Aviation Capacity Enhancement

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration


4 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1996 ACE PLAN
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

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

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

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

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

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

16. Abstract

15. Supplementary Notes

Technical Report Documentation Page

8. Performing Organization Report No.

DOT/FAA/ASC-96-1

1996 Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

ASC-1

Federal Aviation Administration Office of System Capacity

Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center, Atlantic City, NJ

JIL Information Systems, Inc.

FU Associates, Ltd.

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of System Capacity

Washington, DC 21591

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

FAA organizations, JIL Information Systems, and FU Associates, Ltd.

A comprehensive review of Federal Aviation Administration programs intended to improve

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

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

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

major areas of discussion are:

1) Status of the National Aviation System

2) Airport Development

3) Airspace Development

4) New Operational Procedures

5) Emerging Technology

Civil Aviation

Airport Capacity

Aviation Capacity

Aviation Delay Reduction

Document is available to the public in printed form

(limited quantities) and CD-ROM format through the

FAA Office of System Capacity, or via the internet, at

http://asc-www.hq.faa.gov

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 202

12-31-96
6 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1996 ACE PLAN
Chapter 1: Status of the National Airspace System

Table of Contents

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

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

1.1.2 Aircraft Operations and Passenger Enplanements

at the Top 100 Airports .............................................................. 17

1.1.3 Traffic Volume in Air Route Traffic Control Centers ................ 17

1.2 System Capacity Measures .........................................................19

1.2.1 Delay........................................................................................... 20

1.2.1.1 Delay by Cause ........................................................................... 21

1.2.1.2 Delay by Phase of Flight ............................................................ 21

1.2.1.3 Identification of Delay-Problem Airports .................................. 23

1.2.1.4 Identification of Forecast Delay-Problem Airports.................... 23

1.2.2 Flexibility.................................................................................... 25

1.2.2.1 Ability to Operate Off atc-Preferred Routes ............................. 27

1.2.3 Predictability............................................................................... 28

1.2.4 Access ......................................................................................... 28

Chapter 2: Airport Development

2.1 Airport Construction and Expansion ......................................... 29

2.1.1 Construction of New Airports ................................................... 29

2.1.2 Construction of New Runways and Runway Extensions ........... 30

2.2 Airport Capacity Studies ............................................................ 33

2.2.1 Airport Capacity Design Teams ................................................. 33

2.2.1.1 Recommendations from Previous Airport Capacity Studies ......35

2.2.1.2 Ongoing and Recently Completed

Airport Capacity Design Team Studies ..................................... 37

Atlanta International Airport Update ........................................ 37

Reno/Tahoe International Airport .............................................37

Dallas/Fort Worth International Phase II.................................. 37

Portland International Airport ................................................... 38

Memphis International Airport Update ..................................... 38

Miami International Update ...................................................... 38

Newark International ................................................................. 38

2.2.2 Tactical Initiative Teams............................................................. 39

San Diego International ............................................................. 39

Charlotte/Douglas International ................................................ 39

Los Angeles International ..........................................................39

Las Vegas McCarran International ............................................40

2.2.3 Regional Capacity Design Teams............................................... 40

Northeast Region Capacity Design Study ................................. 40
8 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1996 ACE PLAN

Chapter 3: Airspace Development

3.1 En Route Airspace Studies ......................................................... 41

3.1.1 En Route Airspace Study Methodology .................................... 42

3.1.2 Ongoing En Route Airspace Studies ......................................... 43

3.1.2.1 Dallas/Forth Worth Metroplex Airspace Analysis ..................... 43

3.1.2.2 Chicago Metroplex Airspace Analysis Project ........................... 44

3.1.2.3 SCT/NCT Airspace Analysis and Design Project ........................ 47

3.2 Terminal Airspace Studies .......................................................... 47

3.2.1 Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

Terminal Airspace Study ............................................................ 48

3.3 Commercial Space Transportation ............................................. 48

Chapter 4: New Operational Procedures

4.1 Free Flight ..................................................................................49

4.2 National Route Program ............................................................ 51

4.3 ITC and ITD Using the TCAS Cockpit Traffic Display

for Separation Assistance ........................................................... 51

4.4 Improved Instrument Approach Procedures .............................. 53

4.4.1 Independent Parallel Approaches Using the

Precision Runway Monitor......................................................... 53

4.4.2 Simultaneous Operations on Wet Intersecting Runways ........... 54

4.4.3 Simultaneous Approaches to Three Parallel Runways ............... 55

4.4.4 Simultaneous (Independent) Converging

Instrument Approaches .............................................................. 56

4.5 Wake Vortex Separation Standards ............................................ 57

Chapter 5: Emerging Technology

Emerging Technology ................................................................ 59

5.1 Automation ................................................................................ 61

5.2 Information Systems .................................................................. 64

5.3 Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance ........................ 67

5.4 Weather ...................................................................................... 71
Figure 1-1. ................................................................................................16

Growth in U.S. Passenger Enplanements and Operations,

1991 to 2007

Figure 1-2. ................................................................................................18

Top 100 Airports Based on 1995 Passenger Enplanements

Figure 1-3. ................................................................................................18

CONUS Air Route Traffic Control Centers

Figure 1-4. ................................................................................................19

Operations at CONUS ARTCCs

Figure 1-5. ................................................................................................25

Annual Operations and Delays of Fifteen Minutes or More

Per 1,000 Operations at the Ten Busiest Airports

Figure 1-6. ................................................................................................27

Percentage of Flight Segments Off atc-Preferred Routes Over

a 4 Day Period

Figure 1-7. ................................................................................................28

Monthly Variability in Ground Movement Times at the

Busiest 25 Airports

Figure 3-1. ................................................................................................45

Flight Paths Over Five-Center Area

Figure 3-2. ................................................................................................46

Airspace Design Alternatives for Chicago TRACON

Figure 4-1. ................................................................................................52

In-Trail Climb and In-Trail Descent Using TCAS

Figure 4-2. ................................................................................................53

Independent Parallel Instrument Approaches Using the

Precision Runway Monitor

Figure 4-3. ................................................................................................54

Simultaneous Operations on Wet Intersecting Runways

Figure 4-4. ................................................................................................55

Simultaneous Independent Approaches to Three Parallel

Runways

Figure 4-5. ................................................................................................56

Independent Converging Approach and Missed Approach

Procedure

Figure 5-1. ................................................................................................60

Technology Advancements in the National Airspace System

List of Figures
10 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1996 ACE PLAN
Table 1-1. .................................................................................................. 22

Distribution of Delay Greater Than 15 Minutes by Cause

Table 1-2. .................................................................................................. 22

Average Delay by Phase of Flight

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

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

Selected Airports

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

Airports Exceeding 20,000 Hours of Annual Delay in 1995

and 2005, Assuming No Capacity Improvements

Table 2-1. .................................................................................................. 30

New and Extended Runways — Completed in 1996, Under

Construction, and Planned or Proposed

Table 2-2. .................................................................................................. 34

Completed Airport Capacity, Tactical Initiative, and

Regional Design Studies

Table 2-3. .................................................................................................. 36

Completed Airport Capacity Studies and Recommendations

Table 3-1. .................................................................................................. 41

Completed En Route and Terminal Airspace Studies

Table 3-2. .................................................................................................. 42

Airspace Design Alternatives by Airspace Region

Table 5-1. .................................................................................................. 62

Automation Technology Enhancement Programs

Table 5-2. .................................................................................................. 65

Information Enhancement Programs

Table 5-3. .................................................................................................. 68

CNS Technology Enhancement Programs

Table 5-4. .................................................................................................. 72

Weather Enhancement Programs

List of Tables
12 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1996 ACE PLAN
The purpose of the Aviation Capacity Enhancement (ACE

)

Plan is to describe FAA initiatives to enhance the capacity and

performance of the U.S. Aviation System. The ACE Plan is

produced by the FAA Office of System Capacity (ASC). ASC

identifies and evaluates capacity enhancements such as airport

expansion, airspace redesign, and new operational procedures to

ensure that the capacity of the U.S. Aviation System keeps pace

with demand for aviation services. Although ASC is the only

office with capacity enhancement as its primary mission, the

activities of many offices within the FAA, and other agencies

such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) contribute to

capacity enhancement. ASC coordinates the capacity-improvement efforts of these other offices and organizations.

The ACE Plan is one of several FAA documents that address

system capacity goals and initiatives. The FAA Strategic Plan,

the FAA’s five-year Master Plan, provides high-level capacity

goals and objectives. The National Airspace System (NAS) Architecture Plan, a 20-year roadmap for modernizing the National Airspace System, proposes detailed strategies for capacity

improvements. The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), a biannual ten-year plan, sets forth the type and

estimated costs of airport development considered necessary to

provide a safe, efficient, and integrated system of airports. Recommendations from ASC’s airport capacity studies provide input to the NPIAS.

One measure for assessing system capacity is aircraft delay.

From 1991 to 1995, the number of air carrier operations increased from 35.5 million to 39.4 million. Over the same period, the number of air carrier operations delayed fifteen minutes or more fell from 298,000 to 237,000. However, the average delay per flight held steady at 7.1 minutes. Delays are still

common, especially at certain capacity-constrained airports.

The FAA recognizes that delay is an incomplete measure of

system capacity. In addition to reduced delay, aviation system

users value other aspects of system capacity and performance

such as the flexibility and predictibility of the air traffic control

system as experienced by the user, and user access to FAA services. Through ASC the FAA has begun to asses these aspects of

system performance and capacity and evaluate alternative approaches to capacity enhancement.

The FAA is beginning to transition from an environment of

traditional air traffic control to a more flexible system of air

traffic management, commonly referred to as free flight. Under

the free flight concept, users would have significant autonomy

in determining their routes and speeds in uncongested areas

Overview
14 – PREFACE

PREFACE 1996 ACE PLAN

and would frequently make decisions collaboratively with controllers in congested conditions. Free flight requires an aviation

system with the capacity to efficiently accommodate the demand for services. Thus, the system capacity enhancements

discussed in the ASC Plan — airport development, airspace design, improved operational procedures, and emerging technologies — will contribute to successful implementation of free

flight.

The ASC Plan is organized by chapters. Chapter 1: Status

of the National Aviation System, describes changes in levels of

aviation activity, presents delay trend data, and introduces

baseline data for several new measures of system capacity (predictability, flexibility, and access). Chapter 2: Airport Development, describes ongoing airport construction projects and airport capacity enhancement studies. Chapter 3: Airspace Development, describes ongoing airspace analysis projects designed

to achieve more efficient en route air traffic patterns in congested airspace. Chapter 4: New Operational Procedures, explains the concept of free flight and describes new en route and

terminal approach procedures which increase system capacity

and reduce restrictions on aircraft. Chapter 5: Emerging Technology, describes technological advances in the areas of: automation; information systems; communication, navigation, and

surveillance; and weather, which will improve the quality of

aviation services and support implementation of free flight.

The appendices contain useful data on the aviation system.

Appendix A provides various aviation activity statistics. Appendix B contains diagrams of the Top 100 airports, with descriptions of new or planned construction. Appendix C is a list of

acronyms, and Appendix D is an index.
Changes in aviation capacity requirements are primarily

generated by increases in demand on the existing aviation system. Changes in capacity requirements are also generated by

changes in user expectations regarding the quality and quantity

of aviation services and by the introduction of new technology,

which can contribute to capacity gains. The purpose of this

chapter is to provide information on current and projected

aviation activity and on changes in flight delay and other measures of system capacity and performance. The aviation activity

data are indicators of demand on the system; the system performance measures are indicators of the ability of the aviation system to accommodate the demand.

1.1 Aviation Activity

Aviation activity in the U. S. is expected to grow

significantly over the next decade. This increased demand will

be placed on an aviation system in which key airports and terminal areas are already frequently congested.

1.1.1 U.S. Aircraft Operations and

Enplanements

From 1991 to 1995 the number of aircraft operations in the

U.S. held steady at about 62 million. Over the same period, the

number of air carrier and regional /commuter enplanements

increased steadily from 491.5 million in 1991 to 598.0 million

in 1995, a 22 percent increase. By 2007, operations are expected to increase to 74.5 million (a 19 percent increase over

1995), and enplanements to 953.6 million (a 59 percent increase over 1995). The higher growth predicted for passenger

enplanements relative to aircraft operations is primarily the result of higher load factors and larger seating capacity for air

carrier aircraft. Figure 1-1 illustrates the trend in aircraft operations and passenger enplanements nationwide and at the top

100 airports in the U.S. 1

1. 1995 data is used as a baseline throughout this Plan because 1996 data was

not available and verified at publication time.

Status of the National Airspace SystemChapter 1:
16 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM 1996 ACE PLAN

Top 100 Airports Totals

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 2007

400

600

800

1,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Enplanements (millions)

Operations (millions)

Enplanements Operations

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 2007

400

600

800

1,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Enplanements (millions)

Operations (millions)

Enplanements Operations

System Totals

Figure 1-1.

Growth in U.S. Passenger Enplanements and Operations, 1991 to 2007*

* Enplanement totals include air carriers, both domestic and international,

regionals and commuters.

Operation totals include air carriers, regional, commuter, air taxi, general

aviation, and military.
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 17

1.1.2 Aircraft Operations and Passenger

Enplanements at the Top 100 Airports

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

1995 passenger enplanements, are shown in Figure 1-2.2

The 408.8 million passengers that enplaned at the top 100

airports in 1995 accounted for over 94 percent of all passengers

in the U.S. in 1995.

The number of aircraft operations at the top 100 airports

increased from 25.1 million in 1991 to 26.4 million in 1995, a

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

carrier and regional/commuter enplanements increased from

408.8 million to 543.4 million a 32.9 percent increase. By 2007,

aircraft operations at the top 100 airports are projected to increase to 32.3 million (a 22.3 percent increase over 1995), and

enplanements to 840.4 million (a 105.6 percent increase over

1995).

Operations and enplanement data for 1993, 1994, and 1995

and forecasts of operations and enplanements for the top 100

airports in 2010 are included in Appendix A.

1.1.3 Traffic Volume in Air Route Traffic

Control Centers (ARTCCS)

From 1994 to 1995 instrument flight rules (IFR) operations

increased at 18 of the 20 Continental United States (CONUS)

ARTCCs. The number of aircraft flying under IFR handled by

ARTCCs totaled 40.2 million in 1995, an increase of 3.3 percent

over 1994.

The busiest ARTCCs in 1995 were: Chicago, Cleveland, Atlanta, Washington, and Indianapolis. Forecasts for 2007 indicate a change in ranking of the busiest ARTCCs to: Chicago,

Cleveland, Atlanta, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis. The

ARTCCs with the highest average annual growth rates are Boston and Los Angeles, which are projected to grow by 2.6 and

2.5 percent respectively. Figure 1-3 provides a map of the 20

CONUS ARTCCs. Figure 1-4 shows the number operations by

ARTCC for FY95 and FY96, and forecasted operations for FY07.

2. Based on 1995 passenger enplanements in the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecasts.

Aviation activity in the U. S. is expected to grow significantly over

the next decade. This increased

demand will be placed on an

aviation system in which key airports and terminal areas are already frequently congested.

From 1994 to 1995 instrument

flight rules operations increased at

18 of the 20 Continental United

States ARTCCs. The number of aircraft flying under IFR handled by

ARTCCs totaled 40.2 million in

1995, an increase of 3.3 percent

over 1994.
18 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM 1996 ACE PLAN

Cuba

Florida

Puerto

Rico

Guam

ABQ

BOI

BUR

COS

DFW DAL

ELP

LAS

LAX

LBB

OAK

ONT

PDX

PHX

RNO

SAN

SEA

SFO

SJC

SLC SMF

SNA

TUS

GEG

ATL BHM

BNA

BUF

GSP

CHS

CLE

CLT

CMH

CVG

DAY

DEN

DSM

DTW

GRR

GSO

IAD

ICT

IND

JAX

LIT

MCI

MDT MDW

MEM

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

NGM

AUS

FLL

HOU

IAH

MCO

MIA

MSY

PBI

RSW

SAT

SRQ

TPA

SJU STT

SAV

CAE

PNS

Figure 1-2.

Top 100 Airports Based on 1995 Passenger Enplanements

ZSE

ZOA

ZLA

ZLC

ZDV

ZAB

ZFW

ZHU

ZKC

ZMP

ZAU

ZID

ZME ZTL

ZDC

ZOB ZNY

ZBW

ZMA

ZJX

ZNY

Busiest ARTCCs in 1995

Chicago ZAU

Cleveland ZOB

Atlanta ZTL

Washington ZDC

Indianapolis ZID

Busiest ARTCCs in 2007 - Forecast

Cleveland ZOB

Chicago ZAU

Atlanta ZTL

Indianapolis ZID

Minneapolis ZMP

Figure 1-3.

CONUS Air Route Traffic Control Centers
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 19

Washington (ZDC)

Seattle (ZSE)

Salt Lake City (ZLC)

Oakland (ZOA)

New York (ZNY)

Minneapolis (ZMP)

Miami (ZMA)

Memphis (ZME)

Los Angeles (ZLA)

Kansas City (ZKC)

Jacksonville (ZJX)

Indianapolis (ZID)

Houston (ZHU)

Fort Worth (ZFW)

Denver (ZDV)

Cleveland (ZOB)

Chicago (ZAU)

Boston (ZBW)

Atlanta (ZTL)

Albuquerque (ZAB)

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

Air Route Traffic Control Centers

Operations (000)

1995

1996

2007

Figure 1-4.

Operations at CONUS ARTCCs

1.2 System Capacity Measures

The FAA measures system capacity primarily in terms of

aircraft delay. Capacity enhancing programs have been targeted

at airports, technology, and procedures that appear to be the

cause of, or the solution to, flight delays. Although a principal

goal of the FAA ATC system is to minimize the impact of poor

weather on aircraft operations, poor weather continues to be a

significant source of delay.

The FAA recognizes, however, that delay is an incomplete

measure of system capacity. First, delays are somewhat cyclical;

when delays are reduced due to capacity enhancements, airlines

respond by designing more rigorous schedules, resulting in

The FAA measures system capacity

primarily in terms of aircraft delay.

Capacity enhancing programs

have been targeted at airports,

technology, and procedures that

appear to be the cause of, or the

solution to, flight delays.
20 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM 1996 ACE PLAN

more delays. Also, the aviation system users value other aspects

of system capacity and performance (in addition to delay), such

as:

• Flexibility: the extent to which the air traffic control

system allows users to optimize their operations based

on their own objectives and constraints;

• Predictability: stability in the air traffic management

system as experienced by the user; and

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

and services.

To ensure that capacity-enhancing efforts address these additional facets of system performance, the FAA has begun to develop flexibility, predictability, and access performance measures. Over the next several years, the FAA will continue to develop and refine the new measures, track their progress, and develop targets for improvement. The measures will be used in

addition to delay statistics to monitor the capacity and performance of the aviation system and to evaluate proposed capacity

and performance enhancements.

1.2.1 Delay

Delay is an indicator that capacity is being reached and,

perhaps, exceeded. It is also an indicator of the efficiency of the

air traffic control system. The FAA uses two sources of delay

data. The first is the Air Traffic Operations Management System (ATOMS), in which FAA personnel record aircraft that are

delayed in any stage of flight by 15 minutes or more by specific

cause (weather, terminal volume, center volume, closed runways

or taxiways, and NAS equipment interruptions). A delay is recorded if an aircraft is delayed 15 minutes or more during taxi

out or 15 minutes or more in any enroute center. Thus, an aircraft could be delayed 14 minutes during taxi out and 14 minutes in each ARTCC it passes through and not be recorded as a

delay by ATOMS. Taxi-in delays are not counted.

The second source of delay data is the Airline Service

Quality Performance (ASQP) database. ASQP data are collected

only from airlines with one percent or more of the total domestic scheduled service passenger revenue. ASQP delay data are recorded by phase of flight (i.e., gate-hold, taxi-out, airborne, or

taxi-in delays). ASQP delays range from 1 minute to greater

than 15 minutes. ASQP is used primarily for consumer on-time

performance reporting and is under DOT control.

To ensure that capacity-enhancing

efforts address these additional

facets of system performance, the

FAA has begun to develop

flexibility, predictability, and access performance measures.

Delay is an indicator that capacity

is being reached and, perhaps,

exceeded. The FAA uses two

sources of delay data. The first is

the Air Traffic Operations Management System, and the second

source of delay data is the Airline

Service Quality Performance database.
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 21

1.2.1.1 Delay by Cause

Flight delays exceeding 15 or more minutes were experienced on approximately 237,000 flights in 1995, a decrease of 4

percent from 1994. Weather was attributed as the primary

cause of 72 percent of operations delayed by 15 minutes or

more in 1995, down from 75 percent in 1994. Terminal air

traffic volume accounted for 18 percent of delays of 15 or more

minutes in 1995, down from 19 percent in 1994. Table 1-1 illustrates trends in the distribution of flights delayed 15 minutes

or more by primary cause. With the exception of the split between terminal and center volume delays, the basic distribution

of delay by cause has remained fairly consistent over the past

five years.

Weather-related delays are largely the result of instrument

approach procedures, which are much more restrictive than the

visual procedures used during better weather conditions. During the past few years the FAA has developed more efficient IFR

approach procedures. These new procedures, which increase

ruway capacity, are discussed in Chapter 4. Weather-related delays are also caused by the absence of precision landing aids at

certain airports, preventing aircraft from landing at those airports in bad weather. The FAA continues to install and upgrade

existing instrument landing systems (ILSs) to support continued operations during conditions of reduced visibility. Over the

next 10 years, the FAA will transition to Global Positioning

Satellite (GPS) approaches supplemented by the Wide Area

Augmentation System (WAAS) and the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS). The phase in of GPS will give users instrument appropach access to increasing numbers of runways in the

U.S.

1.2.1.2 Delay by Phase of Flight

Table 1-2 presents the average delay in minutes by phase of

flight. More delays occur during the taxi-out phase than any

other phase. Airborne delays average 4.1 minutes per aircraft.

To put this in perspective, there were approximately 6.2 million

air carrier flights in 1995. With an average airborne delay of

4.1 minutes per aircraft, a total of over 424,000 hours of airborne delay occurred that year, costing the airlines $678 million

at an estimated $1,600 per hour.3

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

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

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

twin-engine aircraft under 12,500 lbs., $42 and $124 per hour respectively.

These figures are based on 1987 dollars.

Flight delays exceeding 15 or

more minutes were experienced

on approximately 237,000 flights

in 1995, a decrease of 4 percent

over 1994. Weather was attributed as the primary cause of 72

percent of operations delayed by

15 minutes or more in 1995.
22 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM 1996 ACE PLAN

Table 1-1.

Distribution of Delay Greater Than 15 Minutes by Cause

Distribution of Delay Greater than 15 Minutes by Cause

Cause

Weather

Terminal Volume

Center Volume

Closed Runways/Taxiways

NAS Equipment

Other

Total Operations

Delayed (000s)

Percent of Total

Operations

1991 1992 1993

65% 65% 72%

27% 27% 22%

0% 0% 0%

3% 3% 3%

2% 2% 2%

3% 3% 2%

298 281 276

0.47% 0.44% 0.44%

1994

75%

19%

0%

2%

2%

2%

248

0.40%

1995

72%

18%

0%

3%

3%

4%

237

0.38%

Table 1-2.

Average Delay by Phase of Flight4

Average Delay by Phase of Flight

(minutes per flight)

1991 1992 1993

1.1 1.1 1.0

6.9 6.9 6.9

4.1 4.1 4.1

2.2 2.2 2.2

14.3 14.3 14.2

7.1 7.1 7.1

1994

1.1

6.8

4.1

2.2

14.2

7.1

Phase

Gate-hold

Taxi-out

Airborne

Taxi-in

Total

Minutes per Operation

1995

1.1

6.8

4.1

2.2

14.2

7.1

4. Gate-hold: The time held at the gate due to the ATC gate-hold.

Taxi-Out: The delay between gate departure and take-off.

Airborne: The delay while in flight.

Taxi-in: The delay between touchdown time and gate arrival.

Mins/op: Average delay in minutes per operation.
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 23

1.2.1.3 Identification of Delay-Problem

Airports

For five consecutive years, the number of flights exceeding

15 minutes of delay has declined. From 1994 to 1995, the

number of airline flight delays of 15 minutes or more decreased

at 27 of the 55 airports at which the FAA collects air traffic delay statistics. Table 1-3 lists the number of operations delayed

15 minutes or more per 1,000 operations from 1991 to 1995 at

51 of these airports. These delays ranged from nearly 55 per

1,000 operations at San Francisco International Airport to 0.09

per 1,000 at Albuquerque International Airport. Three of the

top ten airports with delays of 15 or more minutes were in the

New York area.

Figure 1-5 illustrates trends in operations and delays at ten

of the busiest airports in the United States from 1991 to 1995.

For most of the ten busiest airports, a smaller proportion of

flights were delayed 15 minutes or more in 1995 than in 1991,

while the number of operations increased. Exceptions are Atlanta, Los Angeles, and St. Louis, where delays were more

common in 1995 than in 1991. In both St. Louis and Atlanta,

completed capacity enhancements (see Table 2-3) and planned

new runways (see Table 2-1) should help to reduce delays at

these airports in the future.

1.2.1.4 Identification of Forecast DelayProblem Airports

Despite ongoing capacity improvements and reduced delays

system-wide, certain airports continue to account for

significant delays. In 1995, 25 airports each exceeded 20,000

hours of annual aircraft flight delays. With an average aircraft

operating cost of about $1,600 per hour of delay, each of these

25 airports contributed to at least $32 million dollars in annual

delay costs. Assuming airport capacity is not improved, 29 airports are forecast to exceed 20,000 hours of annual aircraft

flight delays each by the year 2005. Airports exceeding 20,000

hours of annual delay in 1995 and in 2005, assuming no capacity improvements, are listed in Table 1-4.

For five consecutive years, the

number of flights exceeding 15

minutes of delay has declined.

Despite ongoing capacity improvements and reduced delays systemwide, certain airports continue to

account for significant delays.
24 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM 1996 ACE PLAN

Table 1-3.

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

 * 1991 thru 1994 data is for Denver Stapleton Airport, which closed in 1995.

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

3.90

2.36

4.29

0.32

2.43

1.09

1.50

1.32

2.00

1.02

1.05

0.13

0.38

0.68

2.09

1.99

6.42

5.04

3.73

5.04

5.99

2.98

1.62

0.42

2.88

1.42

1991

58.13

29.90

67.26

61.63

47.94

14.80

35.32

22.09

32.84

41.67

23.96

12.62

9.26

7.87

16.87

5.61

0.14

6.68

5.28

18.85

9.68

9.01

10.16

7.09

28.44

1992

30.18

14.96

83.48

55.23

45.40

19.75

29.82

29.90

34.61

41.23

9.68

7.86

11.24

4.36

18.47

11.03

0.56

8.16

5.95

13.19

6.19

7.33

3.03

2.12

26.26

3.69

1.58

8.95

2.74

5.07

8.04

5.80

0.75

1.33

0.31

4.29

1.78

2.91

1.96

1.74

0.20

1.10

0.62

1.02

0.34

3.60

2.11

0.29

0.13

0.13

0.69

1993

23.79

19.54

87.88

38.32

47.49

9.15

33.71

23.28

39.23

35.68

10.48

8.06

9.05

7.16

18.75

9.34

0.30

2.86

6.38

6.78

3.79

6.86

3.91

2.98

37.92

3.77

2.37

4.72

3.49

3.86

6.86

3.94

1.26

1.24

0.46

3.88

1.94

2.72

0.95

0.38

0.10

1.03

0.33

0.81

0.74

1.99

0.57

0.29

0.05

0.19

0.27

1994

28.46

22.72

74.29

47.37

26.83

10.96

37.65

19.98

29.79

35.79

10.47

5.52

6.95

3.52

20.85

10.44

0.71

3.48

6.40

6.09

4.90

8.43

2.51

3.10

18.14

2.92

1.62

5.37

2.96

2.79

4.20

5.15

1.82

0.96

0.78

3.22

2.41

1.55

1.15

0.72

0.35

0.79

0.21

0.39

0.29

1.25

0.45

0.76

0.03

0.08

0.21

1995

54.71

33.87

33.81

33.65

30.93

27.03

26.80

24.26

22.15

17.38

11.00

10.79

10.52

9.23

6.89

5.61

5.29

4.97

4.88

4.77

4.75

4.54

4.41

4.03

4.01

3.98

3.74

3.61

3.36

3.16

2.99

2.68

2.22

1.96

1.62

1.62

1.47

1.46

1.29

1.03

0.87

0.86

0.60

0.57

0.51

0.50

0.40

0.24

0.20

0.17

0.09

ID

SFO

STL

EWR

LGA

ORD

LAX

DFW

ATL

BOS

JFK

MIA

IAH

DTW

MSP

PHL

DCA

SJU

PHX

CVG

SEA

CLT

IAD

SAN

MDW

DEN

FLL

CLE

MCO

HOU

SLC

PIT

BWI

MCI

ONT

LAS

TPA

PDX

BNA

BDL

SJC

SAT

MEM

MSY

PBI

ANC

RDU

IND

DAY

OGG

HNL

ABQ

Airport

San Francisco International Airport

Lambert St. Louis International Airport

Newark International Airport

New York LaGuardia Airport

Chicago O’Hare International Airport

Los Angeles International Airport

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport

Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport

Boston Logan International Airport

New York John F. Kennedy International Airport

Miami International Airport

Houston Intercontinental Airport

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

Philadelphia International Airport

Washington National Airport

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

Greater Cincinnati International Airport

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Charlotte/Douglas International Airport

Washington Dulles International Airport

San Diego International Lindberg Field

Chicago Midway Airport

Denver International Airport*

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

Orlando International Airport

Houston William P. Hobby Airport

Salt Lake City International Airport

Greater Pittsburgh International Airport

Baltimore-Washington International Airport

Kansas City International Airport

Ontario International Airport

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport

Tampa International Airport

Portland International Airport

Nashville International Airport

Bradley International Airport

San Jose International Airport

San Antonio International Airport

Memphis International Airport

New Orleans International Airport

Palm Beach International Airport

Anchorage International Airport

Raleigh-Durham International Airport

Indianapolis International Airport

Dayton International Airport

Kahului Airport

Honolulu International Airport

Albuquerque International Airport
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 25

ATL BOS DFW EWR JFK LAX LGA ORD SFO STL

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

ATL BOS DFW EWR JFK LAX LGA ORD SFO STL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Delays of 15 Minutes or More Per 1,000 Operations

Operations 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Figure 1-5.

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

the Ten Busiest Airports

1.2.2 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 by 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-peferred routes.

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.
26 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM 1996 ACE PLAN

Table 1-4.

Airports Exceeding 20,000 Hours of Annual Delay in 1995 and 2005,

Assuming No Capacity Improvements

Annual Aircraft Delay in Excess of 20,000 Hours

1995 2005

Atlanta Hartsfield ATL

Boston Logan BOS

Baltimore-Washington BWI

Charlotte/Douglas CLT

Cincinnati CVG

Washington National DCA

Dallas-Ft. Worth DFW

Detroit DTW

Newark EWR

Honolulu HNL

Houston Intercont’l IAH

New York John F. Kennedy JFK

Las Vegas LAS

Los Angeles LAX

New York La Guardia LGA

Orlando MCO

Chicago Midway MDW

Memphis MEM

Miami MIA

Minneapolis-Saint Paul MSP

Chicago O’Hare ORD

Philadelphia PHL

Phoenix PHX

Pittsburgh PIT

San Diego SAN

Seattle-Tacoma SEA

San Francisco SFO

Salt Lake City SLC

St. Louis STL St. Louis STL

Atlanta Hartsfield ATL

Boston Logan BOS

Charlotte/Douglas CLT

Washington National DCA

Denver Stapleton DEN

Dallas-Ft. Worth DFW

Detroit DTW

Newark EWR

Honolulu HNL

Houston Intercont’l IAH

New York John F. Kennedy JFK

Las Vegas LAS

Los Angeles LAX

New York La Guardia LGA

Orlando MCO

Miami MIA

Minneapolis-Saint Paul MSP

Chicago O’Hare ORD

Philadelphia PHL

Phoenix PHX

Pittsburgh PIT

Salt Lake City SLC

Seattle-Tacoma SEA

San Francisco SFO

Source: FAA Office of Policy and Plans
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM

CHAPTER 1 – 27

1.2.2.1 Ability to Operate

Off ATC-Preferred Routes

ATC-preferred routes are important tools that help air

traffic controllers organize traffic flows around major airports.

It may never be possible or desirable to eliminate all published

ATC-preferred routes. However, the FAA is studying the ATCpreferred route system to determine if certain ATC-preferred

routes could be eliminated without negatively impacting system

operations. Initial analysis indicates that at selected locations,

primarily in the western United States, many ATC-preferred

routes could be canceled.

On a given day, approximately 30 per cent of flights operate

between cities with published ATC-preferred routes. Once airborne, the majority of these flights are allowed to deviate from

these published routes. This ability to deviate off the ATC-preferred route structure represents a significant portion of the

flexibility allowed to users in the air traffic management system.

It is possible to quantify this flexibility by examining the percentage of segments that were flown off of the ATC-preferred

routes in each of the 20 en route air traffic control centers. Figure 1-6 illustrates the percentage of flight segments off the

ATC-preferred route over a four day period.

ZSE

ZOA

ZLA

ZLC

ZDV

ZAB

ZFW

ZHU

ZKC

ZMP

ZAU

ZID

ZME ZTL

ZDC

ZOB ZNY

ZBW

ZMA

ZJX

ZNY

91-100%

81-90%

71-80%

61-70%

51-60%

Figure 1-6.

Percentage of Flight Segments Off ATC-Preferred Routes Over a 4 Day Period

On a given day, approximately

30 per cent of flights operate between cities with published ATCpreferred routes. Once airborne,

the majority of these flights are allowed to deviate from these published routes.
28 – CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: NATIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM 1996 ACE PLAN

1.2.3 Predictability

The majority of system users rely on schedules that define

when aircraft 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, moving to the terminal (taxi-in) and from the gate to

the end of the runway (taxi-out). There are many factors that

impact ground movement times, including level of demand,

weather, and airport runway configuration. Figure 1-7 illustrates monthly variability in ground-movement times at the

busiest 25 airports from January 1995 to October 1996.

Monthly variability in taxi-out times ranges from 18 to 55

minutes. There is less variability in taxi-in times, with monthly

averages of about 3 minutes.

Jan 95

Feb 95

Mar 95

Apr 95

May 95

Jun 95

Jul 95

Aug 95

Sep 95

Oct 95

Nov 95

Dec 95

Jan 96

Feb 96

Mar 96

Apr 96

May 96

Jun 96

Jul 96

Aug 96

Sep 96

Oct 96

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Minutes

Taxi-Out

Taxi-In

Figure 1-7.

Monthly Variability in Ground Movement Times at the Busiest 25 Airports

1.2.4 Access

Access to the air traffic management system, airports, airspace, and other FAA services is a basic need of all airspace users. The FAA is beginning to measure access to flight services by

measuring call waiting times. Access to airports can be assessed

by counting the number of airports with published approaches

and with precision approach capability. In 1995, 2,010 airports

had published approaches, and 659 airports had precision approach capability. Increases in the number of airports with published approaches and precision-approach capability will be

tracked by the FAA over time.

One of the most unpredictable

portions of a flight is the time the

aircraft spends on the ground,

moving to the terminal (taxi-in) and

from the gate to the end of the runway (taxi-out).

Access to airports can be assessed

by counting the number of airports

with published approaches and

with precision approach capability.
Over the past five years, flight delays have been steadily decreasing while operations have increased. The success in reducing delays is due to airport and airspace development and the

adoption of new operational procedures and technologies. According to the National Airspace System (NAS) Architecture, a

20-year evolutionary plan for modernizing the U.S. aviation

infrastructure, the effectiveness of proposed NAS improvements

will be constrained by the number of runways available; more

runways need to be built to increase airport capacity commensurate with air traffic growth. The FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) shows that planned improvements will produce adequate capacity to meet the forecasted

growth in aggregate demand, but that additional enhancements

will be required to relieve congestion in certain airports and regions.

2.1 Airport Construction and Expansion

Airport development frequently entails the construction of

new terminals, new and expanded runways, and improved

airfield design. In large metropolitan areas with frequent flight

delays but 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.

2.1.1 Construction of New Airports

The largest aviation system capacity gains result from the

construction of new airports; however, given the high cost of

airport construction (e.g., more than $4 billion for new Denver

International Airport, which opened in 1995), building a new

airport is not a common capacity enhancement technique.

The only large new airport currently under construction is

in Austin, Texas. Bergstrom AFB is being converted to an airport for civilian use to replace Robert Mueller Airport, which

can no longer meet growing demand. The new airport is scheduled to open for cargo service in June 1997 and for passenger

service by May 1999. The conversion of Bergstrom from a

military to a civilian facility is a success from the perspectives of

efficiently using a closed military base and expanding civil aviation airport capacity.

Airport Development

Chapter 2:
30 – CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1996 ACE PLAN

2.1.2 Construction of New Runways and

Runway Extensions

The construction of new runways and extension of existing

runways are the most direct and significant actions that can 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.

Of the top 100 airports, seven completed runway construction projects in 1996, and nine are presently constructing new

runways or runway extensions. Sixty-four of the top 100 airports have recently completed, or are in the process of developing, new runways or runway extensions to increase airport capacity. Table 2-1 lists new runways and runway extensions that

were completed in 1996, are under construction, or are planned

or proposed at the top 100 airports.

Of the 25 airports exceeding 20,000 hours of air carrier

flight delay in 1995 (see Table 1-4) 16 are in the process of

constructing, or planning the construction of, new runways or

extensions of existing runways. Of the 29 airports forecast to

exceed 20,000 hours of annual air carrier delay in 2005, 20 are

building, or propose to build, new runways or runway extensions.

Table 2-1.

New and Extended Runways — Completed in 1996, Under Construction,

and Planned or Proposed

Est Cost Operational Completed Under

Airport Runway ($M) Date in 96 Construction

Albany (ALB) 10/28 extension 5.8 2000

1R/19L parallel 7.5 2010

Atlanta (ATL) 5th E/W parallel 418 2000

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

Bergstrom (new Austin) 17L/35R parallel 46 1998

west runway renovation 10 1996 X

Boise(BOI) 10L/28R extension 8 1998

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

Charlotte (CLT) 18W/36W 3rd parallel 122 2000

Chicago Midway (MDW) 4R/22L reconstruction 32 1997 X

Cleveland-Hopkins (CLE) 5W/23W replacement 180 2000

5L/23R extension 40 2005

Port Columbus (CMH) 28R extension X

10L extension na 1997 X

Over the past five years, flight delays have been steadily decreasing while operations have increased. The success in reducing

delays is due to airport and airspace development and the adoption of new operational procedures and technologies.

The construction of new runways

and extension of existing runways

are the most direct and significant

actions that can improve capacity

at existing airports.
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 2: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 2 – 31

Table 2-1 (continued).

New and Extended Runways — Completed in 1996, Under Construction,

and Planned or Proposed

Est Cost Operational Completed Under

Airport Runway ($M) Date in 96 Construction

Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) 18L/36R extension 20 1999

18R/36L extension 20 1999

17L/35R new parallel X

18R/36L new parallel 150 2001

17C/35C extension 15 1998 X

Denver International (DEN) 16R/34L parallel 75 2000

Des Moines (DSM) 05 extension 21.5 1999

Detroit (DTW) 4/22 parallel 116.5 2001

El Paso (ELP) 8L/26R parallel 30 2010+

22 extension 8 2000

Fort Lauderdale (FLL) 9R/27L extension 270 2002

Fort Myers (RSW) 6R/24L parallel 80 2002

Grand Rapids (GRR) 18/36 extension 58 1997 X

Greensboro (GSO) 5L/32R parallel n/a 2020

14/32 extension 15.7 2005

Greer (GSR) 3R/21L parallel 50 2015

3L21R extension 34.1 1999

Houston Intercontinental (IAH) 14R/32L extension 8 n/a

8L/26R parallel 44 n/a

9R/27L parallel 44 n/a

Jacksonville (JAX) 7R/25L parallel 50 2006

Kahului (OGG) 2/20 extension 40 1998

Kansas City (MCI) 1L/19R extension 12 n/a

Las Vegas (LAS) 1L/19R reconstruction 50 1997 X

Little Rock (LIT) 4L/22R extension 31 1998 X

Louisville (SDF) 17R/35L parallel 59 1997 X

Lubbock (LBB) 8/26 extension 5 2005

Memphis (MEM) 18E/36E new parallel 1997 X

18C/36C extension 94.6 1999

Miami (MIA) 8/26 new parallel 149 2000

Midland (MAF) 10/28 extension 5 2008

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

7L25R realignment X

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

Minneapolis (MSP) 17/35 air carrier 120 2003

4/22 extension X

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

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

New Orleans (MSY) 1L/19R parallel 400 2005

10/28 parallel n/a n/a

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

Norfolk (ORF) 5R/23L parallel 75 2005

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

11/29 extension n/a n/a

Oklahoma City (OKC) 17L/25R extension 8 2014

17R/35L extension 8 2014

17W/35W parallel 13 2004

13/31 extension 5 2005

Omaha Eppley Field (OMA) 14R/32L extension X
32 – CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1996 ACE PLAN

Table 2-1 (continued).

New and Extended Runways — Completed in 1996, Under Construction,

and Planned or Proposed

Est Cost Operational Completed Under

Airport Runway ($M) Date in 96 Construction

Orlando (MCO) 17L/35R 4th parallel 137 2002

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

Palm Beach (PBI) 9L/27R extension 10 1999

9R/27L extension .5 2001

Philadelphia (PHL) 8/26 parallel-commuter 220 n/a

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

Phoenix (PHX) 7/25 3rd parallel 88 1998

8L26R extension 7 2000

Pittsburgh (PIT) 4th parallel 10/28 150 n/a

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

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

3rd parallel n/a n/a

Richmond (RIC) 16/34 extension 45 1997 X

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

34R extension n/a n/a

Rochester (ROC) 4R/22L parallel 10 2010

4/22 extension 4 2000

10/28 extension 3.2 2000

St. Louis (STL) 12R/30L 500 2002

San Antonio (SAT) 12L/30R reconstruction 20 2006

12N/30N new runway 400 n/a

San Jose (SJC) 12L/30R extension

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

Sarasota-Bradenton (SRQ) 14L/32R parallel 10 2002+

14/32 extension 5.1 2002+

Savannah (SAV) 9L/27R new parallel 20 2020

Seattle-Tacoma (SEA) 16W/34W parallel 400 n/a

Spokane (GEG) 3L/21R 11 2001

Syracuse (SYR) 10L/28R 55 n/a

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

9/27 reconstruction n/a 2010+

18L extension n/a 2005+

Tucson (TUS) 11R/29L parallel 30 2005

Tulsa (TUL) 18L/36R parallel 115 2005

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

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

Total of Available estimated costs: $4,018.5M

n/a = no data available at press time
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 2: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 2 – 33

2.2 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. ASC forms

Airport Capacity Design Teams, Tactical Initiative Teams, and

Regional Design Teams to focus on maximizing the capacity at

existing airports through improvements in runways and taxiways, navigational and guidance aids, and operational procedures. Table 2-2 lists the completed airport capacity, tactical

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

published. Ongoing capacity studies are described below.

2.2.1 Airport Capacity Design Teams

Airport Capacity Design Teams are formed to 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; and other aviation industry representatives. The goal of Airport Capacity Design Teams is to identify and evaluate proposals to increase airport capacity, improve

airport efficiency, and reduce aircraft delays while maintaining

or improving aviation safety.

To achieve their objectives, the Capacity Design Team:

• Assesses the current airport capacity;

• Examines the causes of delay associated with the

airfield, the immediate airspace, and the apron and

gate-area operations; and

• Evaluates capacity and delay benefits of alternative air

traffic control (ATC) procedures, new technologies,

airfield development, and operational improvements.

Airport Capacity Design Teams consider capacity improvement alternatives proposed by ASC and the other Team members. The impacts of alternatives that are considered technically

feasible are evaluated by computer simulation modeling conducted by the FAA Technical Center’s Aviation Capacity

Branch. The product of the study is a set of capacity-increasing

recommendations, complete with planning and implementation time horizons. Environmental, socioeconomic, and political implications of the alternatives are not evaluated by the design teams. These implications are addressed by the FAA and

local authorities if and when the airport authority chooses to

pursue one or more of the design alternatives.

As environmental, financial, and

other constraints continue to restrict the development of new airports in the United States, emphasis has been placed on the redevelopment and expansion of existing airport facilities.

The goal of Airport Capacity Design Teams is to identify and evaluate proposals to increase airport

capacity, improve airport

efficiency, and reduce aircraft delays while maintaining or improving aviation safety.
34 – CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1996 ACE PLAN

Table 2-2.

Completed Airport Capacity, Tactical Initiative, and Regional Design Studies

Study Date

Capacity Enhancement Plans

Albuquerque Int’l 1993

Boston Logan Int’l 1992

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l 1991

Chicago Midway 1991

Chicago O’Hare Int’l 1991

Cleveland-Hopkins Int’l 1994

Dallas-Ft. Worth Int’l 1994

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 1988

Eastern Virginia Region 1994

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l 1993

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l 1991

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l 1987

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Update 1995

Honolulu Int’l 1992

Houston Intercontinental 1993

Indianapolis Int’l 1993

Kansas City Int’l 1990

Lambert St. Louis Int’l 1988

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l 1994

Los Angeles Int’l 1991

Memphis Int’l 1988

Metropolitan Orlando Int’l 1990

Miami Int’l 1989

Minneapolis-Saint Paul Int’l 1993

Nashville Int’l 1991

New Orleans Int’l 1992

Oakland Int’l 1987

Philadelphia Int’l 1991

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l 1989

Port Columbus Int’l 1993

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
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 2: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 2 – 35

The presence of a recommended improvement in a Capacity Design Team report does not obligate the FAA to provide

Facilities and Equipment (F&E) or Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds. Demands for F&E and AIP funds exceed the

FAA’s limited resources, and projects recommended by a Design

Team must compete with all projects for these limited funds.

2.2.1.1 Recommendations from Previous

Airport Capacity Studies

Since 1985, 39 Airport Capacity Design Team studies have

been completed. The typical Airport Capacity Design Team

makes 20 to 30 recommendations for improvements to reduce

delay at each airport. Table 2-3 lists completed airport capacity

studies and their recommendations according to generalized

categories of improvements. The table indicates those recommendations that were implemented, have been completed, and

are no longer under consideration.

Airfield improvements were recommended for all of the 39

airports studied. Common airfield recommendations include

building or extending runways and taxiways, and improving exits and staging areas to increase efficiency of the existing runways. At least one of the recommended airfield improvements

has been completed at 28 of the 39 airports. Airfield improvements such as construction of new runways and runway extensions may take more than ten years from proposal to completion due to financing constraints and the need to study and address environmental concerns.

Common recommendations for improving F&E are the installation or upgrade of ILSs to improve runway capacity during

IFR operations, and the installation of RVRs and lighting systems. Improvements to F&E and operations are generally less

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

implement F&E recommendations is contingent upon the ability to obtain financing. F&E improvements such as the installation of RVRs and lights generally follow 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.

Since 1985, 39 Airport Capacity

Design Team studies have been

completed. The typical Airport Capacity Design Team makes 20 to

30 recommendations for improvements to reduce delay at each airport, covering airfield, F&E, and

procedural improvements.
36 – CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1996 ACE PLAN

Table 2-3.

Completed Airport Capacity Studies and Recommendations

Airports

Recommended ImprovementsAirfield Improvements

Construct third parallel runwayConstruct fourth parallel runwayRelocate 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.

√ Recommended

C Completed

√ No Longer Under

Consideration

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

Miami C √ C C C C C C C C

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

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

Dallas-Ft. Worth C √ C C C C C

Cleveland √ √ √√ √ √ √√ √ √ √ √ √ √

Chicago O’Hare √ √ √ √ C C C C

Chicago Midway √ √√ C C

Boston √√√√ √ √ √ C C

Richmond √√ √ √ √ √ √

New Orleans C √ √ C C C C

Norfolk √ √ √ √ √

Newport News √ √ √ √

Philadelphia √ √ √ √ √√√

Oakland √ √ √

Seattle-Tacoma √ C √ √ √ C √

Salt Lake City C CC CCC C C C √ √ √ √

St. Louis √ √√ C √√ √ C C C √

Phoenix √ √ √ √ √√√ √√ C CC C C C

Albuquerque CCCC C √√ √ √ √ √

Charlotte-Douglas C C √ √√ √ √√ √ √ C

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

Memphis C √√ √ C C C √ √

Nashville √ √√ √ CC C C √ √ √ √ √

Orlando √ √ √ √ √ √√ √ √ √ C C

Pittsburgh √ √ C C √ √

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

San Antonio √ √ √ √ C CC √ √ √ √√ √ √

San Jose C CC C

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

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

San Fransisco √√ √ √√ C C √ C

Portland √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Los Angeles C C √√√ CC C √

Las Vegas √ √ C C C √ √ √ C

Kansas City √ √ C √√√ √ √ C √ √ √

Indianapolis √ √ C √ √√ √√√ √ √ √ √

Honolulu √ √√√ √√ √ C

Atlanta C C C C C C C C C C √ √ √
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 2: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 2 – 37

2.2.1.2 Ongoing and Recently Completed

Airport Capacity Design Team Studies

In FY96, seven Airport Capacity Design Team studies or

updates of previous studies were completed or in progress. The

studies are summarized briefly below.

Atlanta International Airport Update (ATL)

The Airport Capacity Design Team update for Atlanta

Airport analyzed the separation of new runways, taxiway design, and routing for the weight-restricted arrival-only commuter runway. Land acquisition for the new runway is underway.

Reno/Tahoe International Airport (RNO)

An Airport Capacity Design Team for Reno/Tahoe International Airport (RNO) was formed in February 1995. The report is expected to be published in April 1997. Reno has experienced steady and sustained growth over the last decade. Passenger enplanements increased over 106 percent from 1.4 million in 1983 to 2.9 million in 1995. Recommended airfield improvements included construction of a new apron, a new concourse, deicing facilities, and runway and taxiway extensions.

F&E recommendations for improvements included development of precision approaches and installation of Doppler radar

and runway visual range (RVR) systems. Procedural recommendations included adoption of land, hold short procedures, and

2.5 NM in-trail separation.

Dallas/Fort Worth International Phase II (DFW)

Phase II of the Dallas/Fort Worth study was completed in

April 1996. It examined the delay associated with runway

crossings and the benefits of perimeter taxiways. The study also

addressed how to maintain capacity during the reconstruction

of one or possibly two of the existing east parallel runways.

Runway reconstruction will occur in phases, with portions of

runways remaining open for commuter operations. Evaluation

of cost/benefits of perimeter taxiways will continue as part of

the DFW Airport Development Plan update.
38 – CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1996 ACE PLAN

Portland International Airport (PDX)

A Capacity Design Team was formed in 1994 to identify

and assess various options for increasing capacity and operational efficiency and for reducing aircraft delays at PDX. The

study was completed in December 1996. Some of the various

proposals were:

• 1.5 NM stagger when utilizing the ILS to runways 10L

and 28L;

• Immediate north divergent turns for turbo prop aircraft

in both flow directions;

• Peak period use of runway 3 for arrivals by small cargo

aircraft;

• Immediate divergent turns for all aircraft; and

• Construct north/south taxiway connecting the east ends

of the parallel runways.

Memphis International Airport Update (MEM)

The primary goals of the capacity plan update, which began

in May 1995, are to update the Memphis Master Plan and

conduct computer modeling to determine how best to use the

new third parallel runway, to be operational in early 1997,

while existing runways are being reconstructed.

Miami International Update (MIA)

The Miami update study began in September 1995. The

Capacity Design Team will analyze a new, closely-spaced parallel runway and “Super” Terminal. Both an airfield study and a

limited airspace study are being conducted.

Newark International (EWR)

A study of Newark began in November 1996. Capacity improvements under consideration include: the extension of runway 22R/4L; various facility and equipment upgrades; and the

adoption of improved approach procedures such as reducing

minimum IFR separations on final approach, and permitting simultaneous parallel visual approaches.
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 2: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 2 – 39

2.2.2 Tactical Initiative Teams

Tactical Initiative Teams are focused on providing immediate relief to airports with chronic delay through capacity improvements that can be implemented in the near term. The

recommendations of Tactical Initiative Teams generally focus

on procedural changes that can be implemented quickly with

little financial investment. Tactical Initiative projects that were

completed or ongoing in 1996 are summarized below.

San Diego International (SAN)

The San Diego study began in May 1996. The Tactical Initiative Team is analyzing the airport operatio’s Immediate Action Plan which includes near-term improvements such as an

additional terminal concourse, taxiway development, and remote aircraft parking areas. The study will analyze major

airfield improvement concepts developed in the 1997 airport

master plan study.

Charlotte/Douglas International (CLT)

The Charlotte/Douglas (CLT) study was completed in September 1995. The CLT Tactical Initiative Team analyzed nearterm taxiway improvements to facilitate traffic flows and to reduce delays in every configuration.

Los Angeles International (LAX)

Over the past six years, the number of commuter aircraft

using the Los Angeles Airport has significantly increased. As a

result, gates designed for large carriers are frequently used for

commuter operations. To resolve the problem of insufficient

gate capacity, the Tactical Initiative Team examined the delay

implications of several alternative gate locations for the commuter carriers. All of the alternatives resulted in a negligible increase in overall delays under current demand levels. The preferred option lowered total travel time for both arrivals and departures. Delays would increase at projected higher demand

levels regardless of the chosen option, but the preferred option

would provide the smallest increase in total travel time.

Tactical Initiative Teams are focused on providing immediate relief to airports with chronic delay

through capacity improvements

that can be implemented in the

near term.
40 – CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2: AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1996 ACE PLAN

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS)

The Las Vegas McCarran International Airport is adding

another gate complex, Terminal D, to the airport. The FAA is

examining the impacts of an initial increase in traffic on existing taxiways and gates. This new study is an extension of the

previous Las Vegas study completed in 1994. In addition, the

ability of the new terminal complex to accommodate future

traffic levels will be tested. Other issues such as off-gate and

overnight parking will also be examined.

2.2.3 Regional Capacity Design Teams

Looking beyond the individual airport and its immediate

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

Regional Capacity Design Team studies. These regional studies

will analyze all the major airports in a metropolitan or regional

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

The first regional study is of the Northeastern United States.

Northeast Region Capacity Design Study

The Northeast Region study began in September 1996.

The study will analyze the impacts of the decentralization of

northeastern airports as the passengers migrate from the primary airports (BOS, EWR, JFK, and LGA) to the secondary airports (six for each metropolitan area). The study will also analyze the impacts of increases in operations on delay. Technical

analysis for Phase I of the Northeast study is being conducted

by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.
Airspace development studies strive to relieve congestion

and improve capacity by determining how to restructure airspace; reroute traffic; or modify arrival, departure, or en route

flow patterns. Terminal Airspace Studies address only the terminal area, while 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. Airspace studies may be prompted by experienced or projected

congestion and delays, airport development, improved operational procedures, or resectorization of the airspace, which provides the opportunity to modify traffic flow. Table 3-1 lists

completed En Route and Terminal Airspace Studies.

Table 3-1.

Completed En Route and Terminal Airspace

Studies

Terminal Airspace

Houston Intercontinental

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l

San Bernardino/Ontario

En Route Airspace

Chicago

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Denver

Expanded East Coast Plan

Houston-Austin

Kansas City

Los Angeles

Oakland

New York

Jacksonville

Atlanta

Maimi

3.1 En Route Airspace Studies

En Route Airspace Studies are initiated in response to airport and/or airspace congestion, airport modifications, the construction of new air traffic facilities, and the installation of updated air traffic equipment.

Table 3-2 lists the various alternatives proposed for improving the flow of air traffic for each airspace region studied to

date. Common airspace improvement alternatives analyzed include: relocating arrival fixes, creating new arrival and departure

routes, modifying ARTCC traffic flows, and redefining TRACON

boundaries.

Airspace DevelopmentChapter 3:
42 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1996 ACE PLAN

Table 3-2.

Airspace Design Alternatives by Airspace Region

Studied Alternatives

Relocating arrival fixes

New arrival routes

New departure routes

Modifications to ARTCC traffic

New airport

Hub/non-hub alternatives

Change in metering restrictions

Redifining TRACON boundaries

Military traffic considered

New runways at existing airports

Specific modeling of 2 or more

airports for interactions analysis

Airspace Regions

ChicagoDallas-Ft. WorthDenverExpanded East Coast PlanHouston-AustinLos AngelesOakland

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Kansas City

√

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Redifining sector ceilngs

Resectorization

New YorkJacksonvilleAtlantaMiami

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√√√√

√√√

√√√√

√

√

3.1.1 En Route Airspace Study Methodology

En route airspace capacity studies are conducted jointly by

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

Office of Environment and Energy (AEE). From the analysis

stage to implementation, major redesign of en route airspace is

a complex process that may take up to ten years.

After determining that airspace redesign may be required,

AAT develops alternative airspace structures. Sophisticated

computer modeling is used for analyzing the problem and

evaluating alternative solutions. The computer model uses

baseline data to emulate the status quo. Then, the model is

modified to reflect the impacts of proposed solutions. The difference in the behavior of the system between the baseline and

each of the modeled solutions is used to measure the relative

value of the solutions. The model captures a number of variables such as travel time, delay, sector occupancy, and airspace

saturation. The model reports the likely impact of developments such as increased traffic, the opening or closing of runways, and changes in separation standards or procedures.

Once alternatives have been investigated fully, decision

makers must weigh environmental, social, political and cost

factors against the relative efficiency of the airspace alternatives.

Airspace development studies

strive to relieve congestion and improve capacity by determining

how to restructure airspace; reroute traffic; or modify arrival, departure, or en route flow patterns.

Once alternatives have been investigated fully, decision makers must

weigh environmental, social, political and cost factors against the

relative efficiency of the airspace

alternatives.
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 43

Before the chosen solution can be implemented, any required

modifications to ATC and airport facilities and equipment must

be completed. Implementation of the new airspace also requires

rerouting and redistribution of air traffic, development of new

air traffic control procedures, and redistribution of responsibilities among air traffic controllers.

3.1.2 Ongoing En Route Airspace Studies

ASC is presently involved in three en route airspace studies,

each at a different stage of development. The study of airspace

around and between the Northern and Southern California

TRACONs is in the planning and analysis stage; data have been

collected on current airspace operations, but alternative designs

have not yet been identified. In the Chicago Metroplex Airspace Analysis Project, alternatives have been identified, but

not selected. Finally, the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex Area

study is coming to closure. The problems were studied, alternative designs were identified, and preferred alternatives were

chosen and implemented. The next phase is to assess the impact of the new airport and airspace design.

3.1.2.1 Dallas/Forth Worth (DFW) Metroplex

Airspace Analysis

In 1987 the DFW airport board, in conjunction with the

FAA, developed plans to ensure that the airspace and airport capacities in the Dallas/Fort Worth area kept pace with demand

which was forecasted to increase for the next 20 years. Additional runways were required to accommodate increased operations projected for major users of the DFW airport. Since the

existing airspace design was never intended to accommodate

three or four approach streams, the need for a completely redesigned arrival and departure system was evident. This ambitious study addressed navigation and communication facilities

and equipment, airspace realignment, and procedural development.

The FAA’s Airspace and Airport Simulation Model

(SIMMOD) was used to evaluate airport and airspace design alternatives. The model used delay data from the year 1987 to establish a baseline level of service. Simulations indicated that

improving upon the baseline level of service would require: a

new commuter runway by 1990, a new air carrier runway by the

mid 1990’s, a new commuter and a new air carrier runway by

around 2000, and two new air carrier runways by the year 2005.
44 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1996 ACE PLAN

Modifications for DFW traffic flows included establishing

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.

SIMMOD analysis of the new airspace design indicated that

the new airspace would provide substantial capacity gains over

the old system and would efficiently accommodate the increased traffic levels forecast through 2010, including traffic associated with the two new air carrier runways at DFW International Airport. The new airspace design would also decrease

delays at other satellite airports including Dallas Love Field.

With the implementation of a new TRACON airspace structure and procedures for the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex area

in October 1996, the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex project is

nearly complete. The new east side air carrier runway (Runway

17L/35R) also became operational at DFW International Airport in October 1996. GRADE (a three dimensional airspace

design environment and traffic analysis tool) will be used to

evaluate the impact of the new airspace and airport design. In

addition, analysis will be conducted to verify projected delay

reductions and to schedule the installation of an additional air

carrier runway for the west side of DFW International Airport.

3.1.2.2 Chicago Metroplex Airspace Analysis

Project (CMAAP)

The goal of the CMAAP is to increase the efficiency of existing airport capacity by improving airspace traffic flow. A desire

to optimize the utilization of a new TRACON equipped with an

updated area route terminal system (ARTS) motivated the

analysis. Another motivation was frequent observations by air

traffic controllers at O’Hare that runways were underutilized,

while incoming aircraft were delayed in Chicago Center and

adjacent ARTCCs by air traffic controllers trying to moderate

traffic that was unevenly distributed to the arrival fixes.

The area of study consists of Chicago Center, which includes traffic operations within Chicago and Milwaukee

TRACONs, and en route portions of the four adjacent ARTCCs.

The graphical tool GRADE was used to conduct a sector-bysector analysis of current traffic operations. CMAAP analysts

identified the time and location of traffic bottlenecks and other

constrained operations by animating traffic flows, computing

traffic count statistics, calculating time and distance relation-
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 45

ships, and querying flight plan data. Figure 3-1 illustrates the

system inefficiencies identified. Wavering flight paths indicate

that flights were being path-stretched by air traffic controllers

to regulate traffic flow approaching the terminal area.

Figure 3-1.

Flight Paths Over Five-Center Area

In conjunction with GRADE analysis of the existing airspace

structure, analysts examined ATC facility records and logs along

with airline data for evidence of flow restrictions, ground stops,

implementation of the en route spacing program (ESP), air carrier recorded delays, and other documented traffic flow problems. The CMAAP team also investigated trends in runway use

and airfield conditions.

After an analysis of the existing airspace structure, the following conclusions were reached:

• The existing airspace and route structure are more than

adequate to meet the configuration capacity of dual approaches;

• There is insufficient airspace and route capacity for the

preferable triple approach configurations;

• Triple approaches are not always used to the fullest potential;

• The system does not take full advantage of the improved operating characteristics and navigational systems of today’s fleet; and

• Improvements could also be made to other routes servicing the Chicago area.
46 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1996 ACE PLAN

Based on these conclusions, the CMAAP team developed alternatives that would provide an airspace structure to increase

airspace capacity for O’Hare International Airport arrivals.

Three alternatives were developed for alleviating the constraint caused by the inefficiency of the cornerposts. The first

alternative is to add four arrival routes to Chicago TRACON for

O’Hare International Airport arrivals. During heavy traffic periods, two additional dual routes (Alterative 1A) or one dual

route (Alternative 1B) could be activated as required. The second alternative is to rotate the existing four cornerposts by 45

degrees, allowing redistribution of traffic flow and an additional

arrival fix from east and west. The third alternative is to establish two additional arrival cornerposts (totaling six) for O’Hare

Airport International arrivals. Figure 3-2 is a simplified diagram illustrating the basic routing concepts behind the proposed alternatives.

Alternative 1A Alternative 1B

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Arrival Gate

Departure Gate

ORD ORD

ORD ORD

Figure 3-2.

Airspace Design Alternatives for Chicago TRACON

The delay and capacity impacts associated with the airspace

alternatives then were evaluated using the FAA’s SIMMOD software. All of the alternatives show significant annual aircraft operating cost savings. Savings at the baseline level of demand

would range from $40 to $62 million. At future demand levels,

savings could be as high as $103 million annually.

After choosing its preferred airspace design alternative, the

FAA will refine the design for the new airspace based on the input of FAA facility personnel, thorough testing (via simulation)
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 3: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 3 – 47

under potential operating conditions (weather, runway use

configuration, traffic demand, etc.) and preliminary noise assessment results.

3.1.2.3 SCT/NCT Airspace Analysis and Design

Project

In California the airspace of two major new facilities, the

Southern California TRACON (SCT) and the Northern California TRACON (NCT), has to be coordinated. Due to the close

proximity and congested flows between these facilities, the

SCT/NCT Airspace Analysis and Design Project will streamline

the coastal traffic flow while addressing the long-haul traffic

problems specific to each facility. The SCT controls terminal

airspace in the Los Angeles-San Diego area and consolidates

the operations of the former Los Angeles, Coast, Burbank,

Ontario, and San Diego TRACONs into a single facility. The

NCT (which has been proposed but not yet constructed) will

control airspace in San Francisco, Sacramento, and surrounding

areas. The FAA’s Western-Pacific Region is redesigning airspace

operations to recognize potential efficiency and capacity gains

with the consolidation of SCT and NCT. The scope of this

project encompasses NCT, SCT, Los Angeles and Oakland

ARTCCs, and portions of the four surrounding ARTCCs.

The SCT/NCT airspace design project is at the data gathering and modeling stage. Airspace analysis and modeling tools

were used to create graphic displays of existing flight tracks

within the Los Angeles and Oakland Centers and portions of

the four abutting ARTCCs. The next phase of the SCT/NCT

project will be to evaluate proposed airspace improvement alternatives. Preliminary design options will be evaluated via

simulation to assess their operational feasibility and impact on

performance. Based on the results, the FAA will formulate a

proposed design for the SCT/NCT system. Additional simulations will evaluate the performance of the proposed integrated

design.

3.2 Terminal Airspace Studies

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

that the airport’s airspace can accommodate the increase in

traffic that may result from airport capacity improvements. Terminal airspace studies are conducted by the capacity design

team that worked on the airport capacity study, with the assistance of the FAA technical center. ASC has completed three ter-
48 – CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3: AIRSPACE DEVELOPMENT 1996 ACE PLAN

minal airspace studies to date: Houston (1993), San Bernardino/Ontario (1994), and Minneapolis-St. Paul (August 1996).

The Minneapolis-St. Paul study is described in more detail below.

3.2.1 Minneapolis-St. Paul International

Airport Terminal Airspace Study

The purpose of the study was to determine how the terminal airspace would accommodate the addition of a new northsouth runway at Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport (MSP). The

study was the second phase of an analysis of the MSP airfield

capacity initiated at the request of the Minnesota State Legislature. The airspace study concluded that:

• the existing airspace could be reconfigured;

• the airspace could be made more efficient by adding either a new jet arrival fix or a new parallel jet arrival

stream;

• none of the satellite airports would be adversely impacted; and

• the addition of the new runway would result in a

change to the MSP Class B airspace.

The estimated construction period for the new runway is

2002-2005.

3.3 Commercial Space Transportation

One of the goals of the FAA’s 1996 Strategic Plan under

System Capacity is to assess the space launch infrastructure

needs of the U.S. commercial space transportation industry and

alternative policies to meet those needs.

To date, there have been over 65 licensed launches, all of

which have occurred from 5 different federal launch ranges,

(Cape Canaveral, White Sands Missile Range, Vandenberg,

Wallops Island and Barking Sands Hawaii). The future will include non-federal launch sites (Spaceports), such as California,

Florida, Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico, Alaska, overseas, and

from the ocean. The United States is about to enter a new era

and the FAA/DOT aviation community needs to make provisions to accommodate launches from non-federal ranges.
A less expensive alternative to building new airports or runways to expand aviation system capacity is modifying air traffic

control procedures to improve the flow of aircraft en route and

in the terminal area. In FY95, more than two-thirds of all delays were attributed to adverse weather conditions. These delays

are partly the result of restrictive instrument approach procedures applied during adverse weather conditions. The FAA’s efforts to reduce weather-related delays include developing approach procedures for instrument meteorological conditions

(IMC) that are similar to those observed during visual meteorological conditions (VMC). The FAA is also developing more

flexible en route procedures. Initial improvements in en route

procedures increase pilot discretion in determining routes and

pilot/air traffic controller collaborative decisionmaking. Longterm goals for operational procedures focus on free flight, in

which air traffic controllers will intervene only to prevent

conflicts.

The following sections describe the most promising procedural changes, beginning with a description of free flight and

programs such as the National Route Program (NRP) and intrail climb (ITC) and in-trail descent (ITD) which entail procedural changes consistent with free flight. Next, improved instrument approach procedures are described. Finally, new wake

vortex separation standards, which restrict capacity to ensure

safety, are discussed.

4.1 Free Flight

Free flight is a plan to improve the efficiency of the Nation’s

airspace system by allowing pilots, under most circumstances,

to choose the most efficient and economical routes. The pilot’s

flexibility would be restricted only to ensure separation when

traffic density precludes free flight, to prevent unauthorized entry into special use airspace, and to ensure safety. Hence, free

flight will benefit airspace users and passengers by saving fuel

and time.

Transitioning to free flight requires changes in philosophy,

procedures, and technology. The principal philosophical change

is shifting from the concept of air traffic control to air traffic

management. Air traffic management differs from air traffic

control 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.

New Operational ProceduresChapter 4:
50 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 1996 ACE PLAN

The procedural changes required for free flight correspond

directly to the change in philosophy from air traffic control

(ATC) to air traffic management (ATM). Under the current air

traffic system, aircraft are frequently restricted to ATC-preferred

routes, which are not necessarily the routes preferred by the pilot or airline. Air traffic controllers instruct pilots how to

change their direction, speed, or altitude to avoid storms or

traffic congestion. Free flight will grant pilots additional discretion in determining routes. In the event of a thunderstorm or

congestion, the pilot would choose the new route, speed, and

altitude and notify the air traffic manager of the new route.

Other decisions would be collaborative between the air traffic

manager and pilot to maximize the information on flying conditions available to each.

The use of protected and alert zones around aircraft will

help pilots and air traffic managers to realize the benefits of free

flight while maintaining safety. The sizes of the protected and

alert zones are based on the aircraft’s speed, performance characteristics, and communication, navigation, and surveillance

equipment. An aircraft’s protected zone, the one closest to the

aircraft, can never meet the protected zone of another aircraft.

The alert zone extends well beyond the protected zone, and

upon contact with another aircraft’s alert zone, a pilot or air

traffic controller will determine if a course correction is required. Aircraft can maneuver freely until alert zones touch. In

the event that alert zones touch, a controller may provide one

or both pilots with course corrections or restrictions to assure

separation.

Several technological changes must be made to fully implement free flight concepts. The architecture and technology for

free flight will rely heavily on: GPS satellites for navigation; Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) in which aircraft automatically broadcast their positions over datalink (a network of

air, ground, and airborne communications systems); new displays in aircraft and air traffic facilities to improve situational

awareness; revised air traffic procedures and facilities to capitalize on digital communication, satellite-based navigation, and

computer-based decision support systems. See Chapter 5 for

more information on these developing technologies.

The move toward free flight is already underway. Two programs that have implemented operational procedures consistent with free flight are the National Route Program and the

program to improve in-trail climb (ITC) and in-trail descent

(ITD) procedures.

In FY95, more than two-thirds of all

delays were attributed to adverse

weather conditions. These delays

are partly the result of restrictive

instrument approach procedures

applied during adverse weather

conditions.

Free flight is a plan to improve the

efficiency of the Nation’s airspace

system by allowing pilots, under

most circumstances, to choose the

most efficient and economical

routes.
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 4: OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 4 – 51

4.2 National Route Program (NRP)

The NRP is supporting the transition toward free flight by

eliminating certain ATC restrictions. NRP flights are only subject to route limitations within a 200 nautical mile radius of

take-off or landing; they are not limited to published ATC-preferred routes. This allows airlines to plan the most cost-effective routes in advance and to fly them, thus, increasing the capacity, flexibility, and efficiency of the aviation system. From

January 1995 to November 1996, the NRP was expanded in ten

phases, with each phase lowering the base altitude for participation. NRP operations are currently authorized at and above

FL290 across the contiguous United States. Participation has

increased with the implementation of each phase. In October

1995, there were 600 NRP flights daily. By October 1996, the

average had increased to 1,000 NRP flights daily. Future plans

to build on the NRP include reducing the 200 nautical mile requirement where appropriate and lowering the base altitude below FL290. The FAA estimates that the NRP saved the aviation

industry $40 million in 1994, or about $150 per flight, by allowing pilots to fly more optimal routes.

4.3 ITC and ITD Using the TCAS Cockpit Traffic

Display for Separation Assistance

The ITC and ITD procedures are designed to enable a trailing aircraft in a non-radar (oceanic) environment to climb or

descend through the altitude of an aircraft moving in the same

direction to a more desirable cruising altitude. Under these

procedures the pilot wanting to ascend or descend uses the

TCAS traffic display to positively identify the lead aircraft and

to determine the distance to the lead aircraft. Before applying

the in-trail climb or in-trail descent procedure, the aircraft

must be at the minimum vertical separation and be horizontally

separated by at least 15 NM, with a ground speed closure rate of

20 knots or less. The trailing aircraft initiates this procedure,

coordinates with the lead aircraft, and obtains climb or descent

clearance from ATC. ATC maintains responsibility for separation

during the maneuver. Standard non-radar spacing criteria are

then applied by ATC after these procedures are completed. The

ITC and ITD procedures reduce the non-radar in-trail distance

necessary to approve a climb or descent from 100 NM to a

minimum of 15 NM. Without this capability, an aircraft traveling at 33,000 feet may be trapped below an aircraft traveling at

35,000 feet at a similar speed. With the ITC procedure, the

lower aircraft can ascend through the altitude of the higher aircraft to an altitude where it can fly more efficiently. The inabilThe NRP is supporting the transition

toward free flight by eliminating

certain ATC restrictions. NRP flights

are only subject to route limitations

within a 200 nautical mile radius

of take-off or landing; they are not

limited to published ATC-preferred

routes.
52 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 1996 ACE PLAN

ity to gain a higher altitude significantly increases fuel burn.

Figure 4-1 illustrates the ITC and ITD procedures.

Operational trials for the ITC procedure began within the

Oakland and Anchorage Flight Information Regions (FIRs) in

September 1994 with United Airlines and Delta Air Lines participating. Data collected during the trials indicated that pilots

and controllers find the procedure useful and are using it correctly, safely, and cooperatively. Both pilots and controllers have

recommended adoption of this procedure. In the second phase

of the trials, beginning in early 1997, additional airlines will

participate, and the ITD procedure will be tested. American,

Hawaiian, Singapore, and Cathay Pacific airlines (in addition

to United and Delta) have requested approval to participate in

the trials. Several nations have expressed interest in these procedures for use in their own airspace. In addition, the FAA plans

to propose to ICAO that the procedure be adopted.

ITC and ITD are the first procedures to utilize the display of

traffic information on the flight deck to assist air traffic controllers in monitoring and reducing aircraft spacing requirements. When Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS-B),

which includes positive aircraft ID in the cockpit display, becomes operational, opportunities for collaborative ATC/pilot

decisionmaking will increase. These are critical steps in the

movement toward free flight.

Minimum Flight Level Spacing

In-Trail Climb

Minimum 15 nautical miles

 

Minimum Flight Level Spacing

In-Trail Descent

Minimum 15 nautical miles

Figure 4-1.

In-Trail Climb and In-Trail Descent Using TCAS
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 4: OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 4 – 53

4.4 Improved Instrument Approach Procedures

This section describes new instrument approach procedures

that will enhance runway capacity in IMC.

4.4.1 Independent Parallel Approaches

Using the Precision Runway Monitor

(PRM)

The FAA authorized independent (simultaneous) instrument approaches to dual parallel runways in 1962. The spacing

requirement between the parallel runways was initially a minimum of 5,000 feet, but was reduced to 4,300 feet in 1974. The

separation was reduced to 3,400 feet with a PRM installed in

1991. Approval has recently been given for simultaneous approaches to dual parallel runways spaced 3,000 feet apart with

one localizer offset 2.5 degrees using a precision runway monitor with a 1.0 second radar update. The first airports to apply

this new procedure will most likely be JFK and Philadelphia.

The average capacity gains expected from the use of the new

approach procedure will be 15-17 arrivals per hour. Figure 4-2

illustrates the new approach procedure. 3,400 ft.

No Transgression Zone (NTZ)

 

3,000 ft.

No Transgression Zone (NTZ)

2.5°

Figure 4-2.

Independent Parallel Instrument Approaches Using the

Precision Runway Monitor (PRM)
54 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 1996 ACE PLAN

4.4.2 Simultaneous Operations on Wet

Intersecting Runways

Simultaneous operations on intersecting runways are a type

of “land and hold short operation” (LAHSO). LAHSOs include

landing and holding short of an intersecting runway, an intersecting taxiway, or some other predetermined point. Currently,

simultaneous operations on intersecting runways require that

they be dry. Of the top 100 airports, 60 currently conduct simultaneous operations on intersecting runways. Over the past

several years, demonstrations of simultaneous operations on

wet runways have been ongoing at Boston Logan, Greater

Pittsburgh, and Chicago O’Hare. Special criteria for LAHSO in

wet conditions are being established. For example, to be approved for LAHSO in wet conditions, runways must be grooved

and exceed minimum levels of friction to prevent skidding or

hydroplaning. At O’Hare, capacity increases of up to 25 percent have been experienced using simultaneous operations during wet runway operations. Future demonstrations are planned

at New York’s Kennedy, Philadelphia, and Miami International

Airports.

An FAA team is currently formalizing procedures for these

types of operations so that a National Standard for simultaneous operations on wet intersecting runways can be established. The target implementation date is Spring 1997. Figure 4-3 illustrates simultaneous operations on wet intersecting

runways, and lists candidate airports.

 

Boston

Charlotte/Douglas

Chicago O’Hare

Detroit

Miami

Minneapolis-St. Paul

New York (JFK)

New York (LGA)

Newark

St. Louis

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

San Francisco

Washington National

Candidates Among Top 100 Airports

Figure 4-3.

Simultaneous Operations on Wet Intersecting Runways
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 4: OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 4 – 55

4.4.3 Simultaneous Approaches to Three Parallel

Runways

In April 1996, real-time simulations were conducted to

evaluate the air traffic control system’s ability to support simultaneous independent ILS approaches to three runways spaced

4,000 and 5,300 feet apart. Controllers monitored traffic using

a simulated PRM system, consisting of Final Monitor Aid

(FMA) displays and a radar sensor with a 1.0-second update

rate. The triple approach configuration was tested to emulate

proposed procedures at Pittsburgh International and Atlanta

International Airports.

The test results demonstrated a successful procedure. The

procedure, therefore, was recommended for approval in the operational environment, when the PRM system with a 1.0-second

update rate is used. Figure 4-4 illustrates simultaneous approaches to three parallel runways.

5,300 ft.

4,000 ft. NTZ

NTZ

PRM

Figure 4-4.

Simultaneous Independent Approaches to Three Parallel Runways
56 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 1996 ACE PLAN

4.4.4 Simultaneous (Independent)

Converging Instrument Approaches

Under existing approach procedures, converging runways

can be used for independent streams of arriving aircraft only

when the ceiling is at least 900 - 1,000 feet and visibility is at

least three statute miles. This requirement decreases runway capacity in IRF conditions and causes weather-related delays. Simultaneous approaches cannot be conducted at all under IRF

conditions if the converging runways intersect.

In an effort to refine the converging approach procedures

and obtain greater operational efficiency for the users, the Converging Approach Standards Technical Work Group

(CASTWG) was formed. The goal of the workgroup is to reduce

landing minimums for aircraft conducting simultaneous converging instrument approaches, using new technology and procedures to ensure required aircraft separation is provided in the

event of a simultaneous missed approach.

The CASTWG developed and tested a new missed approach

procedure using a 95 degree turn from the localizer course,

which can be implemented at 650 feet minimums. The procedure requires flight testing and validation prior to initial implementation. Once the new 650 feet minimums are implemented, efforts to further reduce the minimums to as low as

500 feet will continue. Average capacity gains expected using

the new minimums with missed approach guidance is expected

to be 30 arrivals per hour at each airport. Figure 4-5 illustrates

the missed approach for the new simultaneous converging instrument approach and lists candidate airports for the new procedure.

15° - 100°

95°

 

Boston

Charlotte

Chicago O’Hare

Dallas-Ft. Worth

Houston Intercont’l

Miami

Nashville

New Orleans

Newark

Philadlephia

St. Louis

Washington Dulles

Candidates Among Top 100 Airports

Figure 4-5.

Independent Converging Approach and Missed Approach Procedure
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 4: OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 4 – 57

4.5 Wake Vortex Separation Standards

When a small aircraft trails too close behind a large aircraft,

the small aircraft may be destabilized by wake vortex generated

by the large aircraft. The FAA recently revised aircraft weight

classes and separation standards to minimize the possibility of

accidents or incidents due to wake vortex. These changing

standards exemplify procedural changes that may decrease system capacity as a means to improve safety.

Small aircraft are subject to separation standards of four nm

behind large aircraft, whereas large and heavy aircraft may follow other large aircraft by 3 NM. The weight ceiling of the

small category was raised from 12,500 pounds to 41,000

pounds, increasing the number of aircraft included in the small

category. In addition, separation was increased from 4 to

5 NM when a small aircraft follows a B-757. Two aircraft

weighing less than 41,000 pounds (SAAB-340 and ATR-42)

maintained the large aircraft classification based on performance characteristics.

The projected capacity impacts of the new standards were

analyzed using the FAA Airfield Capacity Model, Quickpak,

and SIMMOD. These modeling and simulation programs enabled the FAA to estimate changes in delay due to the new procedure factoring in runway and approach configurations, traffic

composition, approach speeds, and weather. The simulations

predicted increases in system delay of 17 percent in good

weather and nine percent with widespread IRF. The actual impact of the new separation procedures is presently being analyzed; preliminary results show much smaller increases in delay

than were predicted by the simulations.

An ongoing, cooperative FAA-NASA wake vortex research

program is attempting to minimize the capacity restrictions

imposed by efforts to prevent wake vortex-related incidents.

The goals of the research program are: to significantly increase

capacity by safely reducing aircraft separations; to increase capacity and maintain safety in VMC; and to bring IMC capacity

closer to VMC capacity. FAA is focused primarily on achieving

near-term capacity enhancements by addressing specific wake

vortex problems at LaGuardia and JFK airports and providing

wake turbulence training to pilots and air traffic controllers.

The NASA portion of the research program is targeted toward the development of an automated Aircraft Vortex Spacing

System (AVOSS). Development activities include development

of vortex motion and decay models, prediction of meteorological conditions affecting vortex behavior, development of a vortex encounter hazard model, implementation of vortex sensors,

and development of automated aircraft spacing systems.

When a small aircraft trails too

close behind a large aircraft, the

small aircraft may be destabilized

by wake vortex generated by the

large aircraft. The FAA recently revised aircraft weight classes and

separation standards to minimize

the possibility of accidents or incidents due to wake vortex.

An ongoing, cooperative FAANASA wake vortex research program is attempting to minimize the

capacity restrictions imposed by

efforts to prevent wake vortex-related incidents.
58 – CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4: OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 1996 ACE PLAN
Over the next two decades, the FAA will introduce numerous capacity enhancing changes to the civil aviation system that

reflect advances in technology related to:

• Automation;

• Information systems;

• Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance; and

• Weather.

Figure 5-1 provides examples of the technology enhancements that will take place throughout the civil aviation system.

The technology enhancements in one area are often closely related and coordinated with changes in other areas. For example,

the automation enhancements in many facilities will provide

the hardware and software platforms required to process and

display data from new information systems incorporating the

latest advances in information technology. In turn, the sharing

of this new information between controllers and flight crews

required by the free flight concept is dependent on technological advances in communications.

The FAA’s NAS Architecture Plan outlines the “grand design” for the technology employed throughout the NAS and will

ensure that enhancements to the system provide the maximum

safety and capacity benefits to users. The FAA has recently released version 2.0 of this plan, and it will continue to evolve as

opportunities for new system enhancements develop.

The sections below provide an overview of the emerging

technologies that will enhance the capacity of the civil aviation

system as we move into the 21st century. A number of the programs identified in this overview are described in more detail in

the FAA’s Capital Investment Plan (CIP), the FAA’s Research,

Engineering, and Development Plan (R,E&D Plan), or documents describing NASA’s research and development program.

Dozens of R&D and capital improvement projects will impact the capacity of the civil aviation system over the next two

decades. In many cases, such as the Automated Radar Terminal

System (ARTS) improvement, Voice Switching and Control

System (VSCS), or Airport Surface Detection Equipment

(ASDE-3) projects, improvements will be gained from incremental upgrades to existing systems or application of existing

technology to new locations. Many of these programs have

been addressed in previous volumes of the ACE Plan. The sections below do not attempt to provide a comprehensive treatment of all of these projects. Instead, they focus on relatively

new and innovative technology advances that will have the

greatest impacts on the capacity of the aviation system.

Emerging Technology

Chapter 5:
60 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY 1996 ACE PLAN

TRACON

• New HW/SW Platforms

• Advanced Automation/

Information Tools

Approach

Control

• New GPS approaches

• Automation/surveillance

systems supporting better

runway utilization

• Automatic Dependent Surveillance

information exchange

• Improved collision avoidance data

• New separation standards

• Free Flight operations concept

Airport Tower

Local and

Ground Control

• New surface movement sensors

• New weather sensors

• Advanced Surface Movement Management

• More timely, accurate weather forecasts

• Surface navigation systems to combat

low visibility conditions

• Advanced airport/airspace design tools

• New HW/SW Platforms

• New information systems

supporting collaborative

surface movement

management

Air Route Traffic Control

(ARTCC) En Route Control

• New HW/SW Platforms

• Advanced Automation/

Information Tools

• Better communication

services

• Shared databases

Digital Information Exchange (Datalink)

• Satellite surveillance/

navigation data

• New oceanic services

• Collaborative traffic

management decision making

FAA Command Center

• New HW/SW Platforms

• Advanced Traffic Management

Automation tools

• Collaborative traffic

management decision making

TRACON/

Departure

Control

Flight Service Station

Pre-Flight & In-Flight

Information

• New HW/SW Platforms

• Automated information

services

Figure 5-1.

Technology Advancements in the National Airspace System
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 5: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY

CHAPTER 5 – 61

5.1 Automation

The FAA is in the midst of a major modernization effort

that will upgrade the automation technology used throughout

facilities comprising the NAS. In many instances, the modernization efforts will utilize commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)

hardware and software systems or components to facilitate

long-term maintenance and upgrades to the NAS. These automation efforts include major programs such as the Display System Replacement (DSR) program in the en route environment

and the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System

(STARS) in the terminal environment.

The implementation of the numerous automation systems

will enhance the overall capacity of the NAS by:

• Increasing the reliability or availability of information

and analytic tools supporting existing air traffic control

capabilities; and

• Providing controllers and flight service specialists with

the hardware and software platforms needed to process

and display data from new information systems being

developed to give controllers the tools necessary to increase NAS throughput, flexibility, etc. while maintaining or enhancing safety.

Table 5-1 provides a list of major automation efforts, references to the Capital Investment Plan (CIP) and the R,E&D

plans where more information on the projects can be obtained,

identification of the component(s) of the aviation system where

the technology enhancements will be implemented, and the

primary purpose and/or anticipated impact of the program.

The FAA’s NAS Architecture Plan

outlines the “grand design” for the

technology employed throughout

the NAS and will ensure that enhancements to the system provide

the maximum safety and capacity

benefits to users.

The FAA is in the midst of a major

modernization effort that will upgrade the automation technology

used throughout facilities comprising the NAS.
62 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY 1996 ACE PLAN

Table 5-1.

Automation Technology Enhancement Programs

Facility/Civil

Aviation System

CIP/R,E&D Component(s) Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

En Route Automation Program A-01 En Route/Oceanic Projects in this program will replace aging

and unsupportable equipment and allow

continued system growth in the present air

traffic control system, providing a safe and

efficient air traffic environment that contributes to the evolution toward a free flight

environment.

Tower Automation Program A-02 Airport To solve the problems of controllers having

minimal flexibility to rearrange operational

positions for various tower operating conditions and the inefficient placement of individual control systems, the program will

integrate new and existing safety systems in

a consolidated automation platform with a

common computer/human interface.

Automated Radar Terminal System A-03 Terminal This program will provide radar approach

(ARTS) Improvements services where none currently exist and increased processor capacity and more displays at existing facilities. New and modified equipment will maintain or improve

safety levels while increasing traffic capacity. The development of stand-alone, simulation based training systems for terminal

and metroplex control facilities will permit

training of Air Traffic personnel in a realistic environment without taking operational

equipment out of service, risking injury to

personnel, or damaging system equipment.

Standard Terminal Automation A-04 Terminal This program reflects the long-term

Replacement System (STARS) aproach to improving the FAA’s automation

capabilities in the terminal environment.

STARS will deploy a new automation system that uses a modern, commercially-open

architecture that solves current capacity

problems and that supports future demands.

Traffic Management System (TMS) A-05 Airport, Terminal, By replacing outdated equipment and

En Route/Oceanic existing system architecture with an architecture that complies with FAA and National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST) documentation, the TMS will

maximize air traffic throughput, minimize

air traffic delays, and establish a reliable,

serviceable automation platform.

En Route Software Development A-06 En Route/Oceanic The program provides the necessary support for the continuing development, integration and implementation of NAS en

route software changes to correct operational problems and provide systems enhancement.
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 5: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY

CHAPTER 5 – 63

Table 5-1.

Automation Technology Enhancement Programs

Facility/Civil

Aviation System

CIP/R,E&D Component(s) Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

Flight Service Automation A-07 Flight Service Stations The FSAS provides a flight service

System (FSAS) specialist with automated advancements

that improve weather and Notice to Airmen

(NOTAM) briefings and simplify flight

plan filing. Replacing the 318 manual

Flight Service Stations (FSSs) with 61 Automated Flight Service Stations (AFSSs)

will enhance the current system by replacing capacity components and by incorporating a uniform graphic weather display system capability.

Oceanic Automation Program (OAP) A-10 Flight Service Stations, The OAP will provide an automation

En Route/Oceanic infrastructure including oceanic flight data

processing, a computer-generated situation

display, and a strategic conflict probe for

alerting controllers to potential conflicts

hours before they would occur. Ultimately,

controllers will be able to grant more fuelefficient flexible routes, which will significantly impact fuel costs and delays.

Airport Surface Target Identification A-12 Airport ATIDS will develop aids such as airport

System (ATIDS) surface surveillance, communications and

automation techniques to provide allweather runway incursion alerts and prevention capability, thereby, reducing taxi

delays by 5-15 percent.

Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance 022-110 Aircraft/Aircrew, The primary role of TCAS is to avoid

System (TCAS) Terminal, En Route collisions; however, its capabilities offer the

potential to improve the overall efficiency

and safety of routine flight operations.

General Aviation and Vertical 022-140 Aircraft/Aircrew, This project will aid the expansion of

Flight Program Airport, Terminal, technology related to general aviation and

Flight Service, vertical flight into the NAS. Efforts will

En Route, focus on air traffic system design and

R,E&D Internal advanced operational procedures; heliport/

Services vertiport/intermodal design and planning;

aircraft/crew certification, training, and

human factors; and emerging technology

applications. The general aviation element

is a collaborative NASA/FAA/industry

technology program which will implement

an economically viable short-haul transportation system to augment the existing national airspace system, to stimulate industry

and to create jobs.
64 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY 1996 ACE PLAN

5.2 Information Systems

Beyond the replacement of existing hardware and software

platforms, many of the FAA’s automation programs include

plans for evolutionary software enhancements. The Automated

En Route ATC (AERA), Terminal Air Traffic Control Automation (TACTA), and Advanced Traffic Management System

(TMS) exemplify this type of technology enhancement. In each

of these programs, software is being developed to provide automation aids/tools to controllers that will enable them to plan

for and implement actions that will ultimately improve the

flexibility and efficiency of NAS operations. Typically, these new

information systems integrate data from a variety of sources

into a single database. The integration of these data provides

the opportunity for new analytic tools that controllers and/or

flight crews may use to plot fuel efficient routes, identify potential conflicts with other aircraft, or adjust routing during a

flight. The output of these analytic tools is often presented in

graphic forms to assist users in effective and efficient decision

making. The tools will enable controllers throughout the system to provide greater flexibility in user routing, reduce delays

in congested airspace, and enhance the safety of the system simultaneously.

The technology used in these complex information systems

relies not only on new automation platforms, but also on new

communication systems that will rapidly move large amounts

of data from ground-to-ground locations as well as from

ground-to-air or air-to-ground. The information systems will

provide data that must be available simultaneously to controllers and flight crews as part of the FAA’s movement to a freeflight operating environment and collaborative decision making

in traffic management.

A number of advanced information systems are being developed as joint research projects between FAA and other agencies such as NASA. These advanced systems include new analytic tools and data systems designed specifically to facilitate

the sharing of data between controllers, airport officials, airlines, and pilots. The technology under development includes

projects such as new aviation capacity planning tools that utilize computer simulations and the Surface Movement Advisor

(SMA) project.

Table 5-2 provides a list of projects that fall into the information system category.

A number of advanced information systems are being developed

as joint research projects between

FAA and other agencies such as

NASA. These advanced systems

include new analytic tools and

data systems designed specifically

to facilitate the sharing of data between controllers, airport officials,

airlines, and pilots.
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 5: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY

CHAPTER 5 – 65

Table 5-2.

Information Enhancement Programs

Facility/Civil

Aviation System

CIP/R,E&D Component(s) Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

En Route Automation A-01 En Route/Oceanic AERA is a long-term program that will

Program (AERA) increasingly allow aircraft to fly their preferred routes safely with a minimum of air

traffic control intervention. It will help increase airspace capacity by improving the

ATC system’s ability to manage more

densely populated airspace and will improve

the ability of the ATC to accommodate

user preferences. In more advanced AERA

applications, the integration of groundbased ATC and cockpit automation will be

investigated to fully exploit the potential for

computer-aided interactive flight planning

between controller and pilot.

Operational Data A-08 Flight Service Stations, This project will modernize the

Management System (ODMS) Airport, Terminal, Aeronautical Information System (AIS)

En Route/Oceanic and the United States Notices to Airmen

(NOTAM) System (USNS). This system is

a key component of the traffic flow management (TFM) program and will provide

air traffic static and operational data for the

traffic flow management functions.

Terminal ATC Automation (TATCA) A-11 Terminal The purpose of TACTA is to develop automation aids to assist air traffic controllers

and Traffic Management Unit (TMU) coordinators in enhancing the terminal area

air traffic management process and to facilitate the early implementation of these aids

at busy airports. Longer term activities include the integration of traffic flow management tools with other air traffic control

systems and cockpit automation capabilities.

Advanced Traffic Management 021-110 Flight Service, The ATMS will allow air traffic managers

System (ATMS) Airport, Terminal, to identify in advance when en route or

En Route terminal weather or other factors require

intervention to expedite and balance the

flow of traffic. Furthermore, this effort to

research automation tools will minimize the

effects of NAS overload on user preferences

without compromising safety.

Oceanic Air Traffic Automation 021-140 En Route This project aims to increase oceanic air

traffic capacity and efficiency without degrading safety. Research and development

in this project will lay the foundation for

new F&E initiatives leading to the introduction of free flight in oceanic airspace.
66 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY 1996 ACE PLAN

Table 5-2.

Information Enhancement Programs

Facility/Civil

Aviation System

CIP/R,E&D Component(s) Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

Surface Movement Advisor (SMA) 021-200 Airport The SMA will interface with and improve

other NAS management systems and coordinate surface activities with air traffic control, the airlines, and airport operators

through an unprecedented sharing of operationally-crucial surface movement information.

Traffic Alert and Collision 022-110 Aircraft/Aircrew, TCAS will develop and assist in impleAvoidance System (TCAS) Terminal, En Route menting an independent airborne collision

avoidance capability. TCAS will reduce

midair collision risks and increase capacity

such as simultaneous approaches to parallel

runways and pilot-maintained in-trail spacing via the improved cockpit display capability.

General Aviation and 022-140 Aircraft/Aircrew, This program will provide a safer and more

Vertical Flight (VF) Program Flight Service, Airport, efficient use of the NAS for the general

Terminal, En Route, aviation industry by identifying, initiating

R,E&D Internal Services and performing research activities to safely

introduce critical technologies applicable to

general aviation and vertical flight needs

and requirements.

Aviation System Capacity Planning 024-110 Airport, Terminal, The program supports development of an

En Route overall capacity strategy; the conduct, measurement, and assessment of airports and

technologies; and development and application of electronic tools that aid in the formulation of that strategy to reduce delays,

increase the number of operations per hours

and to decrease maintenance/operating

costs.

National Simulation Capability (NSC) 025-110 Aircraft/Aircrew, The NSC supports the R,E&D and

Airport, Terminal, systems engineering missions of the FAA

En Route, by horizontally integrating the various

R,E&D Internal Services R,E&D program elements across the NAS

environment. By exploiting the latest simulation technology, the NSC permits the

evaluation of new operational concepts,

human interfaces and failure modes in a

realistic, real-time, interactive ATC environment capable of simulating new or

modified systems at forecast traffic levels.

Air Traffic Models and Evaluation Tools 025-130 Airport, Terminal, By producing modeling and analytic tools

En Route, to support operational improvements, air

R,E&D Internal Services space and airport design, environmental

analysis, investment decision making, and

ATC system design analysis; the project

will provide ATC with the ability to plan,

evaluate, and update operational changes

rapidly to accommodate the increasingly

dynamic airport and airspace environment.
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 5: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY

CHAPTER 5 – 67

5.3 Communications, Navigation, and

Surveillance (CNS)

While there are distinct communications, navigation, and

surveillance systems being developed and deployed throughout

the civil aviation system, the technology underlying enhancements in these CNS systems is very closely related. There are

two primary advancements that dominate the emerging technology in the CNS area:

• The use of datalink systems to exchange/display digital

information; and

• The transition to satellite technologies as a primary

means of generating and relaying navigation and surveillance data.

The integration of various aspects of these two technology

changes is being applied in a range of situations to improve

both the safety and capacity of the civil aviation system. The

application of these technologies includes projects such as:

• Providing oceanic air traffic control services similar to

those currently available domestically through use of

satellite communications and datalink;

• The development of precision and non-precision approaches utilizing global positioning system data;

• Development of surface navigation systems and landing

systems relying on GPS data and datalink communications to allow normal levels of operation in poor visibility conditions at busy airports; and

• Increasing user flexibility (free flight) and achievement

of greater utilization of parallel runways through the use

of GPS location data broadcast from aircraft to other

aircraft and the ground Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) technology.

Table 5-3 lists the major CNS programs that will impact the

capacity of the civil aviation system over the next two decades.

The ultimate success of CNS technology applications such as

those listed in Table 5-3 is highly dependent on successful

implementation of systems described under the automation and

information systems headings. Without the processing, analysis, and display capabilities provided by these projects, controllers and other essential personnel will not have the tools needed

to manage the information workload created by these CNS

technology enhancements.
68 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY 1996 ACE PLAN

Table 5-3.

CNS Technology Enhancement Programs

Facility/Civil

Aviation System

CIP/R,E&D Component(s) Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

Voice Switching and C-01 En Route/Oceanic This project will provide a voice communiControl System (VSCS) cations system that performs the intercom,

interphone, and air/ground voice connectivity and control functions necessary for air

traffic control operations in an ARTCC. It

will reduce leased costs and increase modularity and growth capability, and controller

productivity over current communication.

Weather Message Switching C-03 Flight Service Stations, This project will replace the weather

Center (WMSC) Replacement Airport, Terminal, message switching center with modern

En Route/Oceanic technology to perform current data

handling functions of the center. It will

provide storage and distribution of

NOTAMS. Furthermore, the WMSC

functions as the primary FAA gateway to

the National Weather Service telecommunications gateway.

FAA Telecommunications C-15 Flight Service Stations, This provides the FAA with a leased

Satellite (FAASAT) Terminal, satellite interfacility communications

En Route/Oceanic network, which supports the FAA strategy

for cost effective interfacility communications transmissions by providing redundant

alternatives to avoid single-points-of-failure

through circuit diversity. It will also meet

NAS service availability and message quality requirements. Economically, FAASAT

supports the increased requirement for

communications and data circuits needed to

support the metroplex control facility and

flight service station consolidation programs. It supports the weather and radar

processor program and broadcast requirements.

Aeronautical Data-link C-20 Airport, Terminal, Data-link communications will improve

En Route/Oceanic air/ground communications and contribute

to system safety and capacity by improving

pilot accessibility to information, relieving

congested voice frequencies, and reducing

the workload of pilots, specialists, and controllers.

Next-Generation Air/Ground C-21 Flight Service Stations, This program will design, implement and

Communications System Airport, Terminal, install a new air/ground radio communicaEn Route/Oceanic tions system. It will also increase spectrum

capacity in the VHF aeronautical band,

replace unmaintainable VHF/UHF analog

radios, and resolve radio frequency interference problems in the existing analog radio

system, which will support voice and data

communications within a single avionics

transceiver system.
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 5: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY

CHAPTER 5 – 69

Table 5-3.

CNS Technology Enhancement Programs

Facility/Civil

Aviation System

CIP/R,E&D Component(s) Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

Instrument Landing System (ILS) N-03 Airport This program will aid the efficiency of NAS

until global positioning landing systems can

be fully implemented. ILS may include the

procurement and installation of other

equipment as necessary to ensure full operational capability.

Runway Visual Range (RVR) N-08 Airport This program establishes new generation

runway visual range systems to support precision landing operations and airport capacity enhancements.

Loran-C Monitors and Transmitter N-11 Terminal, This is a supplemental radio navigation

Enhancements En Route/Oceanic system for aviation use that provides at least

single-level coverage for en route and terminal instrument flight rule navigation for

the contiguous US. This program will also

maximize the overall system performance of

Loran-C.

Augmentations for the Global N-12 Airport, Terminal, The GPS will make precision approach

Positioning System (GPS) En Route/Oceanic procedures available to more airport runways by significantly reducing frequency

congestion problems associated with ILS.

Improving the capacity of an airport’s surrounding airspace, it will reduce the interdependency of proximate airports. This

project will provide the necessary augmentation equipment which will enable the global positioning system to be used in the

NAS as the federal aviation radionavigation

system for all oceanic and domestic phases

of flight. Satellite navigation presents opportunities for standardized worldwide civil

aviation operations using a common navigation receiver and for significant improvements in safety, capacity, service flexibility,

and aircraft operating cost. Also, satellitebased navigation systems provide the potential for new navigation and landing services not currently supported by the existing systems.

ASDE Radar S-01 Airport The ASDE-3 provides radar surveillance of

aircraft and airport service vehicles at selected airports to ensure an effective mode

of directing and moving surface traffic.

Mode S S-02 Airport, Terminal, Mode S will improve the surveillance

En Route/Oceanic capability of the air traffic control radar

beacon system (ATCRBS). It provides

more accurate positional information and

minimizes interference. Furthermore, it

replaces aging and obsolete air traffic control beacon interrogator (ATCBI-4/5)

equipment to maintain ground surveillance

and increase supportability. In addition,
70 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY 1996 ACE PLAN

Table 5-3.

CNS Technology Enhancement Programs

Facility/Civil

Aviation System

CIP/R,E&D Component(s) Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

Mode S (continued) Mode S provides the medium for a digital

data-link which can be used to exchange

information between aircraft and various air

traffic control functions and weather databases.

Terminal Radar (ASR) Program S-03 Airport, Terminal This program provides economical radar

service at airports with air traffic densities

high enough to justify the service. It also

upgrades the highest density airports with

the most modern equipment. The project

will provide for relocation and associated

refurbishment of terminal radars.

Long-Range Radar Program S-04 En Route/Oceanic This project will provide a national radar

surveillance network by installing the air

route surveillance radar at existing and new

sites. It will improve the current inventory

of long-range radars that will extend their

useful life and/or aid the transition to a

beacon-only en route surveillance system.

Long-Range Radar (LRR) S-05 En Route/Oceanic The LRR will replace existing radomes at

Radome Replacement most long-range radar facilities in the NAS,

the majority of which have exceeded their

normal life expectancy and are incompatible

with the new Mode S monopulse antenna

system. The new radome will also minimize

radar signal interference.

Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) S-08 Airport This system reduces the allowable runway

spacing for conducting independent parallel

instrument approaches at closely-spaced

airports. The average capacity gains expected from the PRM system would be 12-

17 arrivals per hour.

Multilateration Technology S02/S08 Airport The purpopse of this project is to provide a

Demonstrations prototype demonstration of the

multilateration approach to monitoring

final approaches to parallel runways. The

multilateration approach represents a lowcost alternative to PRM that uses multiple

air traffic control radar beacon (ATCRB)

transponders and Mode S to provide accurate surveillance capabilitifor monitoring

final approaches to closely spaced parallel

runways.

Airborne Information for NASA Airport, AILS goal is to enable “airborne technology

Lateral Spacing (AILS) Aircraft/Aircrew assisted approaches” to safely reduce lateral

spacing requirements during IMC. It will

provide crew with information on nearby

traffic comparable to that available in

VMC.
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 5: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY

CHAPTER 5 – 71

5.4 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. The FAA is working in conjunction with other

agencies such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to improve NAS capacity

though better forecasting and detection of adverse weather

conditions. Programs are also underway to apply new technologies to the mitigation of the negative effects of weather such as

poor visibility at airports.

The technology enhancements under study and development in this area include automation, information system, and

CNS technology applications uniquely tailored to address factors related to weather. For example, there are a number of F&E

projects designed to enhance existing sensors or deploy new

sensors to provide more accurate and timely weather data (e.g.,

Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR), Automated

Weather Observation System (AWOS), Low-level Windshear

Alert System (LLWAS). These surveillance and automation

projects will feed data into new information systems designed

to integrate a wide range of weather data into a single database

where it can be analyzed using new models under development

in a variety of research and development efforts (e.g., Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) and Aviation Weather

Analysis and Forecasting program). The output of these analytic tools will be displayed in the form of enhanced graphics

on new display systems in ATC facilities and/or in the aircraft

cockpit. The datalink system will be an essential element in the

timely dissemination of this information to flight crews.

Table 5-4 provides a listing of the major programs that will

provide technology enhancements in the weather area during

the next two decades.

Weather is the single largest contributor to delay in the civil aviation system and is a major factor in

aircraft safety incidents and accidents. The FAA is working in conjunction with other agencies such

as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to improve NAS capacity though better forecasting

and detection of adverse weather

conditions.
72 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY 1996 ACE PLAN

Table 5-4.

Weather Enhancement Programs

Facility/Civil

Aviation System

CIP/R,E&D Component(s) Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

Automated Weather Observing W-01 Flight Service Stations, This project’s automated sensors allow for

System (AWOS) Airport, the gathering of aviation-critical weather

En Route/Oceanic data. Data is processed and reported to pilots via a computerized voice. The connection of AWOS with the automated weather

observation system data acquisition system

(ADAS) will support the closing of the

National Communications Center and will

make current weather observation data accessible to pilots, enhancing safety and

efficiency.

Weather Radar Program W-02 En Route/Oceanic By establishing a weather radar network,

this project provides accurate aviation

weather products for en route applications.

Future automated air traffic control capabilities, such as preferred routing and improved flow management, will depend on

reliable weather data prior to the realization

of projected fuel efficiency and personnel

productivity gains.

Terminal Doppler Weather W-03 Airport, Terminal This program involves the installation of a

Radar (TDWR) System new terminal Doppler weather radar that

can detect microbursts, gust fronts, wind

shifts and precipitation. It will warn aircraft

in the terminal area of hazardous weather

conditions and of changing wind conditions

to enable the timely change of active runways.

Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) W-04 En Route/Oceanic The WARP will collect, process and disseminate weather information from next

generation weather radars (NEXRAD) to

controllers, traffic management specialists,

pilots and meteorologists. By providing a

mosaic product of various NEXRAD information to the Display System Replacement

(DSR), the WARP will enhance the quality

of weather information available to air controllers, thus, reducing accidents and air

traffic delays. It also provides center

weather service unit/central flow weather

service unit meteorologists with automated

workstations that improve their ability to

analyze rapidly changing weather conditions.
1996 ACE PLAN CHAPTER 5: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY

CHAPTER 5 – 73

Table 5-4.

Weather Enhancement Programs

Facility/Civil

Aviation System

CIP/R,E&D Component(s) Program Purpose/

Program Plan Number Affected Expected Capacity Benefits

Low-Level Windshear Alert W-05 Airport The LLWAS provides local controllers and

System (LLWAS) pilots with information on microbursts and

windshear near airports. It will enhance the

ability of existing systems by providing runway-oriented microburst/windshear alerts,

increased probability of detection of

microbursts, and an interface to the terminal doppler weather radar.

Integrated Terminal Weather W-07 Terminal The ITWS will integrate relevant weather

System (ITWS) data accessible in the terminal area and

from in-flight aircraft to provide air traffic

personnel with timely, near-term weather

information and predictions in a clear

graphical and textual form.

ASR Weather Systems Processor W-09 Terminal This program enhances the hazardous

weather detection capability of an airport

surveillance radar by developing and testing

a modular data processing channel for automatic detection of windshear, thunderstorm

microbursts, and gust fronts. The advancement provides airports ineligible for terminal doppler weather radars with windshear

warnings.

Aviation Weather Analysis 041-110 Aircraft/Aircrew, The integration of this project with other

and Forecasting Flight Service, Airport, national research programs that focus on

Terminal, En Route atmospheric mesoscale analysis and prediction problems will improve the understanding of weather’s effects on aviation. An additional purpose is to concentrate research

efforts on developing new algorithms, numerical weather analysis and prediction

models, and methods to detect the impact

from weather hazards.

Aeronautical Hazards Research 042-110 Aircraft/Aircrew, Designed to improve safety, the project will

Terminal, En Route collect data and analyze systems to validate

technology for detecting hazards such as

mountain rotors. The research will improve

the operational capability to detect, monitor

and alert flightcrews to aeronautical hazards.

Low Visibility Landing and NASA Airport, Terminal The goal is to improve the efficiency of

Surface Operations airport surface operations for commercial

aircraft operating in weather conditions to

Category IIIB while maintaining a high

degree of safety.
74 – CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY 1996 ACE PLAN
Table A-1. .............................................................................................. A-2

Airport Operations and Enplanements,

1993, 1994 and 1995

Table A-2. .............................................................................................. A-5

Airport Enplanements, 1995 and Forecast 2010

Table A-3. .............................................................................................. A-8

Total Airport Operations, 1995 and Forecast 2010

Table A-4. ............................................................................................ A-11

Growth in Enplanements From 1994 to 1995

Table A-5. ............................................................................................ A-14

Growth in Operations From 1994 to 1995

Table A-6. ............................................................................................ A-17

Growth in Operations and Enplanements

It is important to note that Denver International Airport replaced Denver Stapleton International in 1995. Therefore, the

data for 1993 and 1994 reflects the enplanements and operations for Denver Stapleton International.

Aviation StatisticsAppendix A:
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 2

1. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1995 enplanements.

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 1 30,085,425 30,606,235 31,255,738 851,865 883,480 892,330

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 2 22,336,481 26,472,972 27,350,320 658,414 699,400 747,105

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 3 25,182,625 26,267,502 26,612,579 789,183 831,135 873,510

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 4 22,377,277 23,848,357 25,851,031 681,845 687,627 716,293

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 5 14,827,283 15,973,975 16,700,975 423,404 430,380 436,907

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 6 13,661,225 14,379,431 16,242,081 527,545 550,194 576,609

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 7 15,046,704 15,744,474 14,818,822 552,238 546,305 487,225

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 8 13,048,381 13,659,611 14,782,367 351,205 352,494 345,263

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 9 11,410,123 12,691,906 13,810,517 460,009 479,738 498,887

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 10 11,247,976 12,347,562 13,472,480 520,403 507,698 522,634

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 11 12,199,131 13,544,066 13,072,250 431,944 441,997 428,703

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 12 10,035,719 11,913,954 12,764,544 439,393 488,347 508,077

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 13 9,667,061 11,124,230 12,688,589 441,142 466,639 516,021

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 14 10,856,313 11,358,679 12,247,015 442,341 454,441 466,916

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 15 11,118,037 11,716,314 11,889,020 495,347 478,660 478,253

Houston Intercontinental Airport IAH 16 9,351,601 10,139,079 11,420,071 352,340 352,385 375,246

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 17 8,653,666 9,945,559 10,947,345 339,968 345,052 382,100

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 18 10,137,658 10,480,767 10,909,298 365,195 357,116 376,224

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 19 9,957,138 10,251,933 10,556,973 327,199 344,213 343,609

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 20 8,444,325 10,042,865 10,482,958 446,315 471,128 474,338

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 21 9,409,713 9,956,711 10,240,938 335,071 335,539 346,869

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 22 9,017,674 9,763,045 9,934,985 419,581 435,433 452,900

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 23 7,864,850 8,325,571 8,719,275 390,736 402,845 409,148

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 24 7,067,806 8,138,609 8,594,490 324,595 343,807 349,699

Washington National Airport DCA 25 7,562,011 7,549,169 7,459,210 316,762 316,790 316,404

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 26 5,967,103 6,679,025 7,170,498 306,811 333,832 358,203

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 27 5,792,921 6,248,662 6,596,498 209,267 215,215 228,740

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 28 4,372,994 6,047,432 6,541,031 261,674 286,392 296,932

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 29 5,180,124 5,490,799 5,694,267 277,483 296,201 311,279

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 30 4,645,391 5,756,785 5,531,128 240,425 263,541 261,617

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 31 3,944,523 4,742,410 5,419,125 280,263 277,000 301,785

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 32 4,289,995 5,028,369 5,278,909 247,502 260,485 268,097

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 33 3,843,492 4,354,351 4,691,799 184,848 198,274 207,518

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 34 3,499,905 3,840,519 4,691,068 439,214 470,901 502,952

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 35 4,431,716 4,588,481 4,643,034 180,567 174,598 183,082

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 36 4,081,258 4,937,251 4,587,770 217,786 233,044 238,108

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 37 2,688,342 4,040,900 4,348,380 189,755 254,570 268,575

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 38 3,277,798 3,962,812 4,327,508 312,405 298,220 270,519

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 39 3,786,795 3,908,960 4,223,864 337,608 345,534 356,294

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 40 3,343,714 3,883,655 4,147,081 141,384 167,375 177,383

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 41 4,657,484 4,240,353 3,983,741 318,886 295,558 278,957

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 42 4,070,069 3,920,000 3,921,273 239,634 236,683 245,603

Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1993, 1994, and 19951

Airport Enplanements Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY93 FY94 FY95 FY93 FY94 FY95
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 3

1. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1995 enplanements.

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 43 2,878,493 3,255,004 3,522,755 494,378 509,220 493,391

Dallas-Love Field DAL 44 3,116,746 3,378,468 3,416,394 212,854 217,331 208,768

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 45 2,580,739 2,828,848 3,307,202 169,272 149,053 177,010

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 46 4,850,848 4,616,106 3,234,420 294,066 283,713 214,011

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 47 3,039,014 3,199,499 3,234,259 152,914 158,635 158,302

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 48 2,972,210 3,068,733 3,101,724 238,789 237,937 245,541

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 49 2,792,057 2,964,827 3,096,670 219,305 238,277 238,315

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 50 2,730,538 2,996,622 3,076,532 209,567 220,914 199,114

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 51 2,449,811 2,769,749 2,786,503 217,049 223,633 204,100

Kahului Airport OGG 52 2,456,187 2,573,507 2,732,610 173,002 176,209 178,602

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 53 2,434,178 2,723,145 2,710,286 230,903 216,480 205,104

Austin Robert Mueller Airport AUS 54 2,263,264 2,462,680 2,652,578 188,026 192,040 201,409

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 55 2,176,373 2,465,577 2,649,673 162,441 161,190 151,603

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 56 2,192,185 2,444,663 2,490,301 198,529 213,602 209,939

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 57 2,274,623 2,318,262 2,482,024 166,889 163,180 176,382

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 58 2,063,436 2,371,258 2,471,158 207,460 194,264 184,366

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 59 1,796,727 1,963,820 2,023,536 218,279 215,641 217,768

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 60 1,725,235 1,897,157 1,971,981 66,004 64,849 67,026

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 61 1,757,415 1,822,024 1,863,388 151,284 157,984 151,905

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 62 925,478 1,782,183 1,843,343 126,446 157,401 173,259

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 63 1,324,942 1,886,673 1,819,003 129,683 142,821 142,786

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 64 1,120,776 1,547,786 1,786,129 155,941 179,921 178,646

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 65 1,252,411 1,570,527 1,735,564 228,877 249,729 238,024

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 66 1,517,419 1,650,479 1,674,814 142,492 146,759 149,275

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 67 1,553,248 1,799,588 1,621,140 142,136 145,221 153,646

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 68 1,452,380 1,589,503 1,570,020 188,009 198,332 186,512

Guam Int’l GUM 69 1,143,563 1,227,840 1,495,835 68,912 68,912 59,928

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 70 1,046,679 1,171,493 1,463,845 143,739 154,154 160,039

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 71 1,080,799 1,297,601 1,454,000 122,350 122,615 119,701

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 72 1,244,921 1,682,504 1,410,057 134,564 141,861 135,793

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 73 1,091,806 1,204,442 1,266,989 171,399 173,126 169,312

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 74 1,167,895 1,271,298 1,230,589 188,072 189,372 190,053

Birmingham Airport BHM 75 1,012,878 1,089,094 1,229,581 168,074 161,638 165,295

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 76 1,033,543 1,243,861 1,173,454 132,234 154,481 151,248

Lihue Airport LIH 77 768,822 1,084,800 1,145,858 57,686 92,542 94,439

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 78 1,117,491 1,106,614 1,126,777 60,393 66,821 72,057

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 79 737,878 793,078 1,125,042 246,732 239,885 206,192

Providence Green State Airport PVD 80 1,124,761 1,195,652 1,120,707 125,442 123,195 133,679

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 81 985,320 1,084,400 1,082,367 154,925 153,589 153,119

Boise Air Terminal BOI 82 724,298 916,382 1,062,790 155,166 163,306 166,499

Albany County Airport ALB 83 1,038,637 1,092,580 1,051,394 160,587 158,658 150,986

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 84 1,095,651 1,057,116 1,018,467 180,936 158,677 153,066

Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1993, 1994, and 19951

Airport Enplanements Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY93 FY94 FY95 FY93 FY94 FY95
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 4

1. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1995 enplanements.

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 85 708,351 774,202 791,254 150,313 154,264 151,742

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 86 871,643 856,930 785,003 152,722 147,115 145,886

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 87 630,125 858,878 745,408 114,427 151,674 137,517

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 88 663,332 690,012 732,085 128,797 133,954 137,043

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 89 664,337 702,798 717,226 91,903 90,802 81,497

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 90 574,273 725,118 702,115 56,855 62,526 58,978

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 91 642,803 654,663 664,446 130,368 128,032 136,507

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 92 671,806 684,575 657,586 86,427 82,405 83,447

St. Thomas, Virgin Islands STT 93 670,123 659,849 633,872 105,217 109,958 101,451

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 94 592,805 600,067 604,482 174,527 167,757 177,982

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 95 491,445 562,562 595,782 103,202 108,410 106,544

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 96 596,488 658,421 586,445 103,112 104,968 101,944

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 97 554,559 601,352 574,699 195,198 189,663 188,314

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 98 482,712 559,508 567,534 104,681 97,509 95,060

Pensacola Regional Airport PNS 99 431,163 556,847 567,249 125,547 123,462 119,795

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 100 585,250 584,603 561,395 126,353 114,162 120,234

Totals: 1993 Enplanements ........................................... 476,382,717

1994 Enplanements .................................................................. 521,109,168

1995 Enplanements .........................................................................................543,439,185

1993 Operations .................................................................................................................. 25,375,007

1994 Operations ................................................................................................................................... 26,114,095

1995 Operations ..................................................................................................................................................... 26,407,065

Table A-1. Airport Operations and Enplanements, 1993, 1994, and 19951

Airport Enplanements Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY93 FY94 FY95 FY93 FY94 FY95
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 5

Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1995 and Forecast 20102

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY95 FY2010 % Growth

2. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1995 enplanements.

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 1 31,255,738 50,133,000 60.4

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 2 27,350,320 46,416,000 69.7

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 3 26,612,579 46,553,000 74.9

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 4 25,851,031 45,189,000 74.8

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 5 16,700,975 28,791,000 72.4

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 6 16,242,081 34,932,000 115.1

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 7 14,818,822 22,751,000 53.5

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 8 14,782,367 21,139,000 43.0

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 9 13,810,517 24,220,000 75.4

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 10 13,472,480 25,408,000 88.6

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 11 13,072,250 21,378,000 63.5

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 12 12,764,544 21,605,000 69.3

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 13 12,688,589 20,991,000 65.4

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 14 12,247,015 21,772,000 77.8

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 15 11,889,020 16,590,000 39.5

Houston Intercontinental Airport IAH 16 11,420,071 20,799,000 82.1

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 17 10,947,345 18,947,000 73.1

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 18 10,909,298 16,663,000 52.7

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 19 10,556,973 21,524,000 103.9

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 20 10,482,958 17,517,000 67.1

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 21 10,240,938 14,208,000 38.7

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 22 9,934,985 15,403,000 55.0

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 23 8,719,275 14,245,000 63.4

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 24 8,594,490 15,280,000 77.8

Washington National Airport DCA 25 7,459,210 9,830,000 31.8

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 26 7,170,498 13,353,000 86.2

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 27 6,596,498 11,272,000 70.9

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 28 6,541,031 10,819,000 65.4

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 29 5,694,267 11,049,000 94.0

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 30 5,531,128 9,801,000 77.2

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 31 5,419,125 10,210,000 88.4

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 32 5,278,909 9,270,000 75.6

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 33 4,691,799 8,400,000 79.0

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 34 4,691,068 8,728,000 86.1

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 35 4,643,034 6,825,000 47.0

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 36 4,587,770 7,962,000 73.5

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 37 4,348,380 6,946,000 59.7

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 38 4,327,508 9,533,000 120.3

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 39 4,223,864 6,522,000 54.4

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 40 4,147,081 5,193,000 25.2

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 41 3,983,741 6,747,000 69.4

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 42 3,921,273 5,617,000 43.2
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 6

2. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1995 enplanements.

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 43 3,522,755 6,675,000 89.5

Dallas-Love Field DAL 44 3,416,394 5,020,000 46.9

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 45 3,307,202 6,875,000 107.9

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 46 3,234,420 5,613,000 73.5

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 47 3,234,259 5,130,000 58.6

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 48 3,101,724 5,228,000 68.6

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 49 3,096,670 5,114,000 65.1

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 50 3,076,532 5,334,000 73.4

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 51 2,786,503 4,154,000 49.1

Kahului Airport OGG 52 2,732,610 3,902,000 42.8

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 53 2,710,286 3,880,000 43.2

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 54 2,652,578 4,957,000 86.9

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 55 2,649,673 5,646,000 113.1

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 56 2,490,301 3,699,000 48.5

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 57 2,482,024 3,537,000 42.5

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 58 2,471,158 4,877,000 97.4

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 59 2,023,536 2,895,000 43.1

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 60 1,971,981 3,871,000 96.3

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 61 1,863,388 2,850,000 52.9

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 62 1,843,343 3,208,000 74.0

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 63 1,819,003 3,121,000 71.6

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 64 1,786,129 2,807,000 57.2

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 65 1,735,564 3,011,000 73.5

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 66 1,674,814 2,319,000 38.5

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 67 1,621,140 1,992,000 22.9

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 68 1,570,020 2,377,000 51.4

Guam Int’l GUM 69 1,495,835 3,049,000 103.8

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 70 1,463,845 2,830,000 93.3

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 71 1,454,000 2,660,000 82.9

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 72 1,410,057 2,270,000 61.0

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 73 1,266,989 2,174,000 71.6

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 74 1,230,589 2,208,000 79.4

Birmingham Airport BHM 75 1,229,581 1,930,000 57.0

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 76 1,173,454 2,042,000 74.0

Lihue Airport LIH 77 1,145,858 1,944,000 69.7

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 78 1,126,777 1,814,000 61.0

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 79 1,125,042 2,270,000 101.8

Providence Green State Airport PVD 80 1,120,707 2,057,000 83.5

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 81 1,082,367 1,990,000 83.9

Boise Air Terminal BOI 82 1,062,790 1,734,000 63.2

Albany County Airport ALB 83 1,051,394 1,775,000 68.8

Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1995 and Forecast 20102

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY95 FY2010 % Growth
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 7

2. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1995 enplanements.

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 84 1,018,467 1,240,000 21.8

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 85 791,254 1,369,000 73.0

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 86 785,003 1,022,000 30.2

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 87 745,408 1,104,000 48.1

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 88 732,085 1,418,000 93.7

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 89 717,226 1,117,000 55.7

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 90 702,115 1,074,000 53.0

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 91 664,446 868,000 30.6

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 92 657,586 978,000 48.7

St. Thomas, Virgin Islands STT 93 633,872 811,000 27.9

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 94 604,482 1,097,000 81.5

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 95 595,782 1,045,000 75.4

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 96 586,445 863,000 47.2

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 97 574,699 1,100,000 91.4

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 98 567,534 1,007,000 77.4

Pensacola Regional Airport PNS 99 567,249 914,000 61.1

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 100 561,395 748,000 33.2

Totals: 1995 Enplanements ....................................................... 543,439,185

2010 Enplanements .................................................................................. 919,145,000

Average forecast growth at the top 100 airports for the 15 year period ............................................ 69.1

Table A-2. Airport Enplanements, 1995 and Forecast 20102

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY95 FY2010 % Growth
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 8

Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1995 and Forecast 20103

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY95 FY2010 % Growth

3. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1995 operations.

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 1 892,330 1,168,000 30.9

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 2 873,510 1,221,000 39.8

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 3 747,105 1,056,000 41.3

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 4 716,293 987,000 37.8

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 5 576,609 930,000 61.3

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 6 522,634 736,000 40.8

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 7 516,021 645,000 25.0

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 8 508,077 682,000 34.2

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 9 502,952 573,000 13.9

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 10 498,887 675,000 35.3

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 11 493,391 611,000 23.8

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 12 487,225 598,000 22.7

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 13 478,253 538,000 12.5

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 14 474,338 616,000 29.9

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 15 466,916 622,000 33.2

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 16 452,900 538,000 18.8

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 17 436,907 576,000 31.8

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 18 428,703 525,000 22.5

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 19 409,148 464,000 13.4

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 20 382,100 528,000 38.2

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 21 376,224 493,000 31.0

Houston Intercontinental Airport IAH 22 375,246 577,000 53.8

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 23 358,203 529,000 47.7

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 24 356,294 531,000 49.0

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 25 349,699 499,000 42.7

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 26 346,869 374,000 7.8

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 27 345,263 404,000 17.0

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 28 343,609 532,000 54.8

Washington National Airport DCA 29 316,404 321,000 1.5

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 30 311,279 418,000 34.3

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 31 301,785 405,000 34.2

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 32 296,932 378,000 27.3

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 33 278,957 355,000 27.3

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 34 270,519 307,000 13.5

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 35 268,575 329,000 22.5

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 36 268,097 394,000 47.0

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 37 261,617 384,000 46.8

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 38 245,603 295,000 20.1

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 39 245,541 333,000 35.6

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 40 238,315 302,000 26.7

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 41 238,108 286,000 20.1

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 42 238,024 247,000 3.8
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 9

3. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1995 operations.

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 43 228,740 307,000 34.2

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 44 217,768 252,000 15.7

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 45 214,011 270,000 26.2

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 46 209,939 276,000 31.5

Dallas-Love Field DAL 47 208,768 221,000 5.9

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 48 207,518 296,000 42.6

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 49 206,192 255,000 23.7

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 50 205,104 227,000 10.7

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 51 204,100 229,000 12.2

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 52 201,409 261,000 29.6

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 53 199,114 247,000 24.0

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 54 190,053 204,000 7.3

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 55 188,314 179,000 -4.9

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 56 186,512 219,000 17.4

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 57 184,366 275,000 49.2

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 58 183,082 210,000 14.7

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 59 178,646 224,000 25.4

Kahului Airport OGG 60 178,602 195,000 9.2

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 61 177,982 213,000 19.7

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 62 177,383 192,000 8.2

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 63 177,010 282,000 59.3

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 64 176,382 204,000 15.7

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 65 173,259 223,000 28.7

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 66 169,312 184,000 8.7

Boise Air Terminal BOI 67 166,499 196,000 17.7

Birmingham Airport BHM 68 165,295 194,000 17.4

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 69 160,039 200,000 25.0

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 70 158,302 200,000 26.3

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 71 153,646 183,000 19.1

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 72 153,119 179,000 16.9

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 73 153,066 166,000 8.4

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 74 151,905 180,000 18.5

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 75 151,742 174,000 14.7

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 76 151,603 245,000 61.6

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 77 151,248 181,000 19.7

Albany County Airport ALB 78 150,986 169,000 11.9

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 79 149,275 167,000 11.9

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 80 145,886 168,000 15.2

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 81 142,786 172,000 20.5

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 82 137,517 138,000 0.4

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 83 137,043 165,000 20.4

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 84 136,507 157,000 15.0

Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1995 and Forecast 20103

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY95 FY2010 % Growth
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 10

3. At the top 100 airports, ranked by 1995 operations.

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 85 135,793 167,000 23.0

Providence Green State Airport PVD 86 133,679 161,000 20.4

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 87 120,234 141,000 17.3

Pensacola Regional Airport PNS 88 119,795 124,000 3.5

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 89 119,701 155,000 29.5

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 90 106,544 107,000 0.4

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 91 101,944 107,000 5.0

St. Thomas, Virgin Islands STT 92 101,451 105,000 3.5

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 93 95,060 103,000 8.4

Lihue Airport LIH 94 94,439 142,000 50.4

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 95 83,447 88,000 5.5

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 96 81,497 95,000 16.6

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 97 72,057 97,000 34.6

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 98 67,026 113,000 68.6

Guam Int’l GUM 99 59,928 74,000 23.5

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 100 58,978 66,000 11.9

Totals: 1995 Operations .................................................. 26,407,065

2010 Operations ............................................................................................................ 33,706,000

Average forecast growth at the top 100 airports for the 15 year period ............................................................ 27.6

Table A-3. Total Airport Operations, 1995 and Forecast 20103

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY95 FY2010 % Growth
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 11

Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1994 to 19954

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY94 FY95 % Growth

4. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total enplanments.

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 1 793,078 1,125,042 41.9

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 2 1,171,493 1,463,845 25.0

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 3 3,840,519 4,691,068 22.1

Guam Int’l GUM 4 1,227,840 1,495,835 21.8

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 5 2,828,848 3,307,202 16.9

Boise Air Terminal BOI 6 916,382 1,062,790 16.0

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 7 1,547,786 1,786,129 15.4

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 8 4,742,410 5,419,125 14.3

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 9 11,124,230 12,688,589 14.1

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 10 14,379,431 16,242,081 13.0

Birmingham Airport BHM 11 1,089,094 1,229,581 12.9

Houston Intercontinental Airport IAH 12 10,139,079 11,420,071 12.6

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 13 1,297,601 1,454,000 12.1

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 14 1,570,527 1,735,564 10.5

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 15 9,945,559 10,947,345 10.1

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 16 3,962,812 4,327,508 9.2

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 17 12,347,562 13,472,480 9.1

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 18 12,691,906 13,810,517 8.8

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 19 23,848,357 25,851,031 8.4

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 20 3,255,004 3,522,755 8.2

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 21 13,659,611 14,782,367 8.2

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 22 6,047,432 6,541,031 8.2

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 23 3,908,960 4,223,864 8.1

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 24 11,358,679 12,247,015 7.8

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 25 4,354,351 4,691,799 7.7

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 26 2,462,680 2,652,578 7.7

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 27 4,040,900 4,348,380 7.6

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 28 2,465,577 2,649,673 7.5

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 29 6,679,025 7,170,498 7.4

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 30 11,913,954 12,764,544 7.1

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 31 2,318,262 2,482,024 7.1

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 32 3,883,655 4,147,081 6.8

Kahului Airport OGG 33 2,573,507 2,732,610 6.2

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 34 690,012 732,085 6.1

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 35 562,562 595,782 5.9

Lihue Airport LIH 36 1,084,800 1,145,858 5.6

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 37 8,138,609 8,594,490 5.6

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 38 6,248,662 6,596,498 5.6

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 39 1,204,442 1,266,989 5.2

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 40 5,028,369 5,278,909 5.0

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 41 8,325,571 8,719,275 4.7

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 42 15,973,975 16,700,975 4.6
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 12

Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1994 to 19954

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY94 FY95 % Growth

4. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total enplanments.

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 43 2,964,827 3,096,670 4.4

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 44 10,042,865 10,482,958 4.4

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 45 2,371,258 2,471,158 4.2

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 46 10,480,767 10,909,298 4.1

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 47 1,897,157 1,971,981 3.9

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 48 5,490,799 5,694,267 3.7

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 49 1,782,183 1,843,343 3.4

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 50 26,472,972 27,350,320 3.3

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 51 1,963,820 2,023,536 3.0

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 52 10,251,933 10,556,973 3.0

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 53 9,956,711 10,240,938 2.9

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 54 2,996,622 3,076,532 2.7

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 55 1,822,024 1,863,388 2.3

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 56 774,202 791,254 2.2

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 57 30,606,235 31,255,738 2.1

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 58 702,798 717,226 2.1

Pensacola Regional Airport PNS 59 556,847 567,249 1.9

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 60 2,444,663 2,490,301 1.9

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 61 1,106,614 1,126,777 1.8

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 62 9,763,045 9,934,985 1.8

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 63 654,663 664,446 1.5

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 64 1,650,479 1,674,814 1.5

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 65 11,716,314 11,889,020 1.5

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 66 559,508 567,534 1.4

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 67 26,267,502 26,612,579 1.3

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 68 4,588,481 4,643,034 1.2

Dallas-Love Field DAL 69 3,378,468 3,416,394 1.1

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 70 3,199,499 3,234,259 1.1

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 71 3,068,733 3,101,724 1.1

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 72 600,067 604,482 0.7

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 73 2,769,749 2,786,503 0.6

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 74 3,920,000 3,921,273 0.0

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 75 1,084,400 1,082,367 -0.2

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 76 2,723,145 2,710,286 -0.5

Washington National Airport DCA 77 7,549,169 7,459,210 -1.2

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 78 1,589,503 1,570,020 -1.2

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 79 725,118 702,115 -3.2

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 80 1,271,298 1,230,589 -3.2

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 81 13,544,066 13,072,250 -3.5

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 82 1,886,673 1,819,003 -3.6

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 83 1,057,116 1,018,467 -3.7

Albany County Airport ALB 84 1,092,580 1,051,394 -3.8
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 13

Table A-4. Growth in Enplanements From 1994 to 19954

Airport Enplanements

City-Airport ID Rank FY94 FY95 % Growth

4. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total enplanments.

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 85 5,756,785 5,531,128 -3.9

St. Thomas, Virgin Islands STT 86 659,849 633,872 -3.9

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 87 684,575 657,586 -3.9

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 88 584,603 561,395 -4.0

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 89 601,352 574,699 -4.4

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 90 1,243,861 1,173,454 -5.7

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 91 15,744,474 14,818,822 -5.9

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 92 4,240,353 3,983,741 -6.1

Providence Green State Airport PVD 93 1,195,652 1,120,707 -6.3

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 94 4,937,251 4,587,770 -7.1

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 95 856,930 785,003 -8.4

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 96 1,799,588 1,621,140 -9.9

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 97 658,421 586,445 -10.9

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 98 858,878 745,408 -13.2

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 99 1,682,504 1,410,057 -16.2

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 100 4,616,106 3,234,420 -29.9

Totals: 1994 Enplanements ...................................................................... 521,109,168

1995 Enplanements ................................................................................................. 543,439,185

Average forecast growth at the top 100 airports ..........................................................................................-29.9
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 14

Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1994 to 19955

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY94 FY95 % Growth

5. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total operations.

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 1 149,053 177,010 18.8

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 2 345,052 382,100 10.7

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 3 466,639 516,021 10.6

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 4 157,401 173,259 10.1

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 5 277,000 301,785 8.9

Providence Green State Airport PVD 6 123,195 133,679 8.5

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 7 163,180 176,382 8.1

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 8 66,821 72,057 7.8

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 9 333,832 358,203 7.3

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 10 699,400 747,105 6.8

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 11 470,901 502,952 6.8

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 12 128,032 136,507 6.6

Houston Intercontinental Airport IAH 13 352,385 375,246 6.5

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 14 215,215 228,740 6.3

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 15 167,757 177,982 6.1

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 16 167,375 177,383 6.0

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF 17 145,221 153,646 5.8

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 18 254,570 268,575 5.5

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 19 357,116 376,224 5.4

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM 20 114,162 120,234 5.3

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 21 831,135 873,510 5.1

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 22 296,201 311,279 5.1

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 23 192,040 201,409 4.9

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 24 174,598 183,082 4.9

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 25 550,194 576,609 4.8

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 26 198,274 207,518 4.7

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 27 687,627 716,293 4.2

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 28 488,347 508,077 4.0

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 29 435,433 452,900 4.0

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 30 479,738 498,887 4.0

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 31 154,154 160,039 3.8

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 32 236,683 245,603 3.8

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 33 286,392 296,932 3.7

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 34 335,539 346,869 3.4

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 35 64,849 67,026 3.4

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 36 237,937 245,541 3.2

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 37 345,534 356,294 3.1

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 38 507,698 522,634 2.9

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 39 260,485 268,097 2.9

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 40 454,441 466,916 2.7

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 41 133,954 137,043 2.3

Birmingham Airport BHM 42 161,638 165,295 2.3
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 15

Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1994 to 19955

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY94 FY95 % Growth

5. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total operations.

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL 43 233,044 238,108 2.2

Lihue Airport LIH 44 92,542 94,439 2.0

Boise Air Terminal BOI 45 163,306 166,499 2.0

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 46 146,759 149,275 1.7

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 47 343,807 349,699 1.7

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 48 402,845 409,148 1.6

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 49 430,380 436,907 1.5

Kahului Airport OGG 50 176,209 178,602 1.4

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT 51 82,405 83,447 1.3

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 52 883,480 892,330 1.0

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 53 215,641 217,768 1.0

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 54 471,128 474,338 0.7

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC 55 189,372 190,053 0.4

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 56 238,277 238,315 0.0

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX 57 142,821 142,786 -0.0

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 58 478,660 478,253 -0.1

Washington National Airport DCA 59 316,790 316,404 -0.1

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 60 344,213 343,609 -0.2

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 61 158,635 158,302 -0.2

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC 62 153,589 153,119 -0.3

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 63 179,921 178,646 -0.7

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP 64 189,663 188,314 -0.7

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA 65 263,541 261,617 -0.7

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ 66 147,115 145,886 -0.8

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 67 154,264 151,742 -1.6

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 68 213,602 209,939 -1.7

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 69 108,410 106,544 -1.7

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 70 352,494 345,263 -2.1

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY 71 154,481 151,248 -2.1

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 72 173,126 169,312 -2.2

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 73 122,615 119,701 -2.4

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 74 97,509 95,060 -2.5

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB 75 104,968 101,944 -2.9

Pensacola Regional Airport PNS 76 123,462 119,795 -3.0

Newark Int’l Airport EWR 77 441,997 428,703 -3.0

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 78 509,220 493,391 -3.1

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR 79 158,677 153,066 -3.5

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 80 157,984 151,905 -3.8

Dallas-Love Field DAL 81 217,331 208,768 -3.9

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF 82 141,861 135,793 -4.3

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 83 249,729 238,024 -4.7

Albany County Airport ALB 84 158,658 150,986 -4.8
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 16

Table A-5. Growth in Operations From 1994 to 19955

Airport Operations

City-Airport ID Rank FY94 FY95 % Growth

5. At the top 100 airports, ranked by growth in total operations.

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 85 194,264 184,366 -5.1

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI 86 216,480 205,104 -5.3

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA 87 295,558 278,957 -5.6

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP 88 62,526 58,978 -5.7

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 89 161,190 151,603 -5.9

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL 90 198,332 186,512 -6.0

St. Thomas, Virgin Islands STT 91 109,958 101,451 -7.7

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 92 223,633 204,100 -8.7

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 93 298,220 270,519 -9.3

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS 94 151,674 137,517 -9.3

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 95 220,914 199,114 -9.9

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 96 90,802 81,497 -10.2

Denver Int’l Airport DEN 97 546,305 487,225 -10.8

Guam Int’l GUM 98 68,912 59,928 -13.0

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 99 239,885 206,192 -14.0

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU 100 283,713 214,011 -24.6

Totals: 1994 Operations ................................................................................. 26,114,095

1995 Operations ......................................................................................................... 26,407,065

Average forecast growth at the top 100 airports ........................................................................................... 1.1
1996 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 FY94-FY95 FY95-FY2010 FY94-FY95 FY95-FY2010

6. At the top 100 airports, listed in alphabetical order by Airport Identifier.

Albuquerque Int’l Airport ABQ 2.7 73.4 -9.9 24.0

Albany County Airport ALB -3.8 68.8 -4.8 11.9

Anchorage Int’l Airport ANC 3.0 43.1 1.0 15.7

Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport ATL 3.3 69.7 6.8 41.3

Austin Municipal Airport AUS 7.7 86.9 4.9 29.6

Bradley Int’l Airport BDL 7.1 42.5 8.1 15.7

Birmingham Airport BHM 12.9 57.0 2.3 17.4

Nashville Int’l Airport BNA -6.1 69.4 -5.6 27.3

Boise Air Terminal BOI 16.0 63.2 2.0 17.7

Boston Logan Int’l Airport BOS 1.5 39.5 -0.1 12.5

Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport BUF -9.9 22.9 5.8 19.1

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport BUR 4.2 97.4 -5.1 49.2

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport BWI 8.2 65.4 3.7 27.3

Columbia Metropolitan Airport CAE 5.9 75.4 -1.7 0.4

Charleston AFB Int’l Airport CHS -13.2 48.1 -9.3 0.4

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport CLE 5.0 75.6 2.9 47.0

Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport CLT 4.4 67.1 0.7 29.9

Port Columbus Int’l Airport CMH 0.6 49.1 -8.7 12.2

Colorado Springs Municipal Airport COS 41.9 101.8 -14.0 23.7

Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport CVG 7.4 86.2 7.3 47.7

Dallas-Love Field DAL 1.1 46.9 -3.9 5.9

Dayton Int’l Airport DAY -5.7 74.0 -2.1 19.7

Washington National Airport DCA -1.2 31.8 -0.1 1.5

Denver Int’l Airport DEN -5.9 53.5 -10.8 22.7

Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport DFW 1.3 74.9 5.1 39.8

Des Moines Int’l Airport DSM 6.1 93.7 2.3 20.4

Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW 8.8 75.4 4.0 35.3

El Paso Int’l Airport ELP 2.3 52.9 -3.8 18.5

Newark Int’l Airport EWR -3.5 63.5 -3.0 22.5

Fort Lauderdale Int’l Airport FLL -7.1 73.5 2.2 20.1

Spokane Int’l Airport GEG 12.1 82.9 -2.4 29.5

Grand Rapids Int’l Airport GRR 2.2 73.0 -1.6 14.7

Greensboro Int’l Airport GSO 3.4 74.0 10.1 28.7

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport GSP -3.2 53.0 -5.7 11.9

Guam Int’l GUM 21.8 103.8 -13.0 23.5

Honolulu Int’l Airport HNL 4.1 52.7 5.4 31.0

Houston William P. Hobby Airport HOU 0.0 43.2 3.8 20.1

Washington Dulles Int’l Airport IAD 3.7 94.0 5.1 34.3

Houston Intercontinental Airport IAH 12.6 82.1 6.5 53.8

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ICT 0.7 81.5 6.1 19.7

Indianapolis Int’l Airport IND 1.1 68.6 3.2 35.6

Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ISP -4.4 91.4 -0.7 -4.9
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 18

6. At the top 100 airports, listed in alphabetical order by Airport Identifier.

Hilo Int’l Airport ITO 2.1 55.7 -10.2 16.6

Jacksonville Int’l Airport JAX -3.6 71.6 -0.0 20.5

New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport JFK 8.2 43.0 -2.1 17.0

Kailua-Kona Keahole KOA 1.8 61.0 7.8 34.6

Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport LAS 7.1 69.3 4.0 34.2

Los Angeles Int’l Airport LAX 8.4 74.8 4.2 37.8

Lubbock Int’l Airport LBB -10.9 47.2 -2.9 5.0

New York LaGuardia Airport LGA 2.9 38.7 3.4 7.8

Lihue Airport LIH 5.6 69.7 2.0 50.4

Little Rock Adams Field LIT 5.2 71.6 -2.2 8.7

Kansas City Int’l Airport MCI 7.7 79.0 4.7 42.6

Orlando Int’l Airport MCO 3.0 103.9 -0.2 54.8

Harrisburg Int’l Airport MDT -3.9 48.7 1.3 5.5

Chicago Midway Airport MDW 7.6 59.7 5.5 22.5

Memphis Int’l Airport MEM 8.1 54.4 3.1 49.0

Miami Int’l Airport MIA 13.0 115.1 4.8 61.3

Milwaukee Int’l Airport MKE 1.9 48.5 -1.7 31.5

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport MSP 7.8 77.8 2.7 33.2

New Orleans Int’l Airport MSY 6.8 25.2 6.0 8.2

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Airport OAK 22.1 86.1 6.8 13.9

Kahului Airport OGG 6.2 42.8 1.4 9.2

Oklahoma City World Airport OKC 1.5 38.5 1.7 11.9

Omaha Eppley Airfield OMA 25.0 93.3 3.8 25.0

Ontario Int’l Airport ONT 1.1 58.6 -0.2 26.3

Chicago O’Hare Int’l Airport ORD 2.1 60.4 1.0 30.9

Norfolk Int’l Airport ORF -16.2 61.0 -4.3 23.0

Palm Beach Int’l Airport PBI -0.5 43.2 -5.3 10.7

Portland Int’l Airport PDX 14.3 88.4 8.9 34.2

Philadelphia Int’l Airport PHL 4.7 63.4 1.6 13.4

Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Airport PHX 9.1 88.6 2.9 40.8

Greater Pittsburgh Int’l Airport PIT 1.8 55.0 4.0 18.8

Pensacola Regional Airport PNS 1.9 61.1 -3.0 3.5

Providence Green State Airport PVD -6.3 83.5 8.5 20.4

Portland Int’l Jetport PWM -4.0 33.2 5.3 17.3

Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport RDU -29.9 73.5 -24.6 26.2

Richmond Int’l Airport RIC -0.2 83.9 -0.3 16.9

Reno Cannon Int’l Airport RNO 7.5 113.1 -5.9 61.6

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport ROC -3.2 79.4 0.4 7.3

Fort Myers Regional Airport RSW 3.9 96.3 3.4 68.6

San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field SAN 5.6 70.9 6.3 34.2

San Antonio Int’l Airport SAT 4.4 65.1 0.0 26.7

Savannah Int’l Airport SAV 1.4 77.4 -2.5 8.4

Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements6

Airport % Growth in Enplanements % Growth in Operations

City-Airport ID FY94-FY95 FY95-FY2010 FY94-FY95 FY95-FY2010
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS

APPENDIX A – 19

6. At the top 100 airports, listed in alphabetical order by Airport Identifier.

Louisville Standiford Field SDF 15.4 57.2 -0.7 25.4

Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport SEA 10.1 73.1 10.7 38.2

San Francisco Int’l Airport SFO 4.6 72.4 1.5 31.8

San Jose Int’l Airport SJC 9.2 120.3 -9.3 13.5

San Juan Int’l Airport SJU 1.2 47.0 4.9 14.7

Salt Lake City Int’l Airport SLC 5.6 77.8 1.7 42.7

Sacramento Metropolitan Airport SMF 16.9 107.9 18.8 59.3

Santa Ana John Wayne Airport SNA 8.2 89.5 -3.1 23.8

Sarasota Bradenton Airport SRQ -8.4 30.2 -0.8 15.2

Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport STL 14.1 65.4 10.6 25.0

St. Thomas, Virgin Islands STT -3.9 27.9 -7.7 3.5

Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport SYR -3.7 21.8 -3.5 8.4

Tampa Int’l Airport TPA -3.9 77.2 -0.7 46.8

Tulsa Int’l Airport TUL -1.2 51.4 -6.0 17.4

Tucson Int’l Airport TUS 10.5 73.5 -4.7 3.8

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport TYS 1.5 30.6 6.6 15.0

Totals: Average growth at the top 100 airports .............................. 1.5 ...................................................... 1.1

Average forecast growth at the top 100 airports for the 15 year period ...... 69.1 .................................................... 27.6

Table A-6. Growth in Operations and Enplanements6

Airport % Growth in Enplanements % Growth in Operations

City-Airport ID FY94-FY95 FY95-FY2010 FY94-FY95 FY95-FY2010
APPENDIX A: AVIATION STATISTICS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX A – 20
This appendix contains current airport diagrams for the top

100 airports1

. 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 1995 passenger enplanements (see Appendix A, Table A-1).

The Top 100 Airports

Appendix B:

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

NGM

AUS

FLL

HOU

IAH

MCO

MIA

MSY

PBI

RSW

SAT

SRQ

TPA

SJU STT

SAV

CAE

PNS
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 2

ABQ — Albuquerque Int’l Airport ............................ B-3

ALB — Albany County Airport ................................. B-4

ANK — Anchorage Int’l Airport ............................... B-5

ATL — Hartsfield Atlanta Int’l Airport .................... B-6

AUS — Austin Robert Mueller Airport ..................... B-7

BDL — Bradley Int’l Airport ..................................... B-8

BHM — Birmingham Airport .................................... B-9

BNA — Nashville Int’l Airport ................................ B-10

BOI — Boise Air Terminal ....................................... B-11

BOS — Boston Logan Int’l Airport ......................... B-12

BSM — Bergstrom AFB (new Austin) ..................... B-13

BUF — Greater Buffalo Int’l Airport ....................... B-14

BUR — Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport ......... B-15

BWI — Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport ........... B-16

CAE — Columbia Metropolitan Airport ................. B-17

CHS — Charleston AFB Int’l Airport ..................... B-18

CLE — Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport ................ B-19

CLT — Charlotte/Douglas Int’l Airport .................. B-20

CMH — Port Columbus Int’l Airport ..................... B-21

COS — Colorado Springs Municipal Airport .......... B-22

CVG — Greater Cincinnati Int’l Airport ................ B-23

DAL — Dallas-Love Field ....................................... B-24

DAY — Dayton Int’l Airport ................................... B-25

DCA — Washington National Airport .................... B-26

DEN — Denver Int’l Airport ................................... B-27

DFW — Dallas-Fort Worth Int’l Airport ................ B-28

DSM — Des Moines Int’l Airport ........................... B-29

DTW — Detroit Metropolitan Airport ................... B-30

ELP — El Paso Int’l Airport .................................... B-31

EWR — Newark Int’l Airport .................................. B-32

FLL — Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l Airport ... B-33

GEG — Spokane Int’l Airport ................................. B-34

GRR — Grand Rapids Kent County Int’l Airport .. B-35

GSO — Greensboro Int’l Airport ............................ B-36

GSP — Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport ........ B-37

HNL — Honolulu Int’l Airport ............................... B-38

HOU — Houston William P. Hobby Airport .......... B-39

IAD — Washington Dulles Int’l Airport ................. B-40

IAH — Houston Intercontinental Airport ............... B-41

ICT — Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ................. B-42

IND — Indianapolis Int’l Airport ............................ B-43

ISP — Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport ......... B-44

ITO — Hilo Int’l Airport ......................................... B-45

JAX — Jacksonville Int’l Airport .............................. B-46

JFK — New York John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport ..... B-47

KOA — Kailua-Kona Keahole .................................. B-48

LAS — Las Vegas McCarran Int’l Airport .............. B-49

LAX — Los Angeles Int’l Airport ............................ B-50

LBB — Lubbock Int’l Airport .................................. B-51

LGA — New York LaGuardia Airport .................... B-52

LIH — Lihue Airport ............................................... B-53

LIT — Little Rock Adams Field .............................. B-54

MAF — Midland Int’l Airport ................................. 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 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

PVD — Providence Green State Airport ................. B-77

PWM — Portland Int’l Jetport ................................. B-78

RDU — Raleigh-Durham Int’l Airport ................... B-79

RIC — Richmond Int’l Airport ............................... B-80

RNO — Reno Tahoe Int’l Airport ........................... B-81

ROC — Greater Rochester Int’l Airport .................. B-82

RSW — Fort Myers Southwest Regional Airport .... B-83

SAN — San Diego Int’l Lindberg Field .................. B-84

SAT — San Antonio Int’l Airport ............................ B-85

SAV — Savannah Int’l Airport ................................. B-86

SDF — Louisville Standiford Field .......................... B-87

SEA — Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport ....................... B-88

SFO — San Francisco Int’l Airport .......................... B-89

SJC — San Jose Int’l Airport .................................... B-90

SJU — San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín Int’l Airport ... B-91

SLC — Salt Lake City Int’l Airport......................... B-92

SMF — Sacramento Metropolitan Airport .............. B-93

SNA — Santa Ana/John Wayne Airport .................. B-94

SRQ — Sarasota Bradenton Airport ........................ B-95

STL — Lambert St. Louis Int’l Airport .................. B-96

STT — St. Thomas, Virgin Islands .......................... B-97

SYR — Syracuse Hancock Int’l Airport ................... B-98

TPA — Tampa Int’l Airport ..................................... B-99

TUL — Tulsa Int’l Airport ..................................... B-100

TUS — Tucson Int’l Airport .................................. B-101

TYS — Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport ............ B-102
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 3

ABQ — Albuquerque International Airport

3

26

30

35

12

17

GA Area

Terminal

Cargo

Ramp

ANG Ramp

8

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

21

Control Tower
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 4

ALB — Albany County Airport

Construction of an extension to Runway 10/28 is

planned. The estimated cost of

construction is $5.8 million. A

new parallel Runway 1R/19L

is also planned. The estimated

cost is $7.5 million.

28

1

10

19

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

 TOWER

GENERAL AVIATION

 PARKING

NY ANG

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 5

ANK — Anchorage International Airport

14

6R

32

24L

24R

6L

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 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 feet long and

approximately 4,200 feet south

of Runway 9R/27L, is being

planned. The runway will

permit triple independent IFR

approaches using the PRM.

The total estimated cost is

$418 million. The estimated

operational date is 2000.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 7

AUS — Austin Robert Mueller Airport

13R

17

13L

31R

31L

35

TERMINAL BUILDING

 FIRE

STATION

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 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.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 9

BHM — Birmingham Airport

18

23

36

5

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 10

BNA — Nashville International Airport

A new Runway 2E/20E is

planned for the future between

1,500 and 3,500 feet from

Runway 2R/20L. In addition,

an extension to Runway 2R/

20L is planned.

2R

2L

20R

20L

20C

2C

13

31

Donelson Pike

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

General

Aviation

20E

2E
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 11

A 2,600 foot extension to

the east end of Runway 10L/

28R is planned. It is expected

to be operational in 1998, at a

cost of $8 million.

10L

10R

28L

28R

 FIRE

CENTER

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

BOI — Boise Air Terminal
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 12

4L

4R

6

27

33L

15R

22R

22L

33R

15L

Terminal

Control

Tower

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

SOUTH

North

14

32

BOS — Boston Logan International Airport

A new uni-directional

commuter runway (Runway

14/32) 4,300 feet from Runway 15R/33L, an extension of

Runway 15L/33R to 3,500

feet, and a 400-foot extension

of Runway 9 are being studied.

An Environmental Impact

Study is currently in progress

for the new runway.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 13

BSM — Bergstrom AFB (new Austin)

The community has

approved the sale of revenue

bonds for the development of

a new airport. The present

Robert Mueller Airport

cannot be expanded.

Bergstrom Air Force Base

(AFB) was transferred to the

city on October 1, 1993, and

the city is now planning to

construct a new parallel runway and relocate all commercial activity there in 1998. The

total estimated project cost is

$520 million. The city has an

Airport Master Plan under

development. Environmental

studies are in progress by the

Air Force and the city. Since

Robert Mueller Airport will

close upon completion of the

new airport, no capacity

enhancements are planned at

Mueller. Some of the construction projects include a

new Runway 17L/35R and

associated taxiways, new

midfield cross taxiways, a new

air cargo apron, and renovation

of Runway 17R/35L to bring

it up to FAA CAT III standards.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Bergstrom Air Force Base Conversion

Opening Day Layout Plan

as of 1-31-95
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 14

23

32

5

14

WEST TERMINAL

EAST TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

BUF — Greater Buffalo International Airport
1996 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 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 16

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

15R

15L

33R

33L

22

4

28

10

BWI — Baltimore-Washington International Airport

A new 7,800-foot runway,

Runway 10R/28L, is planned

to be constructed by 2003,

3,500 feet south of Runway

10/28. When Runway 10R/

28L is constructed, Runway 4/

22 will be converted to a

taxiway.
1996 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 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 18

CHS — Charleston AFB International Airport

15

21

33

3

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 19

CLE — Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

A Master Plan Update is

currently being coordinated.

The preliminary Airport

Layout Plan shows construction of a new Runway 5W/

23W that would be 10,950

feet long and 150 feet wide.

Construction is expected to be

completed in 2000 at a cost of

$180 million. Also included in

the development plan is an

extension of the existing

Runway 5L/23R from 7,095

feet to 12,480 feet at an

estimated cost of $40 million

and conversion of the existing

Runway 5R/23L to a parallel

taxiway at a cost of $3 million.

All of this work is scheduled

for completion in 2005.

Control

Tower

General

Aviation General

Aviation

NASA

36

18

10L

28R

5R

5L

23R

23L

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

Terminal

5W

23W
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 20

CLT — Charlotte/Douglas International Airport

Plans to open a third

parallel 8,000-foot runway

west of Runway 18R/36L that

would permit triple IFR approaches (dependent or independent, based on final separation) is being considered. An

Environmental Impact Study

is underway. While construction has not begun, it is estimated to be completed in

2000, with an estimated cost

of $122 million.

18R

18L

36L 36R

Old Terminal

Building

Air Carrier

Building

GA Ramp

U.S. Customs

Control Tower

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Taxiway D

Taxiway C

Taxiway M

Taxiway A

Taxiway E

Taxiway M

Taxiway A

Taxiway M

Taxiway A

Taxiway C

5

23

FBO Area

ANG Ramp

18W

36W

Taxiway to be removed
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 21

CMH — Port Columbus International Airport

The Airport Layout Plan

has been coordinated to show

a third parallel Runway 10S/

28S constructed 800 feet south

of the existing Runway 10R/

28L. This runway will be

10,250 feet long and 150 feet

wide, with two high speed

exits, a 90 degree exit at the

center, and a 90 degree bypass

taxiway at each end. This

would provide a 3,650 foot

separation between the proposed Runway 10S/28S and

the existing Runway 10L/28R.

With the installation of the

Precision Runway Monitor

(PRM), the existing Runway

10L/28R and the proposed

Runway 10S/28S could be

used for arrival air traffic.

Runway 10R/28L would be

used as the departure runway.

A 1,000 foot extension to

Runwya 28R was completed in

late 1996.

The existing Runway 10L

is being extended 1,000 feet

and will be completed in 1997.

Upon completion, Runway

10L/28R will be 8,000 feet

long and 150 feet wide.

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

10R

10L

28R

23

28L

5

Taxiway F

Taxiway F

Taxiway B

Taxiway B

Taxiway A

Taxiway C

Taxiway C

Taxiway C

Taxiway E

Taxiway E

General Aviation Parking

10S

28S

Sawyer Road

International Gateway

Taxiway B

Taxiway G
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 22

COS — Colorado Springs Municipal Airport

12

R 17

30

35L

CONTROL TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

35R

17L
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 23

CVG — Greater Cincinnati International Airport

36L

36R

18L

18R

9

27

Fire

Station

Terminals

International

Terminal

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 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.
1996 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 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 26

DCA — Washington National Airport

3

36

33

21

18

15

Terminals

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 27

DEN — Denver International Airport

Runway 16R/34L is the

last of the six original runways

to be built at the new airport.

It will be separated 2,600 feet

from Runway 16L/34R, and

be 16,000 feet in length. The

runway is expected to be

completed in 2000, at an

estimated cost of $75 million.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

16

34

8

26

17L

17R

35R

35L

7

25

Control Tower
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 28

DFW — Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport

Proposed 2,000-foot

extensions to all of the north/

south parallel runways will

provide an overall length of

13,400 feet for each. Environmental assessments for the

extension to Runway 17C/

35C, Runway 18L/36R, and

Runway 18R/36L are expected

to begin in 1997.The estimated cost of each extension is

$25 million. The extension of

Runway 17R/35L has been

completed and was operational

September 16, 1993. The

construction of Runway 17L/

35R was completed and was

operational on October 1,

1996. The runway is 8,500 feet

in length. It is 5,000 feet east

of and parallel to Runway

17C/35C (previously 17L/

35R). The total cost of the

runway was approximately

$300 million and allows DFW

to accomodate triple simultaneous precision instrument

approaches for the first time.

Construction on the west

runway, Runway 18R/36L,

will begin when warranted by

aviation demand. It could be

available as early as 2001. The

estimated cost is $100 million.

It will be located 5,800 feet

west of Runway 18R/36L (to

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.

be renamed 18C/36C). Runway 18R/36L may be constructed in phases, with the

first phase a 6,000 foot runway

located north of Runway 13R/

31L. The second phase extension to 9,760 feet would

intersect and continue south of

Runway 13R/31L. The addition of Runway 18R/36L will

allow DFW to accomodate

quadruple simultaneous

precision instrument approaches.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 29

DSM — Des Moines International Airport

An Environmental Impact

Study was recently completed

on a southwest extension of

Runway 5/23. Construction is

planned to begin in 1997, and

is expected to be completed in

2001. Cost for construction is

estimated at $28 million, with

an estimated additional $20

million for road relocation.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

12L

23

30R

30L

5

12R

CONTROL

 TOWER
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 30

DTW — Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport

A fourth north-south

parallel, Runway 4/22 is

planned. Construction is

expected to begin in 1999 and

should be completed in 2001.

The estimated cost of construction is $116.5 million.

This runway could potentially

permit triple IFR arrivals with

one dependent and one independent pairing. An environmental assessment was submitted in September 1989, and

a record of decision was issued

in March 1990. Land acquisition is currently in progress.

21R

21C

21L

27R 27L

9L

9R

3L

3C

3R

Control

Tower

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

22

4
1996 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 new parallel Runway

8L/26R is shown on the

current Airport Layout Plan

for the year 2010 plus time

frame. Estimated cost would

be $20-30 million. In addition,

a 1,000 ft. extension to Runway 22 is included in the

currently approved Passenger

Facility Charge for the year

2000. Estimated cost would be

$8 million.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 32

EWR — Newark International Airport

An extension to Runway

4L/22R is in the preliminary

planning stage. The estimated

operational date is 2000.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

4L

4R

22R

22L

11

29

Terminals

Control

Tower

North Terminal

General

Aviation
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 33

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

FLL — Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport

An extension of the short

parallel Runway 9R/27L to

10,000 feet long by 150 feet

wide is planned to provide the

airport with a second parallel

air carrier runway. Construction is expected to begin in

2000. The estimated cost of

construction is $270 million.

The anticipated operational

date is 2002. An EIS is underway and expected to be completed in 1998.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 34

GEG — Spokane International Airport

Future projects include the

construction of a new parallel

Runway 3L/21R. The new

runway will be 8,800 feet long

by 150 feet wide and will be

separated from Runway 3R/

21L by 4,300 feet. This would

enable independent parallel

operations, doubling hourly

IFR arrival capacity. The

estimated cost of construction

of the new runway is approximately $11 million. Construction could be started as early as

1999.

3

7

25

21

U.S. CUSTOMS

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 35

GRR — Grand Rapids Kent County International Airport

An extension to 8,500 feet

and realignment for the crosswind Runway 18/36 (17/35) is

under construction. Estimated

cost is $58 million. The runway will provide wind coverage, noise relief, and reduce

winter weather related delays

by providing a second air

carrier runway. Construction is

expected to be complete in

1997. A new 7,000 foot

parallel Runway 8L/26R is

planned for future development. The current 8L/26R

would be converted into a

taxiway at that time.

26L

26R

8L

8R

GENERAL

AVIATION

PARKING

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL TOWER

AIRPORT BEACON

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

17

35
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 36

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

32

5

14

23

CONTROL

 TOWER

 FIRE

STATION

GSO — Greensboro Piedmont Triad International Airport

An extension of Runway

14/32 is planned. It is expected

to be operational by 2005, at a

cost of $15.7 million. Construction of a new parallel

Runway 5L/23R, 5,300 feet

north of Runway 5/23, is also

being planned. It is expected

to be operational by 2020.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 37

GSP — Greer Greenville-Spartanburg Airport

A new parallel runway,

Runway 3R/21L, is anticipated in 2015 at an estimated

cost of $50 million. Presently,

its planned length is 10,000

feet with a 4,350 foot separation from Runway 3/21. This

would potentially double

hourly IFR arrival capacity

Also, an extension of Runway

3L/21R to 12,200 feet is

planned. Construction to

11,000 ft is expected to be

completed by 1999 at a cost of

$34.1 million.

3L

21R

CONTROL

 TOWER

PASSENGER

 TERMINAL

3R

21L

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 38

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
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 39

HOU — Houston William P. Hobby Airport

Terminal

30L

30R

35

12L

12R

17

22

4

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 40

IAD — Washington Dulles International Airport

Two new parallel runways

are under consideration. A

north-south parallel, Runway

1W/19W, would be located

4,300 feet west of the existing

parallels and north of Runway

12/30. Estimated opening data

is 2009. This could provide

triple independent parallel

approaches, if they are approved. A second parallel

Runway 12R/30L has been

proposed for location 4,300

feet southwest of Runway 12/

30. The runway is expected to

be completed by 2010.

19R

19L

12

30

1L

1R

CONTROL TOWER

MIDFIELD TERMINAL RAMP

1,000 ft

5,000 ft
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 41

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 — Houston Intercontinental Airport

An $8 million 2,000-foot

extension to Runway 14R/32L

is planned. A new Runway

8L/26R is planned to be

parallel to and north of the

existing Runway 8/26. Runway

8L/26R, in conjunction with

Runways 9/27 and 8/26, has

the potential to support triple

IFR approaches, if approved.

Another new runway, parallel

to and south of Runway 9/27,

is also planned. Construction

is expected to cost $44 million

for each new runway.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 42

ICT — Wichita Mid-Continent Airport

19L

32 1R

19R

1L

14

TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 43

IND — Indianapolis International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

32

14

23L

23R

5R

5L

Terminal
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 44

ISP — Islip Long Island Mac Arthur Airport

28

24

15L

33R

33L

9

10

15R

TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 45

ITO — Hilo International Airport

8

21

3

26

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 46

JAX — Jacksonville International Airport

A new parallel Runway

7R/25L is being planned. It

will be 6,500 feet south of the

existing Runway 7/25, permitting independent parallel IFR

operations and potentially

doubling Jacksonville’s hourly

IFR arrival capacity. Construction is scheduled to begin in

2005, with completion expected in 2006. Estimated cost

of construction is $50 million.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

7

13

31

25

MAIN TERMINAL

7R

25L
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 47

JFK — New York John F. Kennedy International Airport

INTERNATIONAL ARRIVAL

 TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

NORTH

PASSENGER

TERMINAL

13R

13L

31L

31R

4R

22L

22R

4L

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

14

32
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 48

KOA — Kailua-Kona Keahole

17

35

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 49

7R

7L

1L

1R

19L

19R

25R

25L

Control Tower

Main

Terminal

Charter

International

Terminal

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Air

Cargo

TAXIWAY B

TAXIWAY A

TAXIWAY B

A-3

A-3

A-3

A-4

C-6

C-4

TAXIWAY C

TAXIWAY D

TAXIWAY C

TAXIWAY E

Satellite

One

LAS — Las Vegas McCarran International Airport

An upgrade of Runway

1L/19R to accommodate air

carrier aircraft is under construction. This improvement

will significantly increase the

capacity of the airport when

weather conditions require the

use of Runways 1L and 1R or

19L and 19R.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 50

LAX — Los Angeles International Airport

24R 24L

6R

6L

7R 7L

25R 25L

Admin Bldg/Control Tower

FAA Hangar

Bulk Fuel

Storage

X

X

X X

X

Theme

Structure

Twy 61

Twy 75

Twy 48

Twy 49

Twy 50

Twy K

Twy U

N

Twy K - Easterly Extension

Twy T

extension

Twy J

TBIT

Note: Some buildings/structures have been removed for clarity.

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

T-1

T-2

T-3

T-8

T-7

T-6

T-5

T-4
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 51

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.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 52

LGA — New York LaGuardia Airport

31

13

22

04

Control Tower

Passenger

Terminals

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 53

LIH — Lihue Airport

3

35

21

17

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Terminal
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 54

LIT — Little Rock Adams Field

An extension of Runway

4L/22R is underway, and

should be operational in early

1998. The estimated cost of

construction is $31 million.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

22R

36

18

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

 TOWER

4R

4L

22L
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 55

MAF — Midland International Airport

An extension to Runway

10/28 is planned, and construction is scheduled to begin

in 2007.

28

22

34L

4

34R

16L

16R

10

TERMINAL

CONTROL

 TOWER

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 56

MCI — Kansas City International Airport

In accordance with the

Airport Master Plan, an

extension of Runway 1L/19R

is currently planned. One

additional parallel runway west

of the existing north-south

runway isbeing considered.

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

19R

1L

9

27

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINALS

A

B

C

1R

19L
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 57

MCO — Orlando International Airport

Environmental mitigation

for a fourth north-south

runway, Runway 17L/35R,

began October 10, 1990. The

runway is expected to be

operational in 2002. It will be

located 4,300 feet east of

Runway 17R/35L. This may

permit triple independent IFR

operations. The estimated cost

of construction of this runway

is $137 million. Also planned

is a 1,000 ft. extension to

Runway 17R/35L.

Terminal

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

18L 18R

36L

36R

35L

35R

17L

17R
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 58

MDT — Harrisburg International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

13

31
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 59

MDW — Chicago Midway Airport

Reconstruction of Runway

4R/22L is scheduled to start in

1997, with a projected cost of

$32 million. The project is

expected to be completed that

same year.

13L

4L

4R

31C

31R

22R

22L

TERMINAL

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

13R

31L

13C
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 60

MEM — Memphis International Airport

Construction of a new

north-south parallel Runway

18L/36R began in 1993. It

will be located about 900 feet

east of Runway 18C/36C (old

18L/36R) and 4,300 feet from

Runway 18R/36L, thus allowing independent parallel

approaches. This will increase

present hourly IFR arrival

capacity by about 33 percent.

The new runway will be

operational in early 1997. The

estimated cost is $146.1

million. A reconstruction and

extension of Runway 18C/36C

is also planned. Construction

is expected to start in 1997 and

be completed by 1999 at a cost

of $94.6 million.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

TERMINAL

CONTROL

TOWER

27

18C

9

36L 36C

18R

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

XXXX Closed Runway

36R

18L
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 61

MIA — Miami International Airport

Construction of a new air

carrier runway 8,600 feet long

and 800 feet north of existing

Runway 9L/27R is expected to

start in 1998 and be completed

by 2000. The estimated cost of

construction is $149 million.

An EIS is expected to be

completed in late 1997.

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINAL

27R

27L

30

9L

12

9R

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

8/26
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 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 capacity demand analysis is being done to determine

when construction of a new

parallel Runway 7R/25L,

3,500 feet south of the existing

runway, is needed. An EIS is

in progress for the extension of

Runway 7L/25R. Realignment

of Runway 7L/25R was

completed in 1996.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 63

MSP — Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

The extension of Runway

4/22, 2,750 feet to the southwest which brought the runway length to 11,000 feet,

became operational in October

1996. A new 8,000 ft air

carrier runway, Runway 17/35,

is planned for 2003, at an

estimated cost of $120 million.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Southwest

Cargo Apron

Control

Tower

11R

11L

22

29R

4

29L

Hubert H. Humphrey

International Terminal

Main

Terminal

USAF Area N

Minnesota

ANG Area D

Taxiway C

Taxiway M

Taxiway D

Gold

Red

Blue

Green

17

35
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 64

MSY — New Orleans International Airport

A new north-south runway, Runway 1L/19R, is

planned. This new runway will

be parallel to the existing

Runway 1/19 and will be

located west of the threshold

of Runway 10, approximately

11,000 feet away from Runway

1/19. This will allow independent parallel operations,

doubling IFR hourly arrival

capacity. Pending environmental approvals, construction

could begin as early as 2000

and be completed in 2005, at

an approximate cost of $400

million. As an alternative to

this north-south runway, the

airport is considering the

construction of an east/west

parallel runway, Runway 10S/

28S, 4,300 feet to the south of

existing Runway 10/28, off of

present airport property. The

airport is also constructing a

north parallel east/west taxiway approximately 800 feet

north of and parallel to the

existing Runway 10/28, which

could later be converted into a

6,000-foot commuter and

general aviation runway. The

estimated cost of construction

is $34 million, and the expected operational date is late

1999.

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

19L

28

10

1R

10S

28S

19R

1L
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 65

OAK — Metropolitan Oakland International Airport

An extension to Runway

11/29 is planned for ultimate

development.

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

TERMINAL

CONTROL

TOWER

11

9R

9L

15

33

27R

27L

29
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 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 mid1998, at a cost of $40 million.

5

20

23

2

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1996 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 feet

west of Runway 17R/35L is

planned to be operational by

2004. Estimated cost of

construction is $13 million.

Extensions to both north/

south runways, Runways 17L/

35R and 17R/35L, are also

planned. The estimated costs

of extending the runways is $8

million each. Construction of

the extension to Runway 17R/

35L is expected to start in

2001 and be completed by

2014. A 1,200 foot extension

to the northwest of Runway

13/31 is planned as well.

Construction is stated to begin

in 2003, be completed in 2005,

and cost $5 million.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

35L 35R

30

17L

17R 12

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINAL

BUILDING

18

36
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 68

17

14R

35

32L

32R

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

 TOWER

 HOT

CARGO

FIRE STATION

FREIGHT

 RAMP

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

14L

OMA — Omaha Eppley Airfield

A 1,000 foot extension of

Runway 14R/32L was completed in late 1996, with a cost

of $9 million, including the

relocation of ILS equipment.
1996 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 1996 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
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 71

ORF — Norfolk International Airport

A new air carrier runway,

Runway 5R/23L, 800 feet

south of Runway 5/23 was

recommended by the Eastern

Region Capacity Design

Team. A Master Plan Update

is currently underway. The

runway could be operational

by 2005, at en estimated cost

of $75 million, providing the

airport can acquire the small

amount of additional land

required.

14

5L

32

23R

Main

Terminal

South Terminal

Control

Tower

Air Cargo

Building

23L

5R

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 72

PBI — Palm Beach International Airport

Runway 9L/27R is

planned to be extended 1,200

feet to the west and 811 feet to

the east, for a total length of

10,000 feet. The total estimated project cost is $10

million. The EIS is planned to

be completed in late 1997.

Construction is planned to

start in 1998 and be completed

in 1999. Also a 700 foot

extension of Runway 9R/27L

to the west is being considered

for completion in 2001 at a

cost of $0.5 million.

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

13

31

9L

27R

9R

27L

Terminal

Control

Tower
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 73

PDX — Portland International Airport

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

28L

28R

10L

10R

3

21

Control

Tower

Terminal
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 74

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

9L

9R

27L

27R

35

17

PHL — Philadelphia International Airport

A new 5,000-foot parallel

commuter runway, Runway 8/

26 is under construction. It

will be located 3,000 feet

north of Runway 9R/27L.

Land acquisition and hangar

relocation are underway. The

estimated cost is $220 million.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 75

PHX — Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

A new 9,500-foot third

parallel runway, Runway 7/25,

is proposed 800 feet south of

Runway 8R/26L. The estimated cost of construction is

$88 million. The estimated

operational date for the first

7,800 feet of Runway 7/25 is

1997; the remaining 1,700 feet

of the runway is not scheduled

at this time. In addition, an

extension of Runway 8L/26R

is under consideration. The

estimated cost of construction

is $7.0.

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

26R 26L

Control Tower

8R

8L

25

7
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 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 feet south

of existing Runway 10R/28L

and should be operational by

the time the airport reaches

495,000 annual aircraft operations. The northern parallel

runway will be located 1,000

feet north of existing Runway

10L/28R and should be

operational by the time the

airport reaches 522,000 annual

aircraft operations.

Control

Tower

General

Aviation

Area

‹ 10,502 ft. fi

10C

10R

10L

28R

Air Cargo

Facility

28L

28C

14

32

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 77

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 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 78

PWM — Portland International Jetport

11

36

29

18

Terminal

Air Carrier Ramp

Control Tower

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 79

RDU — Raleigh-Durham International Airport

Addition of a new 9,500 ft.

parallel runway located approximately 1,050 feet west of

existing Runway 5L/23R. The

northernmost threshold of the

new west runway would be colocated with the approach

threshold to Runway 23R. The

proposed taxiway network

serving this airfield complex

would include a full-length

parallel taxiway and six highspeed exit taxiways, all located

on the terminal side of the

new runway.

Addition of a 1,500 ft.

runway extension to south end

of existing Runway 5R/23L,

bringing the total useable

length for landings and takeoffs to 9,000 ft. A second fulllength parallel taxiway, complete with taxiway connections

would be programmed together with exit taxiway

modifications to high-speed

exit configurations.

Further taxiway enhancements to the overall airfield

include the planned relocation

of Taxiway D to a position

more proximate to Taxiway C,

two crossfield taxiways at the

north end of the airfield, and a

taxiway connecting the air

cargo area to the general

aviation area.

Terminal B

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

Control Tower

Terminal A

5R

5L

23L

23R

14

General Aviation

National Guard

32

Terminal C
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 80

RIC — Richmond International Airport

An extension of Runway

16/34 is planned for an operational date of early 1997. The

estimated cost of construction

is $45 million.

20

16

34

2

7

25

Control

Tower

Terminal

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 81

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 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 82

ROC — Greater Rochester International Airport

Construction of an extension to Runway 10/28 is being

considered. The estimated cost

of construction is $3.2 million.

An extension to Runway 4/22

is also being considered, and is

expected to cost $4 million.

Construction of a new parallel

Runway 4R/22L 700 feet

southeast of Runway 4/22 is

estimated to cost $10 million.

These runway improvements

are anticipated post 2000.

Environmental assessments

have not yet been started for

these projects.

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

10

7

4

25

28

22

CONTROL

 TOWER
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 83

RSW — Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional Airport

Planning has begun for a

new 9,100 foot parallel runway, Runway 6R/24L, 4,300

feet or more southeast of

Runway 6/24. Construction is

expected to begin in 2000. The

new runway should be operational by 2002. The estimated

cost of the project is $80

million. This new runway will

support independent parallel

operations.

CONTROL

 TOWER

6

24

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

6R

24L
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 84

SAN — San Diego International Lindberg Field

27

9

CONTROL

 TOWER

 FIRE

STATION

 EAST

TERMINAL

 WEST

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 85

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 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 86

SAV — Savannah International Airport

 A new 9,000-foot parallel

runway, Runway 9L/27R,

approximately 5,000 feet north

of Runway 9/27, is expected to

be constructed in 2020, with

an estimated cost of $20

million.

27

9

36

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

FIRE STATION

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

18

27R

9L
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 87

SDF — Louisville Standiford Field

Construction is underway

for two new parallel runways,

4,950 feet apart. They will be

numbered Runways 17R/35L

and 17L/35R and will be

10,000 and 8,580 feet long,

respectively. They will replace

Runway 1/19, which will be

closed. The estimated cost of

construction is $59 million for

Runway 17R/35L. Runway

17L/35R is complete, and

Runway 17R/35L is expected

to be completed in 1997. The

two runways will permit

independent parallel IFR

operations.

1

19

11

29

17L

35R

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 88

16L

34L

34R

16R

16W

34W

Control

Tower

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

SEA — Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Potential airport improvements include a new Runway

16W/34W, 8,500 feet in

length, which will be located

2,500 feet from Runway 16L/

34R. A decision on construction will be made in 1997, and

the estimated cost of construction is $400 million.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 89

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 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 90

SJC — San Jose International Airport

D

A

A

B B B

E E

C

G

H

I

J

2

2

2

1 1 1

4 4

B B B

A

A

AIR FREIGHT

AIR CARGO

30L

30R

29

12R

12L

11

TERMINAL

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

TERMINAL

Control

Tower

Environmental documentation is currently being

prepared in support of the

extension of Runway 12L/

30R. If this option is determined to be environmentally

acceptable and is adopted by

the sponsor, construction will

begin in 1997.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 91

26

28

10

8

Terminal

Area

Control

Tower North Ramp

East

Ramp

South

Center Ramp

Ramp

Cargo Ramp

Kilo

Ramp

North/South Taxiway

Taxiway S

Taxiway L

Taxiway S

Taxiway H A

B

C

D

E

F K

J

I

G

Z

Y

M

X

W

O

N

V

TT U

T

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

SJU — San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 92

SLC — Salt Lake City International Airport

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

35

16L

17

32

34R

Terminal

Control

Tower

34L

16R

14
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 93

SMF — Sacramento Metropolitan Airport

16R

16L

34L

34R

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINALS

 FIRE

STATION

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 94

SNA — Santa Ana/John Wayne Airport - Orange County

An extension of Runway

1L/19R is under consideration.

1L

1R

19R

19L

Terminal

Control Tower

Terminal

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 95

SRQ — Sarasota Bradenton Airport

A new parallel Runway

14L/32R 1,230 feet northwest

of Runway 14/32 is being

planned at an estimated cost of

$10 million. It is expected to

be operational beyond 2002. In

32

22

4

14

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINAL

X X X X X X X X

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

14L

32R

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.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 96

STL — Lambert St. Louis International Airport

A new parallel Runway

12R/30L has been recommended in the St. Louis

Airport Master Plan Update.

The new plan calls for a

parallel runway supporting

independent IFR operations.

An EIS is also underway. The

Master Plan Update and the

EIS are anticipated to be

completed in early 1997. The

new Runway 12R/30L is

planned as the first phase of

the airport expansion. Construction of the runway could

occur beginning in 1997,

subject to environmental

approval.

1,000 ft

5,000 ft

12R

6

12L

24

17

30R

30L

31

13
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 97

STT — Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, Virgin Islands

Control Tower

28

10

Terminal

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 98

SYR — Syracuse Hancock International Airport

A new parallel Runway

10L/28R, 9,000 feet long and

separated from the existing

Runway 10/28 by 3,400 feet is

being considered. It would

provide independent parallel

IFR operations, doubling

hourly IFR arrival capacity. The

expected operational date is

10

14

32

28

CONTROL

 TOWER

TERMINAL

BUILDING

U.S. CUSTOMS

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

2000. The cost of construction

is estimated to be $55 million

for the first phase of the new

runway, which would be 7,500

feet long, including a parallel

taxiway and connections to the

ramp. The final length of the

runway will be 9,000 feet.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 99

18L

18R

36L

36R

TERMINAL

BUILDING

CONTROL

TOWER

AIR CARGO

9

27

5,000 ft.

1,000 ft.

36W

18W

TPA — Tampa International Airport

A third parallel Runway

18W/36W 9,650 feet long and

700 feet west of Runway 18R/

36L is being considered. An

extension of Runway 18L is

also being considered for the

time frame beyond 2005, and

reconstruction and extension

of Runway 27, for the time

frame beyond 2010.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 100

18R

36L

36R

26

18L

 FIRE

STATION

TERMINAL

BUILDING

U.S. CUSTOMS

8

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

TUL — Tulsa International Airport

A new parallel runway,

Runway 18L/36R, located

6,400 feet east of the present

18L/36R and 9,600 feet long,

is being considered. The new

runway would permit IFR

triple independent approaches,

if approved, to Runways 18L,

18C, and 18R.
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

APPENDIX B – 101

11R

11L

3

21

29L

29R

TERMINAL

BUILDING

U.S. CUSTOMS

CONTROL TOWER

FIRE STATION

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

TUS — Tucson International Airport

An additional parallel air

carrier runway, Runway 11R/

29L, has been proposed. Upon

completion of the new runway,

the current Runway 11R/29L,

a general aviation runway, will

revert to its original taxiway

status. It is not anticipated that

the sponsor will proceed before

1998. Current plans call for

construction to start in 2003 to

be operational in 2005. The

cost of construction is estimated to be $30 million.
APPENDIX B: THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX B – 102

5L

5R

23L

23R

CONTROL TOWER

TERMINAL

1,000 ft.

5,000 ft.

TYS — Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport
AAC ................ Advanced AERA Concepts

AAF ................. Army Airfield

AAP ................ Advanced Automation, FAA

AAS ................. Advanced Automation System

ACARS ............ ARINC Communications Addressing and Reporting System

ACCC .............. Area Control Computer Complex

ACD ................ Engineering, Research and Development Service, FAA

ACE ................ Airport Capacity Enhancement

ACF ................. Area Control Facility

ADR ................ Automated Demand Resolution

ADS ................ Automatic Dependent Surveillance

ADSIM ............ Airfield Delay Simulation Model

AERA .............. Automated En Route Air Traffic Control

AEX ................ Automated Execution

AF ................... Airway Facilities

AFB ................. Air Force Base

AGFS ............... Aviation Gridded Forecast System

AGL ................ Above Ground Level

AIP .................. Airport Improvement Program

AIRNET .......... Airport Network Simulation Model

AIV ................. Aviation Impact Variable

ALP ................. Airport Layout Plan

ALS ................. Approach Lighting System

ALSF-II ........... Approach Light System with Sequenced Flashers and

CAT II modification

AMASS ............ Airport Movement Area Safety System

AMSS .............. Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service

ANA ................ Program Director for Automation, FAA

AND ................ Associate Administrator for NAS Development, FAA

ANG ................ Air National Guard

ANN ................ Program Director for Navigation and Landing, FAA

ANR ................ Program Director for Surveillance, FAA

ANS ................ NAS Transition Implementation Service, FAA

ANW ............... Program Director for Weather and

Flight Service Stations, FAA

AOC ................ Aeronautical Operational Control

AOR ................ Operations Research Service, FAA

APO ................ Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, FAA

APP ................. Office of Airport Planning and Programming, FAA

ARD ................ Research and Development Service, FAA

ARF ................. Airport Reservation Function

ARINC ............ Aeronautical Radio Incorporated

ARSA .............. Airport Radar Surface Area

ARTCC ............ Air Route Traffic Control Center

ARTS ............... Automated Radar Terminal System

ASC ................. Office of System Capacity and Requirements, FAA

ASCP ............... Aviation System Capacity Plan

ASD ................ Aircraft Situation Display

ASDE .............. Airport Surface Detection Equipment

GlossaryAppendix C:
APPENDIX C – 2

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY 1996 ACE PLAN

ASE ................. NAS System Engineering Service, FAA

ASOS ............... Automated Surface Observation System

ASP ................. Arrival Sequencing Program

ASQP............... Airline Service Quality Performance

ASR ................. Airport Surveillance Radar

ASTA ............... Airport Surface Traffic Automation

ATC ................ Air Traffic Control

ATCAA ............ Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace

ATCSCC .......... Air Traffic Control System Command Center

ATIS ................ Automated Terminal Information Service

ATN ................ Aeronautical Telecommunications Network

ATMS .............. Advanced Traffic Management System

ATO ................ Air Traffic Operations Service, FAA

ATOMS ........... Air Traffic Operations Management System

AWDL ............. Aviation Weather Development Laboratory

AWOS ............. Automated Weather Observing System

AWPG ............. Aviation Weather Products Generator

CAA ................ Civil Aviation Authority

CAEG .............. Computer Aided Engineering Graphics

CARF .............. Central Altitude Reservation Function

CASA .............. Controller Automated Spacing Aid

CASTWG......... Converging Approach Standards

Technical Working Group

CAT................. Category

CDTI ............... Cockpit Display of Traffic Information

CFWSU ........... Central Flow Weather Service Unit

CIP.................. Capital Investment Plan

CNS ................ Communication, Navigation, and Surveillance

CODAS ............ Consolidated Operations and Delay Analysis System

CONDAT ......... CONUS National Airspace Data Access Tool

CONUS............ Continental United States

CRDA .............. Converging Runway Display Aid

CRS ................. Computer Reservation System

CSD ................ Critical Sector Detector

CTAS ............... Center–TRACON Automation System

CTMA ............. Center Traffic Management Advisor

CTR ................ Civil Tilt Rotor

CVFP ............... Charted Visual Flight Procedures

CW ................. Continous Wave

CWSU ............. Center Weather Service Unit

CY................... Calendar Year

DA .................. Descent Advisor

DDAS .............. Daily Decision Analysis System

DEMVAL ......... Demonstration/Validation

DGPS .............. Differential GPS

DH .................. Decision Height

DLP................. Data Link Processor

DME ............... Distance Measuring Equipment

DME/P ............ Precision Distance Measuring Equipment
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY

APPENDIX C – 3

DOD ............... Department of Defense

DOT ................ Department of Transportation

DOTS .............. Dynamic Ocean Tracking System

DSB ................. Double Sideband

DSP ................. Departure Sequencing Program

DSUA .............. Dynamic Special-Use Airspace

DVOR.............. Doppler VOR

ECVFP ............ Expanded Charted Visual Flight

Procedures

EDP ................ Expedite Departure Path

EDPRT ............ Expert Diagnostic, Predictive, and Resolution Tool

EFF ................. Experimental Forecast Facility

EIS .................. Environmental Impact Statement

EOF ................ Emergency Operations Facility

ESP ................. En Route Spacing Program

ETMS .............. Enhanced Traffic Management System

EVAS ............... Enhanced Vortex Advisory System

F&E ................ Facilities and Equipment

FAA ................. Federal Aviation Administration

FAATC ............ Federal Aviation Administration

Technical Center

FADE .............. FAA-Airline Data Exchange

FAF ................. Final Approach Fix

FANS ............... Future Air Navigation System

FAST ............... Final Approach Spacing Tool

FBO ................. Fixed Base Operator

FDAD .............. Full Digital ARTS Display

FL ................... Flight Level

FLOWALTS...... Flow Generation Function

FLOWSIM ....... Traffic Flow Planning Simulation

FMA ................ Final Monitor Aid

FMS ................ Flight Management System

FSD ................. Full-Scale Development

FSM ................ Flight Simulation Monitor

FT ................... Feet

FTMI .............. Flight Operations and

Air Traffic Management Integration

FY ................... Fiscal Year

GA .................. General Aviation

GAO ................ General Accounting Office

GDP ................ Gross Domestic Product

GLONASS ........ Global Orbiting Navigational Satellite System

GNSS ............... Global Navigation Satellite System

GPS ................. Global Positioning System

GRADE ........... Graphical Airspace Design Environment

HARS .............. High Altitude Route System

HIRL ............... High Intensity Runway Lights

HUD ............... Heads-Up Display

HF................... High Frequency
APPENDIX C – 4

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY 1996 ACE PLAN

ICAO ............... International Civil Aviation Organization

IFCN ............... Inter-Facility Flow Control Network

IFR .................. Instrument Flight Rules

I-LAB .............. Integration and Interaction Laboratory

ILS .................. Instrument Landing System

IMC ................ Instrument Meteorological Conditions

INMARSAT ...... International Maritime Satellite

IOC ................. Initial Operational Capability

ISSS ................. Initial Sector Suite System

ITS .................. Intelligent Tutoring System

ITWS ............... Integrated Terminal Weather System

LDA ................ Localizer Directional Aid

LIP .................. Limited Implementation Program

LLWAS ............ Low Level Wind Shear Alert System

LORAN ........... Long Range Navigation

MA.................. Monitor Alert

MALSR............ Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with RAIL

MAP ................ Military Airport Program

MAP ................ Missed Approach Point

MASPS ............ Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards

MCAS .............. Marine Corps Air Station

MCF ................ Metroplex Control Facility

MDCRS ........... Meteorological Data Collection and Reporting System

MIT................. Miles In Trail

MLS ................ Microwave Landing System

MNPS .............. Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications

MOA ............... Military Operations Area

MOPS .............. Minimum Operations Performance Standards

MRAD ............. Milli-Radian

MWP ............... Meteorologist Weather Processor

NAS ................. Naval Air Station

NAS ................. National Airspace System

NASP ............... NAS Plan

NASPAC .......... NAS Performance Analysis Capability

NASPALS ......... NAS Precision Approach and Landing System

NASSIM........... NAS Simulation Model

NATSPG .......... North Atlantic Special Planning Group

NAVAID ........... Navigational Aid

NCF ................ National Control Facility

NCP ................ NAS Change Proposal

NEXRAD ......... Next Generation Weather Radar

NFDC .............. National Flight Data Center

NMC ............... National Meteorological Center

NMCC ............. National Maintenance Coordination Complex

NM ................. Nautical Mile

NOAA ............. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPIAS ............. National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems

NSC ................ National Simulation Capability

NTP ................ National Transportation Policy
1996 ACE PLAN APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY

APPENDIX C – 5

NTZ ................ No Transgression Zone

NWS ................ National Weather Service

OAG ................ Official Airline Guide

ODALS ............ Omni-Directional Approach Lighting System

ODAPS ............ Oceanic Display and Planning System

ODF ................ Oceanic Development Facility

ODL ................ Oceanic Data Link

OMB ............... Office of Management and Budget

OPTIFLOW ..... Optimized Flow Planning

ORD ................ Operational Readiness Date

ORD ................ Operational Readiness Demonstration

OST ................. Office of the Secretary of Transportation

OTFP .............. Operational Traffic Flow Planning

OTPS ............... Oceanic Traffic Planning System

PADS ............... Planned Arrival and Departure System

PAPI ................ Precision Approach Path Indicator

PCA ................. Positive Control Airspace

PDC ................ Pre-Departure Clearance

PRM ................ Precision Runway Monitor

R&D ............... Research and Development

RE&D ............. Research, Engineering, and Development

RAIL ............... Runway Alignment Indicator Lights

RDSIM ............ Runway Delay Simulation Model

REIL................ Runway End Identifier Lights

RFP ................. Request for Proposal

RGCSP ............ Review of General Concepts of Separation Panel

RMM ............... Remote Maintenance Monitoring

RMP ................ Rotorcraft Master Plan

RNAV .............. Remote Area Navigation

RNP ................ Required Navigation Performance

RNPC .............. Required Navigation Performance Capability

ROT ................ Runway Occupancy Time

RSLS ............... Runway Status Light System

RTCA .............. Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics

RVR................. Runway Visual Range

SAR ................. System Analysis Recording

SARPS ............. Standards and Recommended Practices

SATCOM ......... Satellite Communications

SCIA ............... Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches

SDAT ............... Sector Design Analysis Tool

SDRS ............... Standardized Delay Reporting System

SE ................... Strategy Evaluation

SID .................. Standard Instrument Departure

SIMMOD ......... Airport and Airspace Simulation Model

SM .................. Statute Mile

SMARTFLOW .. Knowledge-Based Flow Planning

SMGC ............. Surface Movement Guidance and Control

SMS ................. Simulation Modeling System

SOIR ............... Simultaneous Operations on Intersecting Runways
APPENDIX C – 6

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY 1996 ACE PLAN

SOIWR ............ Simultaneous Operations on Intersecting Wet Runways

STAR ............... Standard Terminal Arrival Route

SUA ................. Special Use Airspace

TACAN ............ Tactical Air Navigation —

UHF omnidirectional course and distance information

TASS ............... Terminal Area Surveillance System

TATCA ............ Terminal ATC Automation

TAVT ............... Terminal Airspace Visualization Tool

TCA ................ Terminal Control Area

TCAS ............... Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System

TCCC .............. Tower Control Computer Complex

TDP ................ Technical Data Package

TERPS ............. Terminal Instrument Procedures

TFM ................ Traffic Flow Management

TIDS ............... Tower Integrated Display System

TMA ............... Traffic Management Advisor

TMCC ............. Traffic Management Computer Complex

TMS ................ Traffic Management System

TMU ............... Traffic Management Unit

TRACON ......... Terminal Radar Approach Control

TSC ................. Volpe Transportation Systems Center

TSO................. Technical Standard Order

TTMA ............. TRACON Traffic Management Advisor

TVOR .............. Terminal VOR

TWDR ............. Terminal Weather Doppler Radar

USWRP............ U.S. Weather Research Program

VASI ................ Visual Approach Slope Indicators

VF ................... Vertical Flight

VFR ................. Visual Flight Rules

VHF ................ Very High Frequency

VMC ............... Visual Meteorological Conditions

VOR ................ VHF Omnidirectional Range — course information only

VORTAC .......... Combined VOR and TACAN Navigational Facility

VOT ................ VOR Test

WAAS .............. Wide Area Augmentation System
A

ADS-B: 52

Advanced Traffic Management System: 64

Air Route Traffic Control Center: 41

Air Traffic: 33

Air Traffic Operations Management System: 20

Airfield Capacity Model: 57

Airline Service Quality Performance: 20

Airport Capacity Design Teams. See Appendix B

Airport Improvement Program: 35

Airport Surface Detection Equipment: 59

alert zone: 50

area route terminal system: 44

ASDE-3. See Airport Surface Detection Equipment

Automated En Route ATC: 64

Automated Radar Terminal System: 59

Automated Weather Observation System: 71

Automatic Dependent Surveillance: 50, 67

B

Bergstrom AFB: 29

C

Capacity Design Teams: 33

Capital Investment Plan: 59

Converging Approach Standards Technical Work Group: 56

D

Delta Air Lines: 52

Display System Replacement: 61

E

En Route and Terminal Airspace Studies: 41

F

FAA Technical Center: 33

Final Monitor Aid: 55

Free Flight: 13, 49, 59, 67

G

General Aviation: 25

Global Positioning System: 21, 50, 67

GRADE: 44

I

In-Trail Climb: 49, 51

In-Trail Descent: 49, 51

Integrated Terminal Weather System: 71

* A note concerning airport names and locations:

This index does not reference the occurrences of airports that appear in any

Tables or Figures. For a listing of Tables and Figures, please see the Table of

Contents. For a listing of airport layouts, please refer to Appendix B.

IndexAppendix D:
APPENDIX D: INDEX 1996 ACE PLAN

APPENDIX D – 2

L

land and hold short: 54

Local Area Augmentation System: 21

Low-level Windshear Alert System: 71

N

NAS. See National Airspace System

NASA. See National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 13, 57, 59

National Airspace System: 29

National Airspace System Architecture Plan: 13, 59, 61

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 71

National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems: 13, 29

National Route Program: 49, 51

P

Precision Runway Monitor: 53, 55

protected zone: 50

Q

Quickpak: 57

R

Regional Capacity Design Team: 40

Research, Engineering, and Development Plan: 59

S

simultaneous operations: 54, 55, 56

Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System: 61

Surface Movement Advisor: 64

T

Terminal Air Traffic Control Automation: 64

Terminal Doppler Weather Radar: 71

Terminal Weather System: 71

U

United Airlines: 52

V

visual meteorological conditions: 49

Voice Switching and Control System: 59

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center: 40

W

Wake Vortex: 57

Weather: 71

Wet Intersecting Runways: 54

Wide Area Augmentation System: 21