bergstrom International

Airport opened for air cargo

operations on June 28, 1997. The

airport will be opened for air

passenger and general aviation

operations on May 1, 1999. The

new facilities include a recently

completed new 9,000 ft. x 150 ft.

Runway 17R/35L, as well as

associated taxiways, crossfield

taxiways, as well as air cargo, air

passenger, and general aviation

aprons. The airport will also have

a new 26 gate air passenger

terminal and support facilities.

Robert Mueller Municipal will

close upon completion of the

new airport. The total estimated

project cost is currently $585

million. The airport is expected

to open on time and under

budget.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Bergstrom Air Force Base Conversion

Opening Day Layout Plan

as of 1-31-95
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 14

BUF — Greater Buffalo International Airport

23

32

5

14

WEST TERMINAL

EAST TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 15

BUR — Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport

15

25

33

7

 CONTROL TOWER

PASSENGER TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 16

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

15R

15L

33R

33L

22

4

28

10

A new 7,800 ft. runway,

Runway 10R/28L, is planned to

be constructed by 2003, 3,500 ft.

south of Runway 10/28. When

Runway 10R/28L is constructed,

Runway 4/22 will be converted

to a taxiway.

BWI — Baltimore-Washington International Airport
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 17

CAE — Columbia Metropolitan Airport

23

29

5

11

MAIN TERMINAL

CONTROL TOWER, GADO

U.S. ARMY

FIRE STATION

FBO

RADAR DOME

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 18

CHS — Charleston AFB International Airport

15

21

33

3

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 19

CLE — Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

The Master Plan Update,

Phase 1, is conditionally approved. The Airport Layout Plan

shows construction of a new

Runway 5W/23W that would be

9,000 ft. long and 150 ft. wide.

Construction is expected to be

completed in 2000 at a cost of

$180 million. Also included in

Control

Tower

General

Aviation General

Aviation

NASA

36

18

10

28

5R

5L

23R

23L

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

Terminal

5W

23W

the development plan is an

extension of the existing Runway 5R/23L from 9,000 ft. to

11,250 ft. at an estimated cost of

$40 million and conversion of the

existing Runway 5L/23R to a

parallel taxiway at a cost of $3

million. All of this work is

scheduled for completion by

2005.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 20

CLT — Charlotte/Douglas International Airport

A third parallel 9,000 ft.

runway, 3,700 ft. west of Runway 18R/36L, is being planned. It

would permit triple dependent

IFR approaches. An Environmental Impact Statement is underway

and is expected to be completed

by early 1999. Construction is

18R

18L

36R

36L

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

expected to start in late 1999 and

be completed in 2001, at an

estimated cost of $140 million. A

2,000 ft. extension of Runway

18R/36L is also planned. The

estimated cost is $20 million, and

it is expected to be operational

by 2006. The extension is

primarily for departures.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 21

CMH — Port Columbus International Airport

The Airport Layout Plan has

been coordinated to show a third

parallel Runway 10S/28S constructed 800 ft. south of the

existing Runway 10R/28L. This

runway will be 10,250 ft. long

and 150 ft. 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 ft. 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. Expected operational date is 2020,

with project costs estimated at

$100 million.

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

1,000 ft

5,000 ft
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 22

COS — Colorado Springs Municipal Airport

12

17R

30

35L

CONTROL TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

35R

17L
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 23

36C

36R

18L

18C

9

27

Fire

Station

Terminals

International

Terminal

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

18R

36L

CVG — Greater Cincinnati International Airport

A new 8,000 ft. third parallel

Runway 18R/36L is planned to be

located 4,300 ft. west of the

existing Runway 18R/36L. The

estimated cost is $233 million.

The expected operational date is

2004. The new runway may

allow triple independent IFR

approaches. A 2,000 ft. extension

of Runway 9/27 is also planned.

It is expected to be completed by

2003, at an estimated cost of $12

million. The extension would

allow departures of aircraft with

heavier payloads and/or longer

haul-lengths. An EIS is currently

underway for both projects, and

is expected to be completed by

2000.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 24

DAL — Dallas-Love Field

31L

36

31R

13R

13L

18

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

BUILDING

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 25

DAY — Dayton International Airport

24R

18

36

6R

24L

6L

TERMINAL BUILDING

 CONTROL TOWER

 BEACON

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 26

DCA — Ronald Reagan National Airport

3

36

33

21

18

15

Terminals

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 27

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

16

34

8

26

17L

17R

35R

35L

7

25

Control Tower

DEN — Denver International Airport

Runway 16R/34L is the last of

the six original runways to be

built at the new airport. It will

be separated 2,600 ft. from

Runway 16L/34R, and be 16,000

ft. in length. The runway is

expected to be completed in

2002, at an estimated cost of

$103 million.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 28

DFW — Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport

Proposed 2,000 ft. extensions

to all of the north/south parallel

runways will provide an overall

length of 13,400 ft. for each.

Environmental assessment for the

extension to Runway 17C/35C,

Runway 18L/36R, and Runway

18R/36L were completed in 1998.

The estimated cost of each

extension is $25 million. A

terminal expansion program is

underway that will add five new

jet departure gates to the south

side of Terminal 2W; provide

baggage and passenger connections to Terminal 2E; and renovate a portion of Terminal 2W.

The total cost of this program is

approximately $100 million and

is scheduled for completion in

1999. Construction on the west

runway, Runway 18R/36L, will

begin when warranted by

aviation demand. It could be

available as early as 2003. The

estimated cost is $268 million. It

will be located 5,800 ft. west of

Runway 18R/36L (to be renamed

18C/36C). The runway will be

used primarily for arrivals. The

addition of Runway 18R/36L will

allow DFW to accommodate

quadruple simultaneous precision instrument approaches.

Control Tower

Fire Station #1

Fire

Station #2 Fire Station #4

31R

13L

17R 18L

31L

13R

18R

36L

36R 36C 35C 35L

35R

17L

2E

2W

3E 4E

17C 18C

West ATCT

East ATCT

Future Terminal

and Taxiway

Redesign

UPS

Ramp

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 29

DSM — Des Moines International Airport

A Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI) was approved in

August, 1995, for a southwest

extension of Runway 5/23.

Construction began in 1997, and

is expected to be completed in

2001. Cost for construction is

estimated at $31 million, with an

additional estimated $23 million

for road relocation.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

12L

23

30R

30L

5

12R

CONTROL

 TOWER
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 30

DTW — Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport

A fourth north-south parallel, Runway 4/22 is planned.

Construction is expected to

begin in 1999 and should be

completed in 2001. The estimated cost of construction is

$116.5 million. This runway

could potentially permit triple

IFR arrivals with one dependent

and one independent pairing. An

environmental assessment was

submitted in September 1989,

and a record of decision was

issued in March 1990. Land

acquisition will be completed by

early 1999. Relocation of roads,

utilities, and drainage is underway.

21R

21C

21L

27R 27L

9L

9R

3L

3C

3R

Control

Tower

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

22

4
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 31

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 1,000 ft. extension to

Runway 22 is included in the

currently approved Passenger

Facility Charge for the year 2000.

Estimated cost would be $8

million.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 32

EWR — Newark International Airport

An extension to Runway 4L/

22R is currently under construction. The estimated operational

date is 2000.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

4L

4R

22R

22L

11

29

Terminals

Control

Tower

General

Aviation
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 33

FLL — Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport

An extension of the short

parallel Runway 9R/27L to 9,000

ft. is planned to provide the

airport with a second parallel air

carrier runway. Construction is

expected to begin in 2002. The

estimated cost of construction is

$300 million. The anticipated

operational date is 2005. An EIS

is underway and expected to be

completed in 2000. The extended

runway would be used for

arrivals and departures and

would allow dual dependent IFR

arrivals of all types of aircraft.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

27L

31

27R

9L

13

9R

Control

Tower

West

Terminal

North

Terminal

South

Terminal

Taxiway F

Taxiway C

Taxiway A Taxiway A Taxiway A

Taxiway N Taxiway N Taxiway N

Taxiway Z

Taxiway Y

Taxiway D

Taxiway D

Taxiway D

Taxiway C

Taxiway M

Taxiway L Taxiway L

Taxiway H

Taxiway F

Taxiway F

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

Taxiway O

Taxiway Q
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 34

3

7

25

21

U.S. CUSTOMS

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

GEG — Spokane International Airport

Future projects include the

construction of a new parallel

Runway 3L/21R. The new runway will be 8,800 ft. long by 150

ft. wide and will be separated

from Runway 3R/21L by 4,300 ft.

This would enable independent

parallel operations, doubling

hourly IFR arrival capacity. The

estimated cost of construction of

the new runway is approximately $11 million.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 35

GRR — Grand Rapids Kent County International Airport

A new 7,000 ft. parallel

Runway 8L/26R is planned for

future development. The current

8L/26R would be converted into a

taxiway at that time.

26L

26R

8L

8R

GENERAL

AVIATION

PARKING

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL TOWER

AIRPORT BEACON

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

17

35
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 36

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

32

5R

14

23L

CONTROL

 TOWER

 FIRE

STATION

5L

23R

GSO — Greensboro Piedmont Triad International Airport

An extension of Runway 14/

32 is planned. It is expected to

be operational by 2002, at a cost

of $27 million. Construction of a

new 10,000 ft. parallel Runway

5L/23R, 5,300 ft. north of Runway 5/23, is also being planned.

It is expected to be operational

by 2003. The estimated cost is

$150 million. The new runway

would allow dual independent

arrivals and departures in all

weather conditions.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 37

GSP — Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport

A new 8,200 ft. parallel

Runway 3R/21L is anticipated in

2010 at an estimated cost of $65

million. Presently, it is planned

to have a 4,300 ft. separation

from Runway 3L/21R. This would

allow dual independent IFR

arrivals, potentially doubling

hourly IFR arrival capacity. Also,

an extension of Runway 3L/21R

to 11,000 ft. is expected to be

completed by 1999 at a cost of

$34.1 million. The extension

would allow departures of

aircraft with larger payloads and/

or greater haul-lengths.

3L

21R

CONTROL

 TOWER

PASSENGER

 TERMINAL

3R

21L

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 38

GUM — Guam International Airport

Extensions to both Runway

6L/24R and Runway 6R/24L are

proposed. The 2,000 ft. extension to Runway 6L/24R has a

proposed operational date of

2004. The 3,000 ft. extension to

Runway 6R/24L has a proposed

operational date of 2010. Both

runway extensions are expected

to cost $30 million each.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

6L

6R

24R

24L

CONTROL

 TOWER
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 39

HNL — Honolulu International Airport

26L

8R

8L

26R 22L 22R

4L

Hawaii ANG

Hazardous

Cargo Pad

Control

Tower

Fire

Station

GA

Ramps to

Hickam AFB

Shoreline

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

4R

RB

RB RB

RC

RM

RG

RH

RA

RA RA

C

RT

F

D

C

J

K

A

E E

B B

Y

S

D

B

A X

A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

V

B

M

Fire

Station

A

Pacific Ocean
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 40

HOU — Houston William P. Hobby Airport

Terminal

30L

30R

35

12L

12R

17

22

4

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 41

IAD — Washington Dulles International Airport

Two new parallel runways

are under consideration. A

north-south parallel, Runway

1W/19W, would be located 4,300

ft. west of the existing parallels

and north of Runway 12/30.

Estimated opening date is 2009.

This could provide triple independent parallel approaches, if

they are approved. A second

parallel Runway 12R/30L has

been proposed for location 4,300

ft. southwest of Runway 12/30.

The runway is expected to be

completed by 2010.

19R

19L

12

30

1L

1R

CONTROL TOWER

MIDFIELD TERMINAL RAMP

1,000 ft

5,000 ft
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 42

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

32R

32L

14R

14L

8R

8L

9L

9R

26R 26L

27R

27L

Fire

Station

Control

Tower

Fire

Station

IAH — George Bush International Airport

An $8 million 2,000 ft.

extension to Runway 14R/32L is

planned for the year 2000. A

new Runway 8L/26R is planned

to be parallel to, and north of,

the existing Runway 8/26.

Commissioning is tentatively

scheduled for the year 2002.

Runway 8L/26R, in conjunction

with Runways 9/27 and 8/26, has

the potential to support triple IFR

approaches, if approved. Another new runway, parallel to

and south of Runway 9/27, is

also planned in the distant

future. Construction is expected

to cost $95 million for Runway

8L/26R.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 43

ICT — Wichita Mid-Continent Airport

A 1,700 ft. extension to

Runway 1R/19L is proposed for

possible expansion of cargo

operations. This is not considered as a potential development

through 2015.

19L

32

1R

19R

1L

14

TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 44

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

32

14

23L

23R

5R

5L

Terminal

5R

23L

IND — Indianapolis International Airport

Construction of new Runway

5R/23L in 2008 will increase

needed capacity and reduce

anticipated air traffic delays. The

runway will also facilitate

increased air cargo operations.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 45

ISP — Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport

28

24

15L

33R

33L

9

10

15R

TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 46

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

8

21

3

26

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

ITO — Hilo International Airport

A 2,200 ft. east extension of

Runway 8/26 is proposed for

development by 2010.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 47

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

7

13

31

25

MAIN TERMINAL

7R

25L

JAX — Jacksonville International Airport

A new parallel Runway 7R/

25L is being planned. It will be

6,500 ft. south of the existing

Runway 7/25, permitting independent parallel IFR operations

and potentially doubling

Jacksonville’s hourly IFR arrival

capacity. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2010, with

completion expected in 2011.

Estimated cost of construction is

$50 million.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 48

JFK — New York John F. Kennedy International Airport

INTERNATIONAL ARRIVAL

 TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

NORTH

PASSENGER

TERMINAL

13R

13L

31L

31R

4R

22L

22R

4L

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 49

KOA — Kona International at Keahole

17

35

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 50

LAS — Las Vegas McCarran International Airport

7R

7L

1L

1R

19L

19R

25R

25L

Control Tower

Main

Terminal

Charter

International

Terminal

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 51

LAX — Los Angeles International Airport

24R 24L

6R

6L

7R 7L

25R 25L

Admin Bldg/Control Tower

FAA Hangar

Bulk Fuel

Storage

X

X

X X

X

Theme

Structure

Twy 75

Twy 48

Twy 49

Twy K

Twy U

Twy J

TBIT

Note: Some buildings/structures have been removed for clarity.

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

T-1

T-2

T-3

T-8

T-7

T-6

T-5

T-4
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 52

LBB — Lubbock International Airport

An extension to Runway 8/

26 is planned. The start of

construction is scheduled for

2004 and the estimated cost is $5

million. It is anticipated that the

extension will be operational in

2005.

26

35L

8

17R

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

 TOWER

GA PARKING

 GA

PARKING

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 53

LGA — New York LaGuardia Airport

31

13

22

04

Control Tower

Passenger

Terminals

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 54

3

35

21

17

Terminal

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

LIH — Lihue Airport

A 3,500 ft. extension of

Runway 17/35 is proposed.

Expected operational date is

2003, with an estimated project

cost of $30 million.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 55

LIT — Little Rock Adams Field

An extension of Runway 4L/

22R is underway, and should be

operational in late 1998. The

estimated cost of construction is

$31 million.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

22R

36

18

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

 TOWER

4R

4L

22L
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 56

MCI — Kansas City International Airport

In accordance with the

Airport Master Plan, an extension of Runway 1L/19R is currently planned. One additional

parallel runway west of the

existing north-south runway is

being considered.

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

19R

1L

9

27

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINALS

A

B

C

1R

19L
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 57

MCO — Orlando International Airport

Environmental mitigation for

a fourth north-south parallel

runway, Runway 17L/35R, began

October 10, 1990 and is ongoing.

The runway is expected to be

operational in 2002. It will be

located 4,300 ft. 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. This may

prevent aircraft on the planned

dual taxiway from obstructing

the Runway 17R approach.

Terminal

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

18L 18R

36L

36R

35L

35R

17L

17R
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 58

MDT — Harrisburg International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

13

31
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 59

MDW — Chicago Midway Airport

13L

4L

4R

31C

31R

22R

22L

New Terminal

Development

(existing buildings

removed for clarity)

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

13R

31L

13C
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 60

MEM — Memphis International Airport

A reconstruction and extension of Runway 18C/36C is under

way. Construction is expected to

be completed by 2000 at a cost of

$103 million. The extended

runway will allow departures by

aircraft with heavier payloads

and/or greater haul-lengths.

36L 36C 36R

18L

18C

18R

9

27

FedEx

Cargo

Main

Terminals

ANG

North

ANG

South

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 61

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

27L

27R

30

26

9L

9R

8

12

New Terminal Design

and Mid-field Hold Pad

MIA — Miami International Airport

Construction of a new air

carrier runway, 8,600 ft. long

and 800 ft. north of existing

Runway 9L/27R, is expected to

start in 1999 and be completed

by 2002. The estimated cost of

construction is $180 million. An

EIS is expected to be completed

in late 1998. The new runway is

planned for use primarily as an

arrival runway in VFR and nonprecision IFR conditions.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 62

13

19R

19L

31

25L

1R

1L

7L

25R

7R

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

MKE — Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport

A 700 ft. extension to

Runway 7L/25R is to be completed in the summer of 1999.

Extension of this runway from

4,100 ft. to 4,800 ft. will accommodate commuter aircraft and

delay the need for a third parallel

runway until about the year

2015. Anticipated cost of the

runway extension is approximately $1.9 million.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 63

MSP — Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

Construction of the proposed

8,000 ft. Runway 17/35, at a cost

of $175 million, will reduce the

projected 2020 annual delay cost

from $66 million to $38 million.

The runway is expected to be

operational in 2003 and will be

used primarily for departures to

the south and arrivals to the

north. Construction of a 1,000 ft.

extension to the northeast end of

Runway 4/22, at a cost of $10

million, is planned to enhance

non-stop flights to Hong Kong.

The extension is to be operational in late 2000.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Southwest

Cargo Apron

Control

Tower

12R

12L

22

30R

4

30L

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
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 64

MSY — New Orleans International Airport

A new north-south runway,

Runway 18/36, is planned. This

new runway will be near parallel

to the existing Runway 1/19 and

will be located west of the

threshold of Runway 10, approximately 11,000 ft. away from

Runway 1/19. Pending environmental findings and funding

availability, it is expected that

the runway will be completed

around 2010.

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

19

28

10

1

18

36
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 65

OAK — Metropolitan Oakland International Airport

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

TERMINAL

CONTROL

TOWER

11

9R

9L

15

33

27R

27L

29
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 66

OGG — Kahului Airport

An extension of Runway 2/

20 is being planned. An EIS is

underway, and the extension

could be operational by 2001, at

a cost of $47 million.

5

20

23

2

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 67

OKC — Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Airport

Construction of a new west

parallel runway 1,600 ft. west of

Runway 17R/35L is planned to be

operational by 2012. Estimated

cost of construction is $13

million. Extensions to both

north/south runways, Runways

17L/35R and 17R/35L, are also

planned. The estimated cost of

extending the runways is $8

million each. Construction of the

extension to Runway 17R/35L is

expected to start in 2010 and be

completed by 2014. A 1,200 ft.

extension to the northwest of

Runway 13/31 is planned as well.

Construction is slated 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
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 68

OMA — Omaha Eppley Airfield

A 1,000 ft. extension to

Runway 32R and a 3,400 ft.

extension to Runway 14L are

planned. No estimate of cost or

completion dates are available at

this time.

14R

18

36

32L

32R

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

 TOWER

 HOT

CARGO

FIRE STATION

FREIGHT

 RAMP

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

14L
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 69

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
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 70

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
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 71

14

5L

32

23R

Main

Terminal

South Terminal

Control

Tower

Air Cargo

Building

23L

5R

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

ORF — Norfolk International Airport

A new air carrier runway,

Runway 5R/23L, was analyzed by

the Eastern Virginia Capacity

Design Team. A Master Plan

Update is currently underway.

The runway could be operational

by 2005, at an estimated cost of

$75 million, providing the

airport can acquire the small

amount of additional land

required.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 72

PBI — Palm Beach International Airport

Runway 9L/27R is planned to

be extended 1,200 ft. to the west

and 811 ft. to the east, for a total

length of 10,000 ft.. The total

estimated project cost is $12.9

million. An environmental

assessment is planned to be

completed in 1998. Construction

is planned to start in 1999 and be

completed in 2000. The runway

thresholds will remain in their

present locations, therefore, the

extended length will only be

used for departures.

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

13

31

9L

27R

9R

27L

Terminal

Control

Tower
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 73

PDX — Portland International Airport

As a result of the 1996

Capacity Enhancement Plan, two

new high speed taxiway exits

along Taxiway B were constructed, and two exits along

Taxiway C will be constructed in

the future. A north/south

taxiway is also recommended to

connect the east ends of the

parallel runways. Installation of

an ILS on 28L is planned in 1999.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

28L

28R

10L

10R

3

21

Control

Tower

Terminal
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 74

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

9L

9R

27L

27R

35

17

26

8

PHL — Philadelphia International Airport

A new 5,000 ft. parallel

commuter runway, Runway 8/26

is under construction. Grading

and phasing are currently

underway. It will be located

3,000 ft. north of Runway 9R/

27L. Land acquisition and hangar

relocation are underway. The

estimated cost is $220 million.

Commissioning of the runway is

expected in 1999.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 75

PHX — Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

A new third parallel runway,

Runway 7/25, is currently under

construction 800 ft. south of

Runway 8R/26L. The planned

operational date is September

1999. Runway 7/25 is being

constructed to a length of 7,800

ft. The airport layout plan

proposes an ultimate length of

9,500 ft., but further construction is not scheduled at this time.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

26R 26L

Control Tower

8R

8L

25

7
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 76

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 ft. 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 ft. 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.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 77

PNS — Pensacola Regional Airport

35

17

8

26

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Control

Tower

Terminal
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 78

PSP — Palm Springs Regional Airport

Control

Tower

Terminal

31L

31R

13R

13L

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 79

PVD — Providence Theodore Francis Green State Airport

5R

34

23L

23R

16

5L

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

BUILDING

 FIRE

STATION

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 80

PWM — Portland International Jetport

11

36

29

18

Terminal

Air Carrier Ramp

Control Tower

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 81

Terminal B

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Control Tower

Terminal A

5R

5L

23L

23R

14

General Aviation

National Guard

32

Terminal C

RDU — Raleigh-Durham International Airport

A new 9,500 ft. parallel

runway, located approximately

1,050 ft. west of existing Runway 5L/23R, is planned for the

future. Also planned is a 1,500

ft. runway extension to the south

end of existing Runway 5R/23L,

bringing the total useable length

for landings and takeoffs to

9,000 ft. Construction is expected to be complete in 2005.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 82

RIC — Richmond International Airport

An extension of Runway 16/

34 is planned. Construction is

expected to start in 2000.

20

16

34

2

7

25

Control

Tower

Terminal

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 83

RNO — Reno Tahoe International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

16L 16R

34L

34R

25

7

Control Tower
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 84

ROC — Greater Rochester International Airport

Construction of an extension

to Runway 10/28 is being

considered. The estimated cost of

construction is $3.2 million. An

extension to Runway 4/22 is also

being considered, and is expected to cost $4 million. Construction of a new parallel

Runway 4R/22L 700 ft. 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
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 85

RSW — Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional Airport

Planning has begun for a

new 9,100 ft. parallel runway,

Runway 6R/24L, 4,300 ft. or more

southeast of Runway 6/24.

Construction is expected to

begin in 2002. The new runway

should be operational by 2004.

The estimated cost of the project

is $80 million. This new runway

will support independent

parallel operations. A new

terminal complex is planned to

be located between the parallel

runways.

CONTROL

 TOWER

6

24

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

6R

24L
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 86

SAN — San Diego International Lindberg Field

27

9

CONTROL

 TOWER

 FIRE

STATION

 EAST

TERMINAL

 WEST

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 87

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

12R

12L

21L

30L

30R

3R

Control

Tower

Terminal

Building

Fire

Station

12N

30N

N N

T T

D

N

D

D D

R R

D

P

X

A A

B

G G

B

B

G

M

R

S J

J H

K

N F

E

SAT — San Antonio International Airport

Reconstruction and extension of Runway 12L/30R for air

carrier operations is being

planned for beyond 2000, as

demand warrants. A third

parallel runway, Runway 12N/

30N, is in the long term planning

as well, with a time frame of 15-

20 years.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 88

SAV — Savannah International Airport

A new 9,000 ft. parallel

runway, Runway 9L/27R, approximately 5,000 ft. north of

Runway 9/27, is expected to be

constructed in 2020, with an

estimated cost of $20 million.

This runway would allow

independent parallel operations,

thereby potentially doubling

hourly capacity.

27

9

36

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

FIRE STATION

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

18

27R

9L
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 89

SDF — Louisville International Airport

11

29

17L

35R

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

17R

35L
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 90

16L

34L

34R

16R

16W

34W

Control

Tower

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

SEA — Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Airport improvements

include a new Runway 16W/34W,

8,500 ft. in length, which will be

located 2,500 ft. from Runway

16L/34R. Construction began in

1997. The runway will be

completed by 2004 for $585

million.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 91

SFO — San Francisco International Airport

F

F F

W

N

N

P

P

C

C

C

C

C

Q

Q

S S

R

R

R

R

S

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

M

H

H

L L L

E E

E

E

V

J

T

N. Terminal

S. Terminal

GA

USCG

28L

28R

1L

1R

19L

19R

10L

10R

1,000 ft

5,000 ft
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 92

SJC — San Jose International Airport

Environmental documentation is currently being prepared

in support of the extension of

Runway 12L/30R. If this option is

determined to be environmentally acceptable and is adopted

by the sponsor, construction will

begin in 1999.

D

A

A

B

B

B

E E

C

G

H

I

J

2

2

2

1 1 1

4 4

B

B

B

A

A

AIR FREIGHT

AIR CARGO

30L

30R

29

12R

12L

11

TERMINAL

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

TERMINAL

Control

Tower
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 93

SJU — San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport

26

28

10

8

Terminal

Area

North Ramp

East

Ramp

South

Center Ramp

Ramp

Cargo Ramp

Kilo

Ramp

North/South Taxiway

Taxiway S

Taxiway L

Taxiway S

Taxiway H A

B

C

D

E

F K

J

I

G

Z

Y

M

X

W

O

N

V

TT U

T

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 94

SLC — Salt Lake City International Airport

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

35

16L

17

32

34R

Terminal

Control

Tower

34L

16R

14
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 95

SMF — Sacramento international Airport

Northerly extensions to both

runways, to an ultimate length of

12,000 ft. each, are proposed as

long term development items. No

specific time frame for this

development has been identified.

16R

16L

34L

34R

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINALS

 FIRE

STATION

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 96

SNA — John Wayne Airport - Orange County

An extension of Runway 1L/

19R is proposed but is not being

considered at this time.

1L

1R

19R

19L

Terminal

Control Tower

Terminal

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 97

SRQ — Sarasota Bradenton Airport

A new parallel Runway 14L/

32R 1,230 ft. northwest of

Runway 14/32 is being planned

at an estimated cost of $10

million. It is expected to be

operational beyond 2002. IFR

arrivals and departures on the

new runway will be dependent

on Runway 14/32 operations. In

addition, an extension of the

existing Runway 14/32 is

planned at a cost of $5.1 million.

It is expected to be operational

beyond 2002. The runway

extension will allow departures

by larger and heavier aircraft and

by aircraft with longer haullengths.

32

22

4

14

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINAL

X X X X X X X X

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

14L

32R
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 98

STL — Lambert St. Louis International Airport

A new parallel Runway 12R/

30L has been recommended in

the St. Louis Airport Master Plan

Update. The Plan calls for a

parallel runway supporting

independent IFR arrivals. The

Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS) was completed in

December 1997, and construction could begin in 1998. Estimated completion date is 2003.

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

12R

6

12L

24

17

30R

30L

31

13
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 99

SYR — Syracuse Hancock International Airport

A new parallel Runway 10L/

28R, 9,000 ft. long and separated

from the existing Runway 10/28

by 3,400 ft. is being considered.

It would provide independent

parallel IFR operations, doubling

hourly IFR arrival capacity. The

cost of construction is estimated

to be $55 million for the first

phase of the new runway, which

would be 7,500 ft. long, including a parallel taxiway and

connections to the ramp. The

final length of the runway would

be 9,000 ft. A capacity analysis

and needs study is presently

underway. Runway 10R/28L is

planned to be extended 2,000 ft.

to an ultimate length of 11,000

ft.

10

14

32

28

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

BUILDING

U.S. CUSTOMS

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 100

TPA — Tampa International Airport

A third parallel Runway, 17/

35, 10,200 ft. long and 700 ft.

west of Runway 18R/36L, is

being considered. The new

runway would primarily be used

for arrivals with the existing

Runway 18R/36L being used for

departures. A 2,200 ft. extension

of Runway 18L/36R is also being

considered for the time frame

beyond 2005. The Runway 36R

threshold would be relocated

2,600 ft. north. This may allow

for less restricted use of the

runway by reducing noise

impacts on communities south of

the airport. Finally, reconstruction and a 1,200 ft. extension of

Runway 9/27 is being considered

for the time frame beyond 2010.

The extended runway would be

used for arrivals and departures.

Arrivals may be able to landand-hold-short of Runway 18L,

therefore, the extended runway

may allow dependent converging

approaches to Runways 36L and

27.

18L

18R

36L

36R

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

TOWER

AIR CARGO

9

27

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

35

17
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 101

TUL — Tulsa International Airport

A new parallel runway,

Runway 18L/36R, located 6,400

ft. east of the present 18L/36R

and 9,600 ft. long, is being

considered. The new runway

would permit IFR triple independent approaches, if approved, to

Runways 18L, 18C, and 18R.

18R

36L

36R

26

18L

 FIRE

STATION

TERMINAL

BUILDING

U.S. CUSTOMS

8

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 102

TUS — Tucson International Airport

An additional parallel air

carrier runway, Runway 11R/29L,

has been proposed. Upon

completion of the new runway,

the current Runway 11R/29L, a

general aviation runway, will

revert to its original taxiway

status. 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.
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 103

TYS — Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport

5L

5R

23L

23R

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 104
GLOSSARY

APPENDIX C:

AAC .................. Advanced AERA Concepts

AAP .................. Advanced Automation, FAA

AAS .................. Advanced Automation System

ACARS .............. ARINC Communications Addressing and Reporting

System

ACCC ................. Area Control Computer Complex

ACD .................. Engineering, Research and Development Service, FAA

ACE ................... Airport Capacity Enhancement

ALT ................... Airspace Liaison Team

ACF ................... Area Control Facility

ADR .................. Automated Demand Resolution

ADS .................. Automatic Dependent Surveillance

ADSIM .............. Airfield Delay Simulation Model

AEP................... Arrival Enhancement Procedure

AERA ................ Automated En Route Air Traffic Control

AEX .................. Automated Execution

AF ..................... Airway Facilities

AFB ................... Air Force Base

AFSS ................. Automated Flight Service Stations

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

AOCNET ........... Airline Operations Center Network

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
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX C – 2

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

AST................... Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

ASQP ................ Airline Service Quality Performance

ASR................... Airport Surveillance Radar

ASTA ................ Airport Surface Traffic Automation

ATA .................. Air Transport Association

ATC ................... Air Traffic Control

ATCAA.............. Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace

ATCSCC ............. Air Traffic Control System Command Center

ATCT ................ Air Traffic Control Tower

ATIS .................. Automated Terminal Information Service

ATMS ................ Advanced Traffic Management System

ATN .................. Aeronautical Telecommunications Network

ATO .................. Air Traffic Operations Service, FAA

ATOMS ............. Air Traffic Operations Management System

AWDL ............... Aviation Weather Development Laboratory

AWOS ............... Automated Weather Observing System

AWPG ............... Aviation Weather Products Generator

BRAC ................. Base Realignment Closure Program

CAA .................. Civil Aviation Authority

CAEG ................ Computer Aided Engineering Graphics

CAEP................. Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection

CARF ................. Central Altitude Reservation Function

CASA ................ Controller Automated Spacing Aid

CASTWG ........... Converging Approach Standards Technical Working Group

CAT ................... Category

CDTI ................. Cockpit Display of Traffic Information

CDM ................. Collaborative Decision Making

CFWSU.............. Central Flow Weather Service Unit

CIP .................... Capital Investment Plan

CIS .................... Cockpit Information System

CNS ................... Communication, Navigation, and Surveillance
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY

APPENDIX C – 3

CODAS .............. Consolidated Operations and Delay Analysis System

CONDAT ........... CONUS National Airspace Data Access Tool

CONUS .............. Continental United States

CPDLC ............... Controller to Pilot Data Link Communications

CRDA ................ Converging Runway Display Aid

CRS ................... Computer Reservation System

CSD ................... Critical Sector Detector

CTAP ................. Chicago Terminal Airspace Project

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

DATIS................ Digital Automated Terminal Information Service

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

DSR ................... Display System Replacement

DSUA ................ Dynamic Special-Use Airspace

DUATS .............. Direct User Access Terminal Service

DVOR ................ Doppler VOR

EA..................... Environmental Assessment

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

EPA ................... Environmental Protection Agency

ESP ................... En Route Spacing Program

ETMS ................ Enhanced Traffic Management System

EVAS ................. Enhanced Vortex Advisory System
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX C – 4

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

FFP1 .................. Free Flight Phase 1

FIS .................... Flight Information Services

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 Schedule Monitor

FSS .................... Flight Service Station

FT ..................... Feet

FTMI ................. Flight Operations and Air Traffic Management Integration

FY ..................... Fiscal Year

GA .................... General Aviation

GAO .................. General Accounting Office

GDP .................. Gross Domestic Product

GDP .................. Ground Delay Program

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

HFDL ................ High Frequency Data Link

ICAO ................. International Civil Aviation Organization

ICP .................... Initial Conflict Probe

IFCN.................. Inter-Facility Flow Control Network

IFR .................... Instrument Flight Rules

I-LAB ................ Integration and Interaction Laboratory

ILS .................... Instrument Landing System

IMC ................... Instrument Meteorological Conditions

INMARSAT ....... International Maritime Satellite

IOC.................... Initial Operational Capability
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY

APPENDIX C – 5

ISSS................... Initial Sector Suite System

ITS .................... Intelligent Tutoring System

ITWS ................ Integrated Terminal Weather System

LAAS ................ Local Area Augmentation 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

MAMS ............... Military Airspace Management System

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

NASA ................ National Aeronautics and Space Administration

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

NCARC .............. National Civil Aviation Review Commission

NCF ................... National Control Facility

NCT .................. Northern California TRACON

NCP................... NAS Change Proposal

NEPA ................ National Environmental Policy Act

NEXCOM ........... Next Generation Air/Ground Communication

NEXRAD ........... Next Generation Weather Radar

NFDC ................ National Flight Data Center

NLA .................. New Large Aircraft

NMC ................. National Meteorological Center

NMCC ............... National Maintenance Coordination Complex
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX C – 6

NM ................... Nautical Mile

NOAA ............... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOX .................. Oxides of Nitrogen

NPIAS ............... National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems

NRP .................. National Route Program

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

pFAST ............... Passive Final Approach Spacing Tool

PFC ................... Passenger Facility Charge

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

RHSM ............... Reduced Horizontal Separation Minima

RLV ................... Reusable Launch Vehicle

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
1998 ACE PLAN APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY

APPENDIX C – 7

RVR ................... Runway Visual Range

RVSM ................ Reduced Vertical Separation Minima

SAMS ................ Special Use Airspace Management System

SAR................... System Analysis Recording

SARPS ............... Standards and Recommended Practices

SATCOM ........... Satellite Communications

SATS ................. Small Aircraft Transportation System

SCIA.................. Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches

SCT ................... Southern California TRACON

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

SMA .................. Surface Movement Advisor

SMARTFLOW .... Knowledge-Based Flow Planning

SMGC ................ Surface Movement Guidance and Control

SMS .................. Simulation Modeling System

SOIA ................. Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches

SOIR.................. Simultaneous Operations on Intersecting Runways

SOIWR .............. Simultaneous Operations on Intersecting Wet Runways

STAR ................. Standard Terminal Arrival Route

STARS ............... Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System

SUA ................... Special Use Airspace

TACAN .............. Tactical Air Navigation

TAP ................... Terminal Area Productivity

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

TDLS ................. Tower Data Link System

TDP................... Technical Data Package

TDWR ............... Terminal Doppler Weather Radar

TERPS ............... Terminal Instrument Procedures

TFM .................. Traffic Flow Management

TIBS .................. Telephone Information Briefing System

TIDS.................. Tower Integrated Display System

TIS .................... Traffic Information System

TMA ................. Traffic Management Advisor

TMCC ................ Traffic Management Computer Complex

TMS .................. Traffic Management System
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY 1998 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX C – 8

TMU ................. Traffic Management Unit

T-NASA ............. Text Navigation and Situation Awareness

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

TWIP ................ Terminal Weather Information for Pilots

UHF .................. Omnidirectional Course and Distance Information

UPT................... User Preferred Trajectory

USWRP ............. U.S. Weather Research Program

VASI .................. Visual Approach Slope Indicators

VDL .................. VHF Digital Link

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

WARP ............... Weather and Radar Processor