NASA/CR–2010-216392

Cruise-Efficient Short Takeoff and Landing (CESTOL): 

Potential Impact on Air Traffic Operations

G. J. Couluris, D. Signor, and J. Phillips

Sensis Corporation, Seagull Technology Center

Campbell, California

October 2010

Prepared for Nasa Ames Research Center

under Contract No. NNA06BA95D
Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) 

Program Office plays a key part in helping NASA 

maintain this important role.

The NASA STI Program Office is operated by 

Langley Research Center, the Lead Center for 

NASA’s scientific and technical information. The 

NASA STI Program Office provides access to 

the NASA STI Database, the largest collection of 

aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

The Program Office is also NASA’s institutional 

mechanism for disseminating the results of its 

research and development activities. These results 

are published by NASA in the NASA STI Report 

Series, which includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoreti‐

cal analysis. Includes compilations of significant 

scientific and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA’s counterpart of peer‐reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent limita‐

tions on manuscript length and extent 

of graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary or of 

specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, 

working papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive 

analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and techni‐

cal findings by NASA‐sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

The NASA STI Program Office . . . in Profile

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientific and technical confer‐

ences, symposia, seminars, or other meetings 

sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, technical, 

or historical information from NASA programs, 

projects, and missions, often concerned with 

subjects having substantial public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. English‐ 

language translations of foreign scientific and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services that complement the STI 

Program Office’s diverse offerings include creating 

custom thesauri, building customized databases, 

organizing and publishing research results . . . even 

providing videos.

For more information about the NASA STI 

Program Office, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI Program Home Page at

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E‐mail your question via the Internet to

help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA Access Help 

Desk at (301) 621‐0134

• Telephone the NASA Access Help Desk at

(301) 621‐0390

• Write to:

NASA Access Help Desk

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076-1320
NASA/CR–2010-216392

Cruise-Efficient Short Takeoff and Landing (CESTOL): 

Potential Impact on Air Traffic Operations

G. J. Couluris, D. Signor, and J. Phillips

Sensis Corporation, Seagull Technology Center

Campbell, California

October 2010

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, California 94035-1000
Available from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information National Technical Information Service

7115 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Springfield, VA 22161

(301) 621-0390 (703) 487-4650

Acknowledgments

This research was performed for NASA Ames Research Center under the guidance of the following 

NASA scientists:

•Dr. John Zuk

•Mr. Craig E. Hange

•Mr. Douglas A. Wardwell

Dr. Zuk and Mr. Hange provided oversight guidance and coordination with other government and indus‐

try research activities. Mr. Hange and Mr. Wardwell provided technical direction, consultative guidance 

and data pertaining to Cruise-Efficient Short Takeoff and Landing aircraft design, performance character‐

istics, and business case considerations. 

Mr. Donald Guffey, FAA, provided consultative guidance pertaining to airport and airspace operations. 

Ms. Helen Monk, FAA, provided airport capacity modeling advice and data. 

The project was conducted by Sensis Corporation, Seagull Technology Center. Dr. George J. Couluris 

directed the research. Mr. David B. Signor analyzed air traffic procedures and operations. Mr. James 

Phillips developed and implemented software modeling routines. Mr. Eric Wendel analyzed air traffic 

distribution characteristics.

.
iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iv 

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... v 

LIST OF NOMENCLATURE ....................................................................................................... vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... vii 

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 1 

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Study Frame of Reference ................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Objective and Scope ......................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Method of Approach ........................................................................................................ 5

2 NEWARK (KEWR) EXTENDED TERMINAL AREA MODELING ................................. 9

2.1 KEWR Extended Terminal Area Modeling Overview .................................................... 9

2.2 KEWR Runway System Procedures .............................................................................. 10

2.3 KEWR Terminal Airspace Procedures .......................................................................... 11

2.3.1 KEWR Terminal Arrival Operations ...................................................................... 11

2.3.2 KEWR Terminal Departure Operations ................................................................. 13

2.3.3 KEWR Airspace Procedural Structure ................................................................... 14

3 NEWARK AIRPORT CESTOL FLIGHT ASSIGNMENT ................................................. 17

3.1 CESTOL Aircraft Type Assignment .............................................................................. 17

3.2 Airspace Operational Impact of CESTOL ..................................................................... 19

4 NEWARK AVTERMINAL MODELING ........................................................................... 21

4.1 AvTerminal Airspace and Runway System Modeling ................................................... 21

4.2 Point Mass Trajectory Model ......................................................................................... 22

4.3 AvTerminal Newark Application ................................................................................... 23

4.4 AvTerminal Reasonableness .......................................................................................... 24

5 NEWARK MODELING RESULTS .................................................................................... 27

5.1 Runway System Traffic Loading ................................................................................... 27

5.2 Runway System Capacity Impacts ................................................................................. 29

5.3 Delay Impacts ................................................................................................................. 31

6 OEP AIRPORTS CESTOL FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS ...................................................... 37

6.1 Flight Distance Conversion Factors ............................................................................... 38

6.2 Seat Size Conversion Factors ......................................................................................... 39

6.3 CESTOL Fleet Size Estimate ......................................................................................... 39

7 ACES NAS-WIDE MODELING ......................................................................................... 43

7.1 ACES OEP Airport Capacities....................................................................................... 43

7.2 ACES Modeling and Results ......................................................................................... 48

8 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................ 53

APPENDIX A—CONVENTIONAL-TO-CESTOL AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT ................. 57

APPENDIX B—KEWR MINIMUM SEPARATION TIME REQUIREMENTS ...................... 61

APPENDIX C—NAS-WIDE 2016 AIRCRAFT FLEET SEAT DISTRIBUTION .................... 63

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 67

 
iv 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. General Work Plan........................................................................................................ 5

Figure 2. KEWR Extended Terminal Area and AvTerminal Modeling Scope. .......................... 9

Figure 3. KEWR VFR Runway Configurations......................................................................... 10

Figure 4. KEWR Southwest VFR Plan Local Arrival Routes and Altitudes. ............................ 12

Figure 5. KEWR Southwest VFR Plan Local Departure Routes and Altitudes. ....................... 13

Figure 6. KEWR Southwest VFR Plan Arrival and Departure Procedures. .............................. 14

Figure 7. KEWR 2016 Daily Arrival Traffic Redistribution. .................................................... 20

Figure 8. KEWR 2016 Daily Arrival Traffic Congestion Alleviation. ...................................... 20

Figure 9. AvTerminal KEWR Application. ............................................................................... 21

Figure 10. KEWR Dependent Convergent Instrument Approach (DCIA). ................................. 24

Figure 11. AvTerminal and FAA 2004 Benchmark Comparison. ............................................... 25

Figure 12. KEWR 2016 Conventional Daily Traffic Demand by 15 Minutes. ........................... 28

Figure 13. KEWR 2016 CESTOL Daily Traffic Demand by 15 Minutes. .................................. 28

Figure 14. KEWR 2016 Conventional vs. CESTOL Landings by 15-Minutes. .......................... 29

Figure 15. KEWR 2016 Conventional vs. CESTOL Takeoffs by 15-Minutes. ........................... 30

Figure 16. KEWR 2016 Conventional vs CESTOL Capacity Envelopes. ................................... 30

Figure 17. KEWR 2016 Conventional and CESTOL Delay Spatial Distribution. ...................... 34

Figure 18. KEWR 2016 Conventional vs. CESTOL Landing Delay by 15 Minutes. ................. 35

Figure 20. 2016 CESTOL Capacity-Improved OEP Airport Acceptance Rates. ........................ 47

Figure 21. 2016 OEP Delay Reductions, M 0.8 CESTOL Cruise Speed. ................................... 50

 
v 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. CESTOL Operating Characteristics.............................................................................. 4

Table 2. Conventional-to-CESTOL Aircraft Conversion Criteria for KEWR 

AvTerminal Modeling. ............................................................................................... 17

Table 3. NAS-wide 50-120 Seat Conventional Aircraft Candidates for CESTOL 

Replacement................................................................................................................ 18

Table 4. KEWR 19-Feb-2004 and 2016 Daily Flight Distribution. ......................................... 18

Table 5. KEWR 19-Feb-2016 CESTOL Flight-Distance Distribution. .................................... 19

Table 6. AvTerminal and FAA 2004 Benchmark Acceptance Rates. ...................................... 25

Table 7. KEWR 2016 Conventional vs CESTOL Capacity. .................................................... 31

Table 8. KEWR 2016 Daily Delay by Fix. ............................................................................... 32

Table 9. KEWR 2016 Daily Delay by Fix Type. ...................................................................... 33

Table 10. KEWR 2016 Daily Delay Reduction by Fix Type. .................................................... 34

Table 11. KEWR 2016 Daily Delay Reduction by Domain. ...................................................... 34

Table 12. OEP Domestic Airports. ............................................................................................. 37

Table 13. 2016 Conventional Aircraft Flight Distance Distribution. ......................................... 38

Table 14. NAS-wide 121-130 Seat Conventional Aircraft Candidates for CESTOL 

Replacement................................................................................................................ 39

Table 15. 2016 Conventional Aircraft Seat Size Distribution. ................................................... 40

Table 16. 2016 CESTOL Aircraft Seat Size Distributions and Share Comparison. ................... 41

Table 17. Conventional Aircraft 2016 OEP Airport Capacities. ................................................ 43

Table 18. Capacity Assessment Factors at Impacted Airports. .................................................. 44

Table 19. 2016 Acceptance Rates at CESTOL Capacity-Improved OEP Airports. ................... 46

Table 20. 2016 OEP Airport and NAS-Wide Flight Delay. M 0.8 CESTOL Cruise Speed. ..... 49

Table 21. 2016 OEP Airport and NAS-wide Flight Delay, M 0.7 CESTOL Cruise Speed. ...... 51

Table 22. KEWR 2016 Daily Delay Impact Summary. .............................................................. 53

Table 23. OEP & NAS-Wide Airports CESTOL (Mach 0.8)-Based Delay Reductions. ........... 54

Table 24. OEP and NAS-Wide Airports: CESTOL-Based Total Delay Reduction Impact. ...... 55

 
vi 

LIST OF NOMENCLATURE 

4D 

AAR 

4-Dimensional 

Arrival Acceptance Rate 

ACES Airspace Concept Evaluation System 

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast 

ARTCC Air Route Traffic Control Center 

ASPM [FAA] Aviation System Performance Metrics 

ATC Air Traffic Control 

ATM Air Traffic Management 

AvAnalyst© Capacity and delay analysis tool for post-processing simulation results

AvTerminal© Airspace and airport capacity and delay computer simulation model 

BADA 

CAS 

Base of Aircraft Data 

Calibrated Air Speed 

CESTOL Cruise-Efficient Short Takeoff and Landing 

CNS Communication, Navigation, and Surveillance 

DAR Departure Acceptance Rate 

DCIA Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches 

DOF Degrees of Freedom 

ETMS [FAA] Enhanced Traffic Management System 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FDS Flight Demand/Data Set 

GA General Aviation 

IFR 

JPDO 

Instrument Flight Rules 

Joint Program Development Office 

KEWR Newark Liberty International Airport, Newark, NJ 

LAHSO Land and Hold Short Operation 

MIT Miles-in-Trail 

NAS National Airspace System 

NMI Nautical Miles 

OEP [FAA] Operational Evolution Plan 

RJ Regional Jet 

RNAV Area Navigation 

RNP Required Navigation Performance 

IFR Instrument Flight Rules 

STAR Standard Arrival 

TAR Total Acceptance Rates 

TFM Traffic Flow Management 

TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control 

VFR Visual Flight Rules 

VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions 
vii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is investigating technological and 

operational concepts for introducing Cruise-Efficient Short Takeoff and Landing (CESTOL) aircraft 

into a future U.S. National Airspace System (NAS) civil aviation environment. CESTOL is an 

aircraft design concept for future use to increase capacity and reduce emissions. The CESTOL 

capability provides flexible climb, descent, and runway performance and high-speed cruise 

capabilities. In support of NASA, this study is a preliminary examination of the potential operational 

impact of CESTOL aircraft on airport and airspace capacity and delay. The study examines 

operational impacts at a subject site, Newark Liberty International Airport (KEWR), New Jersey. 

The study extends these KEWR results to estimate potential impacts on NAS-wide network traffic 

operations due to the introduction of CESTOL aircraft at selected major airports. These are the 34 

domestic airports identified in the Federal Aviation Administration’s Operational Evolution Plan 

(OEP). The analysis process uses two fast-time simulation tools to separately model local and NASwide air traffic operations using predicted flight schedules for a 24-hour study period in 2016. These 

tools are the Sensis AvTerminal© model and NASA’s Airspace Concept Evaluation System (ACES). 

The study uses both to simulate conventional-aircraft-only and CESTOL-mixed-with-conventionalaircraft operations. Both tools apply 4-dimension trajectory modeling to simulate individual flight 

movement. The study develops CESTOL flight schedules for both models by converting selected 

flights in the conventional traffic 2016 forecasts to CESTOL flights. The analysis assumes CESTOL 

aircraft have 120–130 seats, a 2,000-nmi range limit, and a minimum runway length requirement of 

2,000 feet. These criteria are used to facilitate this preliminary analysis and do not imply that 

CESTOL development is restricted to a single aircraft design. Alternative CESTOL aircraft designs 

could serve different markets based on range, size, runway, and other related requirements. 

CESTOL Airport Capacity Impact—The study applies AvTerminal air traffic management and 

flight trajectory simulation modules to model traffic and procedures for en route and terminal arrival 

and departures to and from KEWR. These AvTerminal applications model existing KEWR arrival 

and departure routes and profiles, and runway use configurations, with the assumption that jetpowered, large-sized civil CESTOL aircraft use a short runway and standard turboprop (T) arrival 

and departure procedures. With these rules, the conventional jet (J) and CESTOL (Ce) aircraft are 

procedurally separated from each other geographically and in altitude during terminal airspace 

approach and departure operations, with each using a different arrival runway. These procedural 

modifications and the conversion of selected conventional flights to CESTOL shift significant 

arrival traffic from the primary runway to the short secondary crossing runway. CESTOL arrivals, 

which are a significant component (38%) of the total arrival traffic, land on the short secondary 

crossing runway rather than the primary runway. Arrival traffic loading on the primary runway is 

reduced from 98% to 60% of the total number of arrival flights. The redistribution also significantly 

reduces the intensity of traffic on the primary arrival routes in the terminal airspace. 

The analysis compares the resulting capacity impacts, flight delays, and delay sources between 

CESTOL and conventional KEWR operations. AvTerminal results show that CESTOL aircraft have 

significant capability to increase airport arrival acceptance rates (35–40%) at KEWR by taking 

advantage of otherwise underused airspace and runways where available. Traffic flow management 

restrictions on outbound flights prevent notable gain in the departure acceptance rate at KEWR, 

resulting in an estimated total acceptance rate gain of 15–20%. 
viii 

CESTOL NAS-Wide Delay Impact—The study extrapolates the AvTerminal-derived KEWR peak 

arrival and departure acceptance rates to estimate capacity parameter values for each of the OEP 

airports in the ACES modeling of traffic through the entire NAS network. The extrapolations of 

acceptance rates allow full, partial, or no achievement of CESTOL capacity gains at an OEP airport 

as determined by assessments of the degree to 

which local procedures allow leveraging of 

CESTOL capabilities. These assessments consider 

each OEP airport’s runway geometries, runway 

system configurations, airport and airspace 

operations, and potential CESTOL traffic loadings. 

The capacities are adjusted to account for the 

proportion of traffic converted to CESTOL flights 

at each airport. Based on these assessments, 15 of 

the 34 OEP airports are estimated to be candidates 

for significant capacity improvements due to 

CESTOL operations as shown in the accompanying table. Estimated capacity gains range up to 

40% for arrivals, up to 20% for departures (which 

tend to be limited by flow management constraints 

as at KEWR), and 20% for total operations 

(derived from the arrival and departure acceptance 

rates). 

The 2016 daily arrival traffic (10,174 flights) at the 15 CESTOL capacity-improved airports account 

for 40% of the 34 OEP airport arrivals (25,667 flights) and 18 % of all NAS airport arrivals (57,464 

flights) used in the ACES modeling of NAS-wide operations (which includes OEP and non-OEP 

airports). The ACES application in this study analyzes the sensitivity of delay to CESTOL-based 

potential capacity improvement, where airport acceptance rates represent capacities in 2016. 

Although airport capacity is a primary modeling factor in this study, ACES is a network model that 

generates delays due to airport and airspace congestion and propagates delay through the system. 

The delays tabulated by airport are network-induced delays and not necessarily due only to 

constraints at the specific airport. These include any delay due to departure airport runway system 

takeoff, airspace spacing conflict and arrival airport runway system landing constraints, and include 

predeparture delays propagated by traffic flow management restrictions. 

The ACES modeling simulates airport and airspace spacing constraints imposed by the airport 

runway system, terminal and en route air traffic control, and traffic flow management operations 

using traffic loading and airport acceptance rates representing conventional-aircraft-only and 

CESTOL-mixed-with-conventional-aircraft operations. Delay reductions are obtained by comparing 

results of the conventional-aircraft-only and CESTOL-mixed applications. The accompanying 

illustrations graphically summarize CESTOL-induced average flight delay reductions separately for 

CESTOL capacity-improved and non-capacity-improved OEP airports. (Flight delay is tabulated at 

the end of each flight at the destination airport.) The delay propagation effects are imbedded in these 

results such that delay reductions indicated for an airport are the cumulative effects of network and 

local interactions. The delay reductions shown for the CESTOL capacity-improved airports are 

attributable to a combination of propagated delay reductions and the local capacity gain impacts of 

CESTOL operations. Newark, Philadelphia, and Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood airports have the 

CESTOL w/Conventional Aircraft

Acceptance Rate Gain (%)

Airport Departure Arrival Total

Atlanta (KATL) 7% 15% 6%

Baltimore (KBWI) 20% 40% 20%

Cleveland (KCLE) 20% 40% 20%

Washington (KDCA) 20% 40% 20%

Dallas-Ft. Worth (KDFW) 15% 0% 0%

Newark (KEWR) 0% 40% 20%

Fort Lauderdale (KFLL) 10% 20% 8%

New York JFK (KJFK) 0% 5% 2%

New York LGA (KLGA) 0% 30% 13%

Chicago MDW (KMDW) 18% 35% 15%

Portland (KPDX) 5% 9% 4%

Philadelphia (KPHL) 20% 40% 17%

San Diego (KSAN) 12% 23% 10%

Salt Lake City (KSLC) 14% 27% 11%

Tampa (KTPA) 15% 29% 12%
ix 

largest delay reductions—

64%, 61%, and 51% savings 

respectively. The average 

flight delay reductions shown 

for the non-capacity-improved 

OEP airports are associated 

with network delay reduction 

propagation initiated by 

capacity improvements at 

other OEP airports. Of the 

non-capacity-improved OEP 

airports, Chicago O’Hare has 

the largest reduction at 22%. 

Findings—This study applies 

the 4-dimensional (4D) 

trajectory-based AvTerminal 

and ACES modeling capabilities to estimate impacts of 

CESTOL operations on 

capacity at Newark Airport 

and impacts on delay at the 

domestic OEP airports as well 

as all airports within the NAS. 

The AvTerminal Traffic Flow 

Management (TFM) modeling of Newark Airport, as applied in this preliminary study, assumes a 

CESTOL future operating environment in which advanced air traffic management (ATM) and flight 

operating systems provide very high-fidelity trajectory prediction and control capabilities. These 

capabilities are based on sophisticated communication, navigation, and surveillance (CNS) 

technologies. Assumptions include application of mature ATM automation with time-based 

metering and Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches (DCIA), area navigation (RNAV), 

required navigation performance (RNP), accurate meteorological prediction, air-ground data link 

communication, automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B), and KEWR gate, taxiway, 

parking and other airport improvements that remove airport surface impediments to runway traffic 

throughput. Although not a factor in this study, CESTOL is envisioned to incorporate fuel-efficient, 

low-noise and low-emission technologies. 

The Newark Airport analysis indicates CESTOL has significant capability to increase arrival 

capacity by taking advantage of otherwise underused airspace and runways where available. These 

results show the beneficial effect of shifting CESTOL arrival traffic to a secondary crossing runway, 

with a corresponding reduction of traffic loading on primary runways relative to conventionalaircraft-only operations. 

 
x 

ACES-based NAS network analysis of 

CESTOL KEWR capacity gain extrapolations to 15 major domestic airports 

shows significant delay reductions 

across the network of airports. 

CESTOL-based capacity gains reduce 

average flight delay by 10.2 minutes for 

the 34 OEP airports and 5.9 minutes for 

all airports NAS-wide. Among the OEP 

airports, average flight delay reduction is more prominent at the 15 airports where capacity is 

improved by CESTOL than at the other 19 OEP airports where capacity is not improved (16.5 

versus 6.1-minute delay reductions). Delay reductions across all airports are due to reduced NAS 

network delay propagation generated by improved operations at the 15 capacity-improved OEP 

airports. 

In the ACES modeling presented above, CESTOL aircraft 

are assigned a Mach 0.8 

nominal cruise speed which is 

roughly comparable with conventional aircraft speeds. 

ACES models each 4D trajectory and assesses and resolves en route pair-wise spacing conflicts among aircraft. To investigate 

sensitivity of delay to CESTOL cruise speed, the study applies ACES assuming a Mach 0.7 cruise 

speed for all CESTOL flights and CESTOL-based capacity gains at the 15 impacted OEP airports. 

Results show CESTOL with a reduced cruise speed of Mach 0.7 to also achieve significant total 

delay reductions, but only slightly less than those estimated for the Mach 0.8 cruise speed assumption. Reduction in CESTOL cruise speed from Mach 0.8 to 0.7 lessens the 34 OEP airport delay 

reduction by 3% (20.2% versus 23.2%) and NAS-wide delay reduction by 2.6% (17% versus 

19.6%). 

This preliminary simulation-based analysis assumes idealized conditions in which advanced air 

traffic and flight management systems implement 4D trajectory optimization. However, the 

estimated delay savings (of the order of 20% NAS-wide) are significant, indicating that even with 

relaxation of the analysis assumptions, CESTOL is a serious candidate for further study and 

development with respect to potential capabilities to increase throughput and reduce delay 

throughout the NAS. 

CESTOL Delay Reduction Impact

CESTOL Non-CESTOL

OEP OEP All OEP All NAS

Airports Airports Airports Airports

CESTOL Mach 0.8 37.9% 13.8% 23.2% 19.6%

CESTOL Mach 0.7 33.7% 1.6% 20.2% 17.0%

Average Flight 

Delay Reduction

(minutes/flight)

15 CESTOL Capacity-Improved OEP Airports 16.5 

19 Non-CESTOL-Capacity-Improved OEP Airports 6.1

All OEP Airports 10.2

NAS-Wide Non-OEP Airports 2.3

All NAS-Wide Airports 5.9
1 

CRUISE-EFFICIENT SHORT TAKEOFF AND LANDING (CESTOL) 

AIRCRAFT: POTENTIAL IMPACT ON AIR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS 

G. J. Couluris, D. Signor, and J. Phillips1

Ames Research Center 

SUMMARY 

Cruise-Efficient Short Takeoff and Landing (CESTOL) is an aircraft design concept for future use to 

increase capacity and reduce emissions. This study, for the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA), is a preliminary analysis of the potential impact on National Airspace 

System (NAS) network traffic operations due to the introduction of CESTOL at the 34 domestic 

airports identified in the Federal Aviation Administration’s Operational Evolution Plan (OEP). The 

analysis process uses two fast-time simulation tools to separately model local and NAS-wide air 

traffic operations using predicted flight schedules for a 24-hour study period in 2016. These tools, 

the Sensis AvTerminal© and NASA’s Airspace Concept Evaluation System (ACES) modeling 

capabilities, simulate conventional-aircraft-only and CESTOL-mixed-with-conventional-aircraft 

operations. Both tools apply 4-dimension trajectory modeling to simulate individual flight 

movement subject to operating restrictions, including aircraft separation rules. AvTerminal is used to 

simulate traffic and procedures for en route and terminal arrival and departures to and from Newark 

Liberty International Airport (KEWR), New Jersey. AvTerminal quantitative results showed that 

CESTOL aircraft have significant capability to increase airport arrival acceptance rates (35–40% at 

KEWR) by taking advantage of otherwise underused airspace and runways where available. 

The AvTerminal-derived KEWR peak arrival and departure acceptance rates are used to extrapolate 

capacity parameter values for each of the OEP airports in the ACES modeling of traffic through the 

entire NAS network. The extrapolations of acceptance rates allowed full, partial, or no achievement 

of CESTOL capacity gains at an OEP airport as determined by assessments of the degree to which 

local procedures allow leveraging of CESTOL capabilities. These assessments consider each OEP 

airport’s runway geometries, runway system configurations, airport and airspace operations, and 

potential CESTOL traffic loadings. The ACES modeling simulates NAS-wide airport and airspace 

spacing constraints imposed by the airport runway system, terminal, and en route air traffic control 

and traffic flow management operations. CESTOL aircraft are assumed to have Mach 0.8 and 

alternatively Mach 0.7 cruise speeds to examine compatibility with conventional aircraft cruise 

speeds in common airspace. The ACES results provide estimates of CESTOL delay impact NASwide and at OEP airports due to changes in OEP airport acceptance rates and changes in en route 

airspace potential conflict occurrences. Preliminary results show meaningful nationwide delay 

reductions (20%) due to CESTOL operations at the 34 major domestic airports. 

 

 

1

 Sensis Corporation, Seagull Technology Center, 1700 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008-6902. 
2 
3 

1 INTRODUCTION 

Cruise-Efficient Short Takeoff and Landing (CESTOL) is an aircraft design concept for future use in 

the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS). The nominal capability attributed to CESTOL is the 

ability to takeoff and land on runways significantly shorter than those required for the type of 

aircraft in current commercial transport fleets. It is also understood that the CESTOL does not 

sacrifice the same high subsonic cruise performance possessed by the fleet to obtain the short-field 

goals. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is investigating the 

technological, operational, environmental, and economic feasibility of civil CESTOL operations. In 

support of NASA, this study is a preliminary analysis of the potential operational impact of 

CESTOL on airport and airspace capacity and delay. 

1.1 BACKGROUND 

The following NASA perspective (ref. 1) addresses potential application of CESTOL aircraft 

operations. 

A result of sustained economic growth in the United States is an increased demand for air 

transportation. As this demand increases, along with reluctance by municipal, state, and federal 

governments to build new air transportation infrastructure for concern of degrading the quality of 

life of their constituents with more noise and pollution, the national airspace system is being 

impacted. This impact manifests itself as delays, cancellations, and added costs to the passengers 

and the operators. 

The Joint Program Development Office (JPDO) was established to facilitate NextGen activities. Its 

task is to create and carry out an integrated plan for NextGen, spearhead planning, and coordinate 

research, demonstration, and development in conjunction with relevant programs of other 

departments and agencies, and with the private sector. The Senior Policy Committee oversees the 

work of the JPDO and is made up of high-level representatives from the following agencies: 

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), NASA, Department of 

Defense, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, and the White House Office 

of Science and Technology Policy. 

Part of the NextGen program is to create a plan to address improving the national air transportation 

system without increasing noise and pollution for the surrounding communities; in fact, a preferred 

objective is to reduce noise and emissions over the long term. 

Much of the work being conducted in academia, industry, and at NASA is investigating how to 

improve the throughput of the airspace system, with a significant amount of work aimed at 

improving flight procedures, tracking, communications, and other elements of air traffic 

management. By creating a better situational awareness between aircraft and ground controllers, and 

aircraft to each other, aircraft would be able to operate much closer to one another, thus increasing 

capacity. However, at crowded hub airports, the bottleneck is due to limited space on the main 

runways. This problem has been further exacerbated with the introduction of the regional jets (RJs), 

which have replaced the turboprops that once used the shorter secondary runways. A regional jet 
4 

aircraft carrying less than 100 people needs the same amount of time and space on the main runways 

as a 300-plus passenger long-range transport. 

One potential solution to this problem is the introduction of CESTOL aircraft with short-field 

performance capabilities comparable to current turboprop aircraft. With the ability to takeoff and 

land in under 2,000 feet, the CESTOL aircraft can return significant use of the secondary runways 

developed for turboprop operations, removing that commuter flight from the main runway, and 

therefore permitting the substitution of a long-range, high-capacity flight into that slot. Additionally, 

with the low-speed maneuverability and high performance the CESTOL aircraft possess for the 

short-field capability, there is the potential to also use the unused airspace around the airport while 

‘steering’ around noise-sensitive areas and avoiding the conventional traffic using the primary glide 

slope into the primary runways. Thus the improved situational awareness of the new air traffic 

management system is augmented by a new vehicle that capitalizes on the air system improvements 

with better vehicle performance. In the long term, airfields that are currently unused because of their 

short primary runways can be reopened for service as future growth permits and/or the air 

transportation needs of new communities develop. 

1.2 STUDY FRAME OF REFERENCE 

CESTOL capable aircraft are intended to provide future commercial service to both large and small 

airports. In this concept, the CESTOL aircraft design has the size, range, and speed to be 

operationally and economically competitive in substantial markets, thus justifying a large civil 

CESTOL fleet. The CESTOL aircraft can serve large hub airports, satellite airports, and local 

regional airports and will also leverage fuel-efficient, low-noise, and low-emission technologies and 

operating procedures. The operating capabilities of the CESTOL aircraft are envisioned to be 

compatible with standard procedures, as well as alternative procedures that take advantage of its 

unique performance characteristics. The CESTOL aircraft operates on conventional terminal 

airspace arrival and departure routes and speed/altitude profiles (i.e., step or continuous trajectory), 

as well as steeper descent/approach and takeoff/climb profiles; on runways used by conventional jet 

aircraft as well as shorter runways; in en route airspace with lateral and vertical navigation 

capabilities and cruise speeds comparable to that of conventional jet aircraft; and on standard airport 

surfaces using normal runway, taxiway, ramp, gate, and service facilities. In general, the CESTOL 

aircraft operates in harmony with conventional aircraft and procedures in all phases of flight. 

A civil CESTOL aircraft that fits the above description is one of sufficient size, range, and speed to 

be commercially feasible on a NAS-wide scale with technological and operational performance 

characteristics to be economically efficient and environmentally effective. This could be a relatively 

large aircraft with reasonably long range and high speed, but also capable of performing safe short 

takeoff and landing operations. The CESTOL capabilities listed in table 1, which are based on 

guidance from NASA (ref. 1), are assumed for preliminary analysis purpose. 

TABLE 1. CESTOL OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 

CESTOL One-way Operating Range: 2,000 nmi 

CESTOL Minimum Runway Length: 2,000 feet 

CESTOL Cruise Speed: 0.8 Mach number 

CESTOL Aircraft Seat Size: 120–130 seats 
5 

An example of the CESTOL concept is a jet-powered, large aircraft having the general 

specifications of a Boeing 737, but with short takeoff and landing capabilities and advanced 

technologies to reduce fuel consumption, noise, and emissions. 

1.3 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE 

This study provides initial insight into the potential operational consequences of future CESTOL 

implementation into the NAS. The study is a preliminary examination of the potential impact of 

CESTOL on local airport capacity and delay, and CESTOL impact on NAS-wide delay. The study 

initially examines operational impacts at a subject site, Newark Liberty International Airport 

(KEWR), New Jersey. The study then extends these KEWR results to estimate potential impacts on 

the NAS-wide network traffic operations due to the introduction of CESTOL aircraft at selected 

major airports. These are the 34 domestic airports identified in the FAA's Operational Evolution 

Partnership (OEP) (ref. 2). The study examines CESTOL potential impact on traffic in the year 

2016. 

1.4 METHOD OF APPROACH 

The general work plan (see fig. 1) focuses on modeling Newark Airport and extrapolating results 

NAS-wide using computerized modeling. The modeling requires definition of KEWR and NASwide 24-hour traffic loading for a selected study day and specification of operating procedures for 

the KEWR extended terminal area. This extended terminal area encompasses a region roughly 

within a 250-nautical-mile (nmi) radius of Newark Airport and the KEWR runway system. KEWR 

arrival and departure traffic is modeled, including cruise, climb, descent, and runway takeoff and 

landing operations. Surface taxi and gate operations are not modeled. 

Figure 1. General work plan. 

 

Define Traffic Demand

Generate KEWR Conventional & CESTOL Daily Traffic Schedules for 2016

Adapt and Apply AvTerminal Simulation Model to KEWR

Enhance AvTerminal & Model KEWR Conventional & CESTOL Flight Operations

Define EWR Procedures

Generate KEWR Conventional & CESTOL Arrival and 

Departure Procedures and Runway Utilization Rules

Apply Advance Concept Evaluation System (ACES) to NAS

Model CESTOL Runway System Operational Impacts for NAS-wide Airport Network

Evaluate and Document Results

Analyze NAS-wide CESTOL Capacity and Delay Impacts

Flight Schedules

KEWR Procedures

Airport Acceptance Rates Adjustment Factors

Capacity and Delay Estimates

Define Traffic Demand

Generate KEWR Conventional & CESTOL Daily Traffic Schedules for 2016

Adapt and Apply AvTerminal Simulation Model to KEWR

Enhance AvTerminal & Model KEWR Conventional & CESTOL Flight Operations

Define EWR Procedures

Generate KEWR Conventional & CESTOL Arrival and 

Departure Procedures and Runway Utilization Rules

Apply Advance Concept Evaluation System (ACES) to NAS

Model CESTOL Runway System Operational Impacts for NAS-wide Airport Network

Evaluate and Document Results

Analyze NAS-wide CESTOL Capacity and Delay Impacts

Flight Schedules

KEWR Procedures

Airport Acceptance Rates Adjustment Factors

Capacity and Delay Estimates
6 

Two fast-time simulation tools are used to separately model local and NAS-wide air traffic 

operations. The Sensis AvTerminal© and NASA’s Airspace Concept Evaluation System (ACES) 

(ref. 3) modeling capabilities are applied to simulate conventional and CESTOL operations. The 

AvTerminal application simulates actual KEWR traffic and procedures and is the analysis basis for 

this study. AvTerminal is used to assess KEWR capacity and delay by modeling conventional and 

CESTOL traffic operations in the extended terminal area. ACES is used to assess NAS-wide delay 

by assigning conventional and CESTOL arrival acceptance rates (AARs), departure acceptance rates 

(DARs), and total acceptance rates (TARs) at the OEP airports. Both tools apply trajectory-based 

modeling to simulate individual flight movement. 

AvTerminal is a fast-time computerized simulator of terminal and en route airspace arrival and 

departure, and runway system takeoff and landing operations. AvTeminal implements an integrated 

approach for modeling interactions among aircraft in various flight states. The modeling process 

sequences, maneuvers, and delays aircraft to resolve overtake and spacing conflicts among aircraft 

in the airspace and airport system. AvTeminal analyzes individual aircraft movements along 

4-dimensonal (4D) flight trajectories through a network of focal points representing cruise and 

transition airspace fixes and runways, including multiple airports. AvTerminal uses 3-degrees-offreedom (3-DOF) flight dynamics modeling to generate trajectories. The modeling logic manages 

and adjusts trajectories to create integrated streams of arrival and departure traffic representing 

realistic flight movement through the airspace and airports. AvTerminal processes a flight schedule 

and evaluates traffic throughput and delay at airspace and runway system focal points. 

ACES is a NASA-developed, fast-time computer simulation of local, regional, and nationwide air 

traffic operations covering aircraft flight from gate departure to arrival. ACES models flight 

movement through taxi-out, runway takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, runway landing, and taxi-in. 

ACES applies 4-DOF aircraft dynamics modeling to generate 4D en route flights trajectories. ACES 

agent-based modeling simulates traffic constraints and conflict resolutions imposed by airport, 

terminal, and en route sector air traffic control (ATC), and traffic flow management (TFM) 

operations. This system provides a flexible NAS simulation and modeling environment to assess the 

impact of new NAS tools, concepts, and architectures, including those that represent a significant 

departure from the existing NAS operational paradigm. ACES processes a NAS-wide flight schedule 

and evaluates airspace, airport, and airport network delay. 

The ACES database has comprehensive daily schedules of all actual NAS flights derived from the 

FAA Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS). ACES uses the ETMS data to describe the 

origin and destination airport, scheduled departure and arrival time, aircraft type, and planned route 

and altitude for each flight. The resulting ACES NAS-wide conventional flight demand sets include 

a 24-hour schedule of all flights for February 19, 2004, and a predicted conventional flights schedule 

for February 19, 2016 derived from the 2004 base schedule. February 19, 2004 is a relatively benign 

weather day based on analysis of FAA Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM)_ (ref. 4) data. 

The two February 19 ACES daily flight schedules are used to define traffic loading for the KEWR 

and NAS-wide modeling. The conventional flight demand set used for AvTerminal input is the 

collection of KEWR arrival and departure flights extracted from the ACES February 19, 2004 and 

2016 NAS-wide schedules. Corresponding CESTOL flight demand sets are constructed by 

converting selected conventional aircraft to CESTOL (see Section 3). 

 
7 

AvTerminal and ACES are applied using the CESTOL and non-CESTOL flight demand sets. The 

AvTerminal KEWR application produces traffic throughput (i.e., acceptance rates) and delay 

estimates, enabling evaluation of potential capacity increase and delay reduction impacts due to 

CESTOL aircraft. The AvTerminal peak arrival and departure acceptance rate results for KEWR are 

used to extrapolate capacity parameter values for OEP airports in ACES modeling of traffic through 

the entire NAS. The extrapolations of acceptance rates allow full, partial, or no achievement of 

CESTOL capacity gains at an OEP airport as determined by assessments of the degree to which 

local procedures allow leveraging of CESTOL capabilities. These assessments consider the runway 

geometries of each OEP airport, runway system configurations, airport and airspace operations, and 

potential CESTOL traffic loadings. CESTOL aircraft are assumed to have Mach 0.8, and 

alternatively Mach 0.7, cruise speeds to examine compatibility with conventional aircraft operations 

in common airspace. The ACES results provide estimates of CESTOL delay impact at the OEP 

airports and NAS-wide. 

 
8 

 
9 

2 NEWARK (KEWR) EXTENDED TERMINAL AREA MODELING 

AvTerminal is applied to the Newark Airport runway system and the airspace extending 250 nmi 

from KEWR using ACES-provided traffic loading data. 

2.1 KEWR EXTENDED TERMINAL AREA MODELING OVERVIEW 

AvTerminal models arrival and departure procedures for KEWR flights through en route and 

terminal airspace and the runway system (see fig. 2). 

AvTerminal input data define airspace and runway system procedures for conventional and 

CESTOL traffic operations. The airspace procedures describe routes, fixes, and applicable altitude 

and spacing requirements. Runway system procedures describe runway assignments and associated 

arrival/departure fixes. 

En route procedures refer to the inbound cruise and descent and outbound climb and cruise routes 

and speed/altitude profiles. For AvTerminal application, the en route tracks and profiles for each 

KEWR arrival and departure flight is derived from the ACES February 19, 2004 flight data set. This 

traffic does not experience significant weather disruption to traffic movement. The procedure 

assignments generally correspond to published standard arrival (STAR) transition routes to terminal 

airspace and conform to published departure procedures from runways. Hence, the KEWR flights 

follow a set of common routings through the en route airspace. 

Airport chart source: reference 5 

Figure 2. KEWR extended terminal area and AvTerminal modeling scope. 

 

KEWR Terminal Arrival 

& Departure Procedures

N90 KEWR Standard Arrival 

Transition Procedures

KEWR Runway 

System

22L 11 22R

29

4R 4L

KEWR Terminal Arrival 

& Departure Procedures

N90 KEWR Standard Arrival 

Transition Procedures

KEWR Runway 

System

22L 11 22R

29

4R 4L

KEWR Runway 

System

22L 11 22R

29

4R 4L

22L 11 22R

29

4R 4L
10 

Local terminal airspace and runway system procedures are defined for specific traffic operating 

plans, which vary according to meteorological conditions and other considerations (e.g., noise 

abatement), and account for visual flight rules (VFR), instrument flight rules (IFR), and alternative 

airport operating conditions and procedures. 

The following describes the KEWR runway system and terminal airspace procedures. 

2.2 KEWR RUNWAY SYSTEM PROCEDURES 

Runway configurations and use descriptions below are based on available documentation (refs. 5–9) 

and consultation (ref. 10). With reference to figure 3, KEWR normally uses either of two basic 

runway configurations, the Southwest Plan or the Northeast Plan, each with variations. 

Current Runway Operations—Both operating plans make primary use of the closely spaced 

(800 feet) parallel runways, with the Southwest Plan implemented more frequently than the 

Northeast Plan. The parallel primary runways (22R/L or 4R/L) are long—4L/22R is 11,000 feet and 

4R/22L is 9,980 feet. The secondary crossing runway 11 is short—6,800 feet. All are 150 feet wide 

(ref. 7). 

The basic Southwest Plan for operations during visual meteorological conditions (VMC) is: land on 

22L by turbojet aircraft; land on the crossing short runway 11 by turboprop and piston-powered 

aircraft; and takeoff on runway 22R by all aircraft. 

The basic Northeast Plan for operations during VMC is: land on 4R by turbojet aircraft; and takeoff 

on runway 4L by all aircraft. 

Figure 3. KEWR VFR runway configurations. 

Southwest Plan VFR

22L

(J)

22R

29

Departure Rush 

8-10AM 

(J/T/P/Ce)

11 (T/P/Ce)

(J/T/P/Ce)

Jet (J)

Turboprop (T)

Piston (P)

CESTOL (Ce)

IFR: 11/29 not used

Northeast Plan VFR

4R

11

4L

(J/T/P/Ce)

(J/T/P/Ce)

29

Southwest Plan VFR

22L

(J)

22R

29

Departure Rush 

8-10AM 

(J/T/P/Ce)

11 (T/P/Ce)

(J/T/P/Ce)

Southwest Plan VFR

22L

(J)

22R

29

Departure Rush 

8-10AM 

(J/T/P/Ce)

11 (T/P/Ce)

(J/T/P/Ce)

22L

(J)

22R

29

Departure Rush 

8-10AM 

(J/T/P/Ce)

11 (T/P/Ce)

(J/T/P/Ce)

Jet (J)

Turboprop (T)

Piston (P)

CESTOL (Ce)

IFR: 11/29 not used

Northeast Plan VFR

4R

11

4L

(J/T/P/Ce)

(J/T/P/Ce)

29

Northeast Plan VFR

4R

11

4L

(J/T/P/Ce)

(J/T/P/Ce)

29

4R

11

4L

(J/T/P/Ce)

(J/T/P/Ce)

29
11 

Variations include: mixed use of runway 4L/22R for takeoff/landing when advantageous (but not 

during marginal VFR or IFR operations); use of runway 29 for takeoff-only by small/large jet, 

turboprop, and piston aircraft as warranted during a morning departure rush (e.g., 8–10 AM); and 

landing on runway 11 by small/large jet aircraft when advantageous. 

Continental Airlines is the major commercial aircraft operator at KEWR. At the time of this study, 

Continental uses jet aircraft for regional service rather than turboprop aircraft. The overall volume of 

non-jet traffic is not significant, and jet traffic predominates at KEWR. The result for landing 

operations is predominant use of primary runway 22L with occasional use of secondary crossing 

runway 11 (Southwest Plan), or predominant use of primary runway 4R (Northeast Plan) (ref. 5). 

Conversely, runway 11 is not used for landing during IFR operations, likely because of concerns 

with missed approach incursions into nearby adjacent non-KEWR airspace. Instrument approaches 

to runway 11 are not supported. Nearby adjacent airspace constraints restrict landing on runway 29 

during VFR and IFR operations. 

CESTOL Runway Operations—The basic Southwest VFR Plan is the most frequently used 

configuration (refs.5, 8), and is used for modeling and analysis in this preliminary study. CESTOL 

landings are assigned to runway 11, enabled by the short landing capability of CESTOL aircraft. 

Land and hold short operation (LAHSO) on runway 4/22 is not a current procedure, and LAHSO is 

not an assumed requirement for CESTOL (although CESTOL short landing capabilities could take 

advantage of LAHSO to improve crossing runways utilization). Additional improvements in 

Required Navigation Performance (RNP), coupled with new procedures permitted by the low-speed 

maneuverability of the CESTOL, may support modifications to these operational procedures but 

were not examined and taken into account for this study. 

2.3 KEWR TERMINAL AIRSPACE PROCEDURES 

The KEWR terminal airspace is part of the New York Terminal Radar Approach Control 

(TRACON) N90 operation and is responsible for KEWR arrivals and departures. Other N90 sectors 

are responsible for arrival and departures of other vicinity airports and over-flights. The following 

paragraphs summarize KEWR airspace arrival and departure procedures. 

2.3.1 KEWR Terminal Arrival Operations 

Current Arrival Operations—Published standard terminal arrival procedures for KEWR define 

routings and profiles from cruise to transition entry points to KEWR local terminal airspace but not 

through the terminal airspace. Figure 4 shows KEWR terminal arrival and departure procedures for 

jet and turboprop aircraft for the Southwest VFR operation. These procedures are assembled from a 

previous site survey (ref. 11) and depict typical routes and altitude profiles implemented by routine 

ATC vectoring processes. 
12 

Figure 4. KEWR Southwest VFR plan—local arrival routes and altitudes. 

Figure 4 identifies airspace fix names and associated altitude assignments (in feet) for jet and 

turboprop aircraft. Aircraft cross a fix at the indicated altitude, if assigned, according to this 

operating plan. Jet conventional aircraft are on converging routes through a series of merge points 

leading to runway 22L. The jet aircraft enter the KEWR local airspace at higher altitudes (6,000–

8,000 feet) than non-jet aircraft (5,000 feet). The jet aircraft descend on converging inbound routes 

to a common path at 5,000 feet, and proceed on this descent path through the final approach fix (near 

KTEB) to primary runway 22L. 

Turboprop (and piston) aircraft are on converging routes through a series of merge points leading to 

runway 11. These aircraft descend from 5,000 feet on converging inbound routes to a common path 

at 3,000 feet, and proceed through the final approach fix to the crossing runway 11. 

Jet inbound traffic from the west and south fixes and all non-jet inbound traffic; each have a planned 

level-off segment during descent to their respective runway. The jet aircraft level off at 6,000 feet, 

which is above the turboprop aircraft level segment at 3,000 ft. altitude. The jet aircraft maintain 

6,000 feet until beyond crossing the lower non-jet aircraft, after which the jet aircraft continue their 

decent. The turboprop aircraft maintain 3,000 feet until runway approach. 

CESTOL Arrival Operations—For this preliminary study, CESTOL flights are assigned the 

turboprop arrival routes and altitude profiles enabled by the flexible descent performance 

capabilities of CESTOL aircraft. CESTOLs should have superior climb and descent performance 

than turbofans due to high thrust/weight ratio, and are ‘flexible’ in the sense that they can fly above 

or below the turbofans. 

ARRIVAL ROUTE

Conventional Jet (J)

Turboprop and 

CESTOL (TCe) 8000J DYLIN

5000TCe RBV 7000J 

5000TCe

7000J SWEET

5000TCe

SHAFF 

6000J WPA1 

5000TCe

KEWR

KTEB 3000J

HOKIR

6000J

KEWRA40

3000TCe

KEWRA30

3000TCe

4000J

KEWRA80 

5000J

KEWRA20

3000TE

COATE

5000TCe

METRO 7000J

Jets descend over 

Turboprops, Props 

and CESTOL

ARRIVAL ROUTE

Conventional Jet (J)

Turboprop and 

CESTOL (TCe) 8000J DYLIN

5000TCe RBV 7000J 

5000TCe

7000J SWEET

5000TCe

SHAFF 

6000J WPA1 

5000TCe

KEWR

KTEB 3000J

HOKIR

6000J

KEWRA40

3000TCe

KEWRA30

3000TCe

4000J

KEWRA80 

5000J

KEWRA20

3000TE

COATE

5000TCe

METRO 7000J

Jets descend over 

Turboprops, Props 

and CESTOL
13 

The altitude profiles are those reported as actually used. These represent operationally and 

institutionally acceptable procedures, for which there is little rationale to change in this study. (Note 

that this study does not take advantage of the flexibility of alternative descent profiles that CESTOL 

has to offer, and is thus a conservative analysis of CESTOL potential benefits.) The 3,000-ft. level 

segment for CESTOL aircraft is based on the turboprop operation. An issue for future investigation 

is the noise and emission impact of jet engine CESTOL aircraft flying on lower-level profiles and 

implementing the 3,000-ft. level-off procedure. CESTOL use of advanced technologies for noise 

suppression and emission reduction, and higher altitude arrival procedures with steeper final 

approach, are several environmental impact amelioration factors for consideration. 

2.3.2 KEWR Terminal Departure Operations 

Current Departure Operations—Figure 5 shows KEWR terminal departure procedures for jet and 

turboprop aircraft for the Southwest VFR operation. 

Published standard departure procedures specify headings for takeoff from runway 22R, after which 

local vectoring is applied to the following routings shown in figure 5. All flights are on diverging 

routes through a series of diverge fixes to departure fixes. Aircraft climb and exit the Newark 

terminal airspace at intermediate altitudes (5,000–11,000 ft.), and continue climbing through a layer 

of other New York TRACON airspace (i.e., designated the “Liberty” area) until exiting the 

TRACON airspace at departure fixes on the boundary with en route Air Route Traffic Control 

Center airspace. For example, a jet aircraft climbing to the ELIOT departure fix turns right after 

runway 22R takeoff, exits the Newark airspace at WEST1 at 10,000 feet, and exits the New York 

TRACON airspace at ELIOT at 17,000 feet. 

Figure 5. KEWR Southwest VFR plan—local departure routes and altitudes. 

17000J 

16000TCe 

to GREKI 

DEPARTURE ROUTE

Conventional Jet (J)

and Turboprop and 

CESTOL (TCe)

EWR Airspace

Other NY 

TRACON 

Airspace

Jets climb 

above 

Turboprops, 

Props and 

CESTOL, 

and

TFM spacing 

is applied at 

departure 

fixes

KEWR

KTEB

6000J 5000TCe

SOUTH 6000J 

5000TCe

to WHITE 17000J 16000TCe

17000J 16000TCe BIGGY

17000J 16000TCe LANNA

10000J 9000TCe NORTH

17000J 16000TCe ELIOT

16000J 15000TCe GAYEL

16000J 15000TCe HAAYS

16000J 15000TCe NEION

16000J 15000TCe COATE

BREZY 7000J 6000TCe

WEST2

11000J

10000TCe

10000J 

9000TCe

WEST1

17000J 16000TCe PARKE

6000J 7000TCe

to MERIT 

17000J 

16000TCe

Local or to MERIT

17000J 

16000TCe 

to GREKI 

DEPARTURE ROUTE

Conventional Jet (J)

and Turboprop and 

CESTOL (TCe)

EWR Airspace

Other NY 

TRACON 

Airspace

Jets climb 

above 

Turboprops, 

Props and 

CESTOL, 

and

TFM spacing 

is applied at 

departure 

fixes

DEPARTURE ROUTE

Conventional Jet (J)

and Turboprop and 

CESTOL (TCe)

EWR Airspace

Other NY 

TRACON 

Airspace

DEPARTURE ROUTE

Conventional Jet (J)

and Turboprop and 

CESTOL (TCe)

EWR Airspace

Other NY 

TRACON 

Airspace

Jets climb 

above 

Turboprops, 

Props and 

CESTOL, 

and

TFM spacing 

is applied at 

departure 

fixes

KEWR

KTEB

6000J 5000TCe

SOUTH 6000J 

5000TCe

to WHITE 17000J 16000TCe

17000J 16000TCe BIGGY

17000J 16000TCe LANNA

10000J 9000TCe NORTH

17000J 16000TCe ELIOT

16000J 15000TCe GAYEL

16000J 15000TCe HAAYS

16000J 15000TCe NEION

16000J 15000TCe COATE

BREZY 7000J 6000TCe

WEST2

11000J

10000TCe

10000J 

9000TCe

WEST1

17000J 16000TCe PARKE

6000J 7000TCe

to MERIT 

17000J 

16000TCe

Local or to MERIT

KEWR

KTEB

6000J 5000TCe

SOUTH 6000J 

5000TCe

to WHITE 17000J 16000TCe

17000J 16000TCe BIGGY

17000J 16000TCe LANNA

10000J 9000TCe NORTH

17000J 16000TCe ELIOT

16000J 15000TCe GAYEL

16000J 15000TCe HAAYS

16000J 15000TCe NEION

16000J 15000TCe COATE

BREZY 7000J 6000TCe

WEST2

11000J

10000TCe

10000J 

9000TCe

WEST1

17000J 16000TCe PARKE

6000J 7000TCe

to MERIT 

17000J 

16000TCe

Local or to MERIT
14 

Jet, turboprop, and piston departures are on common departure routes, but procedures are such that 

the jet aircraft are maintained at altitudes at least 1,000 feet above the other aircraft. Jet departures to 

the west and north are cleared to 10,000 or 11,000 feet at exit fixes on the Newark airspace ceiling, 

with turboprops 1,000 feet below the jet routes. Jet departures to other Newark airspace exit fixes are 

cleared to 6,000 or 7,000 feet, again with turboprops 1,000 feet below. 

CESTOL Departure Operations—For this preliminary study, CESTOL flight are assigned the 

turboprop departure routes and altitude profiles, taking advantage of the flexible climb performance 

capabilities of CESTOL aircraft. 

2.3.3 KEWR Airspace Procedural Structure 

The KEWR local terminal airspace operations are highly structured, applying procedural separation 

among aircraft streams (see fig. 6). 

With reference to Figure 6, departures climb quickly after takeoff from runway 22R such that all 

departure streams cross above all arrival traffic streams. 

Figure 6. KEWR Southwest VFR plan—arrival and departure procedures. 

Arrival Route

Conventional Jet 

Turboprop and 

CESTOL

Departure Route

EWR Airspace

Other NY TRACON 

Airspace

Departures:

Jet departures 

climb above 

Turboprops, 

Props & 

CESTOL 

departures, 

and

TFM spacing is 

applied at 

departure fixes

Arrivals:

Jet arrivals 

descend over 

Turboprops, 

Props & CESTOL 

arrivals

Departures Climb Above Arrivals

Arrival Route

Conventional Jet 

Turboprop and 

CESTOL

Departure Route

EWR Airspace

Other NY TRACON 

Airspace

Arrival Route

Conventional Jet 

Turboprop and 

CESTOL

Departure Route

EWR Airspace

Other NY TRACON 

Airspace

Departures:

Jet departures 

climb above 

Turboprops, 

Props & 

CESTOL 

departures, 

and

TFM spacing is 

applied at 

departure fixes

Arrivals:

Jet arrivals 

descend over 

Turboprops, 

Props & CESTOL 

arrivals

Departures Climb Above Arrivals
15 

Within arrival traffic, all jet arrival streams to primary runway 22L remain above non-jet and 

CESTOL streams to crossing short runway 11. Within each stream, required spacing is applied 

between aircraft, which is complicated by the general pattern of stream merging. The succession of 

merges and constraints on overtake due to restricted airspace require considerable traffic planning to 

move aircraft safely through this converging network to the runway. 

For departure traffic, all jet aircraft in each departure stream from 22R remain above non-jet aircraft 

in the same stream subject to establishment of required inter-aircraft spacing. The general 

divergence pattern facilitates spacing application. 

The New York TRACON implements a unique terminal departure operation. The Liberty area is 

layered above normal terminal area arrival and departure airspaces. The Liberty area receives 

departure traffic continually from the various New York airports, and merges aircraft destined to 

common departure fixes in accord with spacing requirements. This traffic integration process is 

based on establishing spacing exit restrictions on each of the local airport departure operations, 

which includes the KEWR local terminal airspace. A restriction of 15 miles-in-trail (MIT) on 

KEWR traffic destined to the same departure fix is representative of typical operations (ref. 10). 

This spacing allows for merging a Newark departure with a Kennedy departure and a LaGuardia 

departure such that 5-nmi spacing is provided between successive aircraft crossings of the departure 

fix. 

 
16 
17 

3 NEWARK AIRPORT CESTOL FLIGHT ASSIGNMENT 

The ACES flight data set identifies the conventional aircraft type for each flight in the daily 

schedule. For AvTerminal modeling of Newark Airport, a subset of conventional aircraft types in the 

February 19 flight data are converted to CESTOL aircraft. This aircraft type conversion process and 

the resulting fleet compositions are described below. 

3.1 CESTOL AIRCRAFT TYPE ASSIGNMENT 

The CESTOL aircraft characteristics parameters listed in table 1 are used to identify conventional 

aircraft candidates for replacement by CESTOL aircraft in this AvTerminal initial analysis of 

Newark Airport operations. Table 2 lists the conventional-to-CESTOL conversion guidelines used in 

the algorithm to select flights for replacement. Appendix A describes the algorithm, which is 

summarized in the following paragraphs. 

The preliminary analysis of Newark Airport operations uses introduction guidelines that specify a 

120-seat upper limit for CESTOL aircraft to initiate the modeling process. (Note subsequent update 

of the CESTOL size guideline per table 1 defines a maximum range of 120–130 seats.) Hence, for 

the Newark Airport AvTerminal modeling, a flight in the existing schedule is eligible for conversion 

to a CESTOL flight if: the existing aircraft type has a seat capacity between 50 and 120 seats 

inclusively; the great-circle distance between the flight’s origin and destination airport is not more 

than 2,000 nmi; and the flight provides commercial passenger service (i.e., not a freight, military or 

general aviation flight). The 50-seat minimum limit is meant notionally to conform to the economic 

operating viability of using a large CESTOL aircraft. Here, existing use of smaller aircraft with less 

than 50 seats is assumed to be the preferred seat size for the route market being served. Also, 

allowance is made to consolidate two conventional flights into one CESTOL flight if the 

conventional flights are scheduled to operate within one hour of each other, and their joint seat 

capacity does not exceed that of the CESTOL aircraft. 

Table 3 is a list of NAS-wide aircraft-type candidates qualifying for CESTOL replacement in 2016 

based on seat size. This list identifies those conventional aircraft in the ACES February 19, 2016 

nationwide flight demand set that are in the [50–120] seat size group. 

TABLE 2. CONVENTIONAL-TO-CESTOL AIRCRAFT CONVERSION CRITERIA FOR 

KEWR AVTERMINAL MODELING 

Conventional aircraft size: 50 ≤ number of seats ≤ 120 

Flight distance: ≤ 2,000 nmi 

Minimum runway length at arrival or departure airport: ≥ 2,000 ft 

User class: Commercial or Air Taxi 

Consolidate two conventional flights into an CESTOL flight if: 

 Airport arrival (or departure) time separation: ≤ 60 min 

 and 

 Sum of seats of the conventional flights: ≤ 120 seats 

 
18 

TABLE 3. NAS-WIDE 50–120 SEAT CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT CANDIDATES FOR 

CESTOL REPLACEMENT 

Seat size data sources: references 12, 13 

Table 4 summarizes the Newark daily arrival and departure fleet composition resulting from the 

conversion of conventional aircraft to CESTOL aircraft. The table shows the 2004 and 2016 daily 

distributions of conventional and CESTOL flights with and without conversion by engine type. The 

predicted CESTOL fleet is extrapolated from the 2004 fleet based on the anticipated increase in 

demand in 2016. CESTOL aircraft account for 38% of the fleet in 2016. The 2004 data is shown for 

comparison purpose. 

The total number of flights is reduced somewhat by the CESTOL replacement of conventional 

aircraft, because in some cases a pair of conventional flights is consolidated into a single CESTOL 

flight where feasible. The elimination of 47 daily flights in 2016 due to consolidation is a 3% 

reduction. 

TABLE 4. KEWR 19-FEB-2004 AND 2016 DAILY FLIGHT DISTRIBUTION 

 

AC Type Engine Type Number of Seats AC Type Engine Type Number of Seats AC Type Engine Type Number of Seats

B732 J 120 BA46 J 90 FK70 J 69

DC94 J 120 DC9Q J 90 DH8D T 68

MD87 J 117 L188 T 90 AT72 T 66

B735 J 110 BA11 J 89 F28 J 65

B736 J 110 CRJ9 J 86 ATP T 64

DC93 J 110 DC91 J 85 DHC7 T 55

B712 J 106 DC92 J 85 FK10 J 55

RJ85 T 100 B461 J 80 A32 T 55

CRJ3 J 100 DC6 P 80 CR2 T 50

B717 J 100 F70 J 80 DH8C T 50

A318 J 100 H1 T 78 E145 J 50

F100 J 97 ATR T 72 F50 T 50

B727 J 94 CRJ7 J 70 CRJ2 J 50

B462 J 90 RJ1H J 70 E45X J 50

B463 J 90 A225 J 70

2004 KEWR Number of Flights

Conventional CESTOL

Engine Arrival Departure Total Arrival Departure Total Total %

Jet 518 524 1042 283 289 572 54%

Turboprop 14 14 28 11 11 22 2%

ESTOL 0 0 0 233 234 467 44%

Total 532 538 1070 527 534 1061 100%

2016 KEWR Number of Flights

Conventional CESTOL

Engine Arrival Departure Total Arrival Departure Total Total %

Jet 802 806 1608 481 482 963 60%

Turboprop 17 16 33 14 13 27 2%

ESTOL 0 0 0 298 306 604 38%

Total 819 822 1641 793 801 1594 100%
19 

TABLE 5. KEWR 19-FEB-2016 CESTOL FLIGHT-DISTANCE DISTRIBUTION 

The flight consolidation/replacement analysis does not track the tail number of aircraft, and hence 

does not recognize situations in which an aircraft on a ≤2000-nmi flight also flies a longer flight 

segment during the day. Replacement of this aircraft by CESTOL would lead to an underestimate of 

the CESTOL traffic demand. 

Table 5 identifies the specific 2016 KEWR conventional aircraft that are converted to CESTOL and 

their flight distance distribution. Midrange 1000–1500-nmi flights dominate the distance 

distribution, accounting for 40% of the CESTOL flights. CESTOL replacement of the 50-seat 

Embraer 146 regional jet accounts for half the CESTOL fleet, with replacement of the 110-seat 

Boeing 737-500 and 50-seat Embraer 45X accounting for much of the remaining CESTOL aircraft. 

3.2 AIRSPACE OPERATIONAL IMPACT OF CESTOL 

The conversion of conventional aircraft to CESTOL aircraft shifts significant arrival traffic from the 

primary runway 22L to the secondary crossing runway 11. Figure 7 illustrates the conversion effects 

on the 2016 KEWR daily flight sample. CESTOL arrivals, which are a significant component (38%) 

of the total arrival traffic, land on the secondary crossing runway 11 rather than runway 22L. Arrival 

traffic loading on the primary runway 22L is reduced from 98% to 60% of the total arrival traffic. 

Concurrently, significant traffic on the inbound routing system to runway 22L is shifted to the 

separate inbound routing system to runway 11. These two routing systems are procedurally 

separated within the TRACON, precluding interference and spacing intervention between 

conventional and CESTOL flights as they approach the runway system. 

The redistribution also reduces the intensity of traffic on the routing system to 22L, alleviating 

spacing interactions among jet arrivals. This congestion moderation is illustrated in figure 8 by the 

reductions in the symbolic magnitude of traffic at critical inbound merge points due to CESTOLmixed operations. 

 

KEWR 2016 Traffic

Distribution of All CESTOL Fights by Range

Aircraft Type Engine Seats 1 - 500 501 - 1000 1001 - 1500 1501 - 2000 Total

CESTOL_E145 J 50 5.6% 13.9% 15.7% 14.4% 49.6%

CESTOL_B735 J 110 1.0% 6.8% 12.9% 2.0% 22.6%

CESTOL_E45X J 50 1.5% 3.5% 6.1% 1.3% 12.4%

CESTOL_DC93 J 110 0.0% 1.5% 2.3% 0.0% 3.8%

CESTOL_F100 J 97 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 3.8%

CESTOL_CRJ2 J 50 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 3.0% 3.3%

CESTOL_B712 J 106 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8%

CESTOL_B732 J 120 0.0% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 1.2%

CESTOL_RJ85 T 100 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

CESTOL_B462 J 90 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%

CESTOL_CRJ7 J 70 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Total 8.4% 27.4% 43.5% 20.7% 100.0%
20 

Figure 7. KEWR 2016 daily arrival traffic redistribution. 

Figure 8. KEWR 2016 daily arrival traffic congestion alleviation. 

19 February 2016 Conventional 

Aircraft-only Scheduled Arrival 

Traffic Demand

J 31

T 2

T 1

J 174 flights

T 6

J 302

T 4

DYLIN

J 295 

T 4

SWEET

SHAFF

KEWR

COATE

RBV

J 802

T 17

Ce 0

Tot 819

19 February 2016 CESTOL with 

Conventional Aircraft Scheduled 

Arrival Traffic Demand

SHAFF 

KEWR

COATE

RBV

DYLIN

J 171

T 2

Ce 123

J 28

T 2

Ce 2

J 481

T 14

Ce 298

Tot 793

T 1

Ce 25

J 108 flights

T 6

Ce 33

SWEET

J 174

T 3

Ce 115

19 February 2016 Conventional 

Aircraft-only Scheduled Arrival 

Traffic Demand

J 31

T 2

T 1

J 174 flights

T 6

J 302

T 4

DYLIN

J 295 

T 4

SWEET

SHAFF

KEWR

COATE

RBV

J 802

T 17

Ce 0

Tot 819

19 February 2016 Conventional 

Aircraft-only Scheduled Arrival 

Traffic Demand

J 31

T 2

T 1

J 174 flights

T 6

J 302

T 4

DYLIN

J 295 

T 4

SWEET

SHAFF

KEWR

COATE

RBV

J 802

T 17

Ce 0

Tot 819

J 31

T 2

T 1

J 174 flights

T 6

J 302

T 4

DYLIN

J 295 

T 4

SWEET

SHAFF

KEWR

COATE

RBV

J 802

T 17

Ce 0

Tot 819

19 February 2016 CESTOL with 

Conventional Aircraft Scheduled 

Arrival Traffic Demand

SHAFF 

KEWR

COATE

RBV

DYLIN

J 171

T 2

Ce 123

J 28

T 2

Ce 2

J 481

T 14

Ce 298

Tot 793

T 1

Ce 25

J 108 flights

T 6

Ce 33

SWEET

J 174

T 3

Ce 115

19 February 2016 CESTOL with 

Conventional Aircraft Scheduled 

Arrival Traffic Demand

SHAFF 

KEWR

COATE

RBV

DYLIN

J 171

T 2

Ce 123

J 28

T 2

Ce 2

J 481

T 14

Ce 298

Tot 793

T 1

Ce 25

J 108 flights

T 6

Ce 33

SWEET

J 174

T 3

Ce 115

SHAFF 

KEWR

COATE

RBV

DYLIN

J 171

T 2

Ce 123

J 28

T 2

Ce 2

J 481

T 14

Ce 298

Tot 793

T 1

Ce 25

J 108 flights

T 6

Ce 33

SWEET

J 174

T 3

Ce 115

CESTOL significantly 

reduces daily arrival traffic 

load on 22L

19 February 2016 CESTOL with Conventional 

Aircraft Relative Magnitude of Scheduled 

Arrivals at Main Merges

DYLIN

SWEET

SHAFF 

KEWR 

Tot 793

COATE

RBV

J 199

J 373

J 481 

flights

T/Ce 129

T/Ce 312

T/Ce 65

J 481

T 14

Ce 298

Tot 312

19 February 2016 Conventional Aircraft-only 

Relative Magnitude of Scheduled Arrivals at 

Main Merges

DYLIN

SWEET

SHAFF

KEWR 

Tot 819

COATE

RBV

J 333

J 628

J 802 

flights

T 6

T 17

T 7

J 802

T 17

Ce 0

Tot 17

CESTOL significantly 

reduces daily arrival traffic 

load on 22L

19 February 2016 CESTOL with Conventional 

Aircraft Relative Magnitude of Scheduled 

Arrivals at Main Merges

DYLIN

SWEET

SHAFF 

KEWR 

Tot 793

COATE

RBV

J 199

J 373

J 481 

flights

T/Ce 129

T/Ce 312

T/Ce 65

J 481

T 14

Ce 298

Tot 312

19 February 2016 CESTOL with Conventional 

Aircraft Relative Magnitude of Scheduled 

Arrivals at Main Merges

DYLIN

SWEET

SHAFF 

KEWR 

Tot 793

COATE

RBV

J 199

J 373

J 481 

flights

T/Ce 129

T/Ce 312

T/Ce 65

19 February 2016 CESTOL with Conventional 

Aircraft Relative Magnitude of Scheduled 

Arrivals at Main Merges

DYLIN

SWEET

SHAFF 

KEWR 

Tot 793

COATE

RBV

J 199

J 373

J 481 

flights

T/Ce 129

T/Ce 312

T/Ce 65

19 February 2016 CESTOL with Conventional 

Aircraft Relative Magnitude of Scheduled 

Arrivals at Main Merges

DYLIN

SWEET

SHAFF 

KEWR 

Tot 793

COATE

RBV

J 199

J 373

J 481 

flights

T/Ce 129

T/Ce 312

T/Ce 65

DYLIN

SWEET

SHAFF 

KEWR 

Tot 793

COATE

RBV

DYLIN

SWEET

SHAFF 

KEWR 

Tot 793

COATE

RBV

J 199

J 373

J 481 

flights

T/Ce 129

T/Ce 312

T/Ce 65

J 481

T 14

Ce 298

Tot 312

19 February 2016 Conventional Aircraft-only 

Relative Magnitude of Scheduled Arrivals at 

Main Merges

DYLIN

SWEET

SHAFF

KEWR 

Tot 819

COATE

RBV

J 333

J 628

J 802 

flights

T 6

T 17

T 7

J 802

T 17

Ce 0

Tot 17

19 February 2016 Conventional Aircraft-only 

Relative Magnitude of Scheduled Arrivals at 

Main Merges

DYLIN

SWEET

SHAFF

KEWR 

Tot 819

COATE

RBV

J 333

J 628

J 802 

flights

T 6

T 17

T 7

19 February 2016 Conventional Aircraft-only 

Relative Magnitude of Scheduled Arrivals at 

Main Merges

DYLIN

SWEET

SHAFF

KEWR 

Tot 819

COATE

RBV

J 333

J 628

J 802 

flights

T 6

T 17

T 7

19 February 2016 Conventional Aircraft-only 

Relative Magnitude of Scheduled Arrivals at 

Main Merges

DYLIN

SWEET

SHAFF

KEWR 

Tot 819

COATE

RBV

J 333

J 628

J 802 

flights

T 6

T 17

T 7

DYLIN

SWEET

SHAFF

KEWR 

Tot 819

COATE

RBV

DYLIN

SWEET

SHAFF

KEWR 

Tot 819

COATE

RBV

J 333

J 628

J 802 

flights

T 6

T 17

T 7

J 802

T 17

Ce 0

Tot 17
21 

4 NEWARK AVTERMINAL MODELING 

AvTerminal models en route, terminal airspace, and runway system operations, and is applied to 

Newark as described below. 

4.1 AVTERMINAL AIRSPACE AND RUNWAY SYSTEM MODELING 

The primary function of AvTeminal is to model flight trajectories subject to constraints. AvTeminal 

uses 3-DOF flight dynamics modeling to generate 4D flight trajectories between origin and 

destination airports. The fundamental AvTerminal provides TFM and ATC modules to simulate 

constraints on airspace and runway system operations (see fig. 9). 

AvTerminal models mutual interaction among en route airspace, terminal airspace and runway system operations. Airspace constraints inhibit passage of flights to and from runway systems, and, 

simultaneously, runway system constraints inhibit processing of flights through runways, regardless 

of airspace movement capabilities. AvTerminal implements a newly developed algorithmic structure 

that concurrently assesses aircraft trajectories and airspace/runway system constraints to obtain 

smooth network movement solutions. This logic employs complex network-wide modeling techniques to identify potential merge and diverge conflicts, assess runway spacing, and generate delay 

and maneuver resolutions. 

Figure 9. AvTerminal KEWR application. 

En route, terminal and runway aircraft constraints are applied:

TFM modeling component manage arrivals and departures per 

spacing and separation requirements

ATC modeling components re-apply spacing and 

separation requirements

2ndAircraft

Hv B57 Lg Sm

Min sep (sec)

AC1 Land on 22L

AC2 Land on 11

VFR | IFR | ...

1st A/C

Heavy

B757

Large

Small

Aircraft 

landing/takeoff pairwise separation 

matrices encode local 

ATC procedures, 

runway geometry, 

airport operating 

conditions

22L

11

Actual routes 

defined per ETMS 

en route flight 

data and terminal 

procedures

Outer Boundary

eg: 250 nmi radius

Each flight trajectory is modeled 

between origin-destination airports

22R
22 

AvTerminal’s link-node modeling of all route segments, airspace route structure, and runway 

configurations applies the following constraints: 

1. Separation requirements at en route cruise and transition fixes and terminal fixes (including 

arrival fix, intermediate merges, transition airspace merges and diverges, and departure fixes). 

2. Wake vortex-based separation requirements at the runway thresholds and for all landing and 

takeoff flights on all runways. 

3. Procedural (altitude/speed) constraints. 

The AvTerminal TFM module applies look-ahead logic to determine feasible fix crossing and 

runway times, and applies delay to individual aircraft to meet these planned times. Delay is 

propagated along inbound or outbound trajectories to a departure airport as necessary. Takeoff delay 

is absorbed on the airport surface. The effect is to simulate the application of network-integrated, 

high-fidelity, time-based metering to each aircraft sequentially at critical points. An AvTerminal 

ATC module models flight trajectories and constraints in actual simulation time, rather than over a 

TFM look-ahead horizon, to assign maneuvers and delays. 

AvTerminal runway modeling uses aircraft minimum separation time requirements to manage 

runway system operations. The runway modeling function applies user-defined runway system 

configuration descriptors and matrices of aircraft separation time requirements (see fig. 9) to define 

takeoff and landing interactions. These matrices conform to FAA rules (ref. 14) and account for 

wake turbulence as well as runway occupancy and missed approach constraints. 

Each matrix defines the minimum allowable time separation between pairs of successive runway 

operations for a given runway geometry and interaction. Runway use varies by user-specified airport 

operating condition (e.g., VMC, IMC, other) by time. The runway modeling logic assigns actual 

takeoff and landing times based on requested times (derived from the flight schedule), runway, final 

approach, and missed approach spacing requirements (separation time matrices), and applicable 

airspace restrictions (departure fix spacing requirements). Resulting departure delays are absorbed 

on the airport surface. Resulting arrival delays are absorbed while airborne. 

4.2 POINT MASS TRAJECTORY MODEL 

AvTerminal implements the specially designed 3-DOF point mass trajectory generator model. The 

point mass trajectory generator accurately solves the point mass equations at widely spaced nodes 

along a specified horizontal and vertical profile. The vertical profile is a list of segment types and 

corresponding end states. Mach/calibrated air speed (CAS) is applied to and from cruise. In lower 

airspace, the model applies a constant deceleration profile along a constant flight path angle (i.e., 

speed and altitude both change) on segments between waypoints having altitude and/or speed 

crossing restrictions. The horizontal profile is a list of waypoints, where a series of straight segments 

approximate curved routes. Turns are modeled as circular arcs, which are tangent to great circle arcs 

that connect the waypoints. The trajectory state is sampled at uniformly spaced times by 

interpolating between the solutions at nodes. The exact point mass equations are solved iteratively. 

No small angle approximations are made. The method of specifying the vertical profile guarantees 

continuous trajectories. Wind and nonstandard temperatures can be taken into account. 

 
23 

The point mass trajectory generator is physics based; it requires an aerodynamic model and a thrust 

model. AvTerminal uses the BADA 3.6 models (ref. 15), which include aerodynamics (lift, drag); 

propulsion (thrust, fuel burn rate); and aircraft-type performance characteristics data (stall speed, 

climb speed, descent speed, cruise speed, and empty weight) for hundreds of aircraft types. 

This method models a wide range of flight segment types, including climb and descent at constant 

indicated airspeed or constant Mach, acceleration, deceleration, and cruise, and it is computationally 

fast. In addition to flight segments, the point mass trajectory generator can also model ground-based 

segments including takeoff, landing, and taxiing. With sufficient input, it is therefore possible to 

efficiently and accurately model a flight from gate to gate. 

The point mass model-based trajectory generator is applied to each aircraft in the KEWR 

conventional and CESTOL flight demand sets. The conventional aircraft are modeled using the 

exiting BADA database that defines aircraft type performance characteristics. Based on expert 

review (ref. 1) of civil CESTOL aircraft design concepts, the Boeing 737-700 is used to represent 

general CESTOL flight performance characteristics for the purpose of trajectory modeling in 

AvTerminal. The B737-300 aircraft type performance characteristics are used for CESTOL 

trajectory modeling, except an 83-knot stall speed is assumed based on conceptual aerodynamics for 

a civil CESTOL aircraft. 

4.3 AVTERMINAL NEWARK APPLICATION 

For Newark, the AvTerminal TFM module is applied to model the sequence of converging inbound 

merges, runway minimum separation requirements, and outbound diverge operations including 

departure fix spacing restrictions. AvTerminal models the airspace procedures and runway configurations for the Southwest VFR Operating Plan described in Section 2 and the traffic loadings 

described in Section 3. 

With reference to figure 9, AvTerminal considers constraints to the inbound flight trajectories at the 

250-nmi radius and applies delay resolution to prevent inter-aircraft violation of en route restrictions 

(e.g., 5-nmi minimum radar spacing plus 2-nmi buffer; 1,000-ft. vertical minimum separation). 

Outbound flight trajectories are processed similarly to provide conformance with constraints. 

AvTerminal processes inbound traffic streams through KEWR terminal airspace by imposing strict 

in-trail spacing (5 nmi minimum) without regard to altitude, and applying delay resolution strategies 

to prevent overtakes in this confined airspace. AvTerminal achieves TFM delay resolution by timeshifting 4D trajectories. Altitude separation is applied between separate streams of convention and 

CESTOL aircraft. This process results in a network-integrated, systematic plan for merge-point 

crossings timed to satisfy constraints. In addition, AvTerminal assesses and resolves the runway 

minimum time separation requirements in coordination with the airspace resolution strategies. 

Matrices of runway minimum separation time requirements for the KEWR Southwest Plan are 

derived from previous survey, publications and consultations (refs. 6–11), and standard operating 

rules (ref. 14). Appendix B presents the matrix for each runway interaction pair in a single table. 

These data encode complex rules for applying spacing to takeoff and landing operations on same 

and interacting runways, and are applicable to alternative runway configurations. A special attribute 

of the AvTerminal runway modeling logic is the application of departure fix restrictions (15-nmi 

 
24 

Figure 10. KEWR DCIA. 

miles-in-trail) in assigning takeoff times. The logic delays and reassigns takeoff times of aircraft 

destined in succession to a common fix to accommodate the airspace constraint. These delayed 

takeoffs are resequenced among the arrival and departure operations. 

An FAA-led task group (ref. 7) identifies Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches (DCIA) as 

a potential future enhancement to improve Southwest Plan operations, particularly IFR. DCIA (see 

fig. 10) requires advanced ATC automation to display ghost traffic on final approaches to controllers. The ghosting technique enables interleaving of landings on primary runway 22L and secondary 

crossing runway 11 between staggered arrivals to each runway. The DCIA requires aircraft 

separated by 2 nmi from a nonheavy ghost target and 5 nmi from a heavy ghost target (ref. 7). 

AvTerminal includes these separation rules in the KEWR matrices to model DCIA operations. 

4.4 AVTERMINAL REASONABLENESS 

AvTerminal capacity analysis results for KEWR Southwest VFR Operating Plan are compared with 

Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2004 data to examine the reasonableness of the results. 

AvTerminal is applied with the 2004 conventional flight demand set for this comparison. Figure 11 

graphically presents the resulting AvTerminal and corresponding FAA Benchmark KEWR runway 

system acceptance rates. 

 

22L

11

Rwy 11 

CESTOL 

Ghost

Rwy 22L 

Jet 

Ghost

Y

Y

X = Wake Vortex Minimum Separation Rule (7110.65)

Y = DCIA Minimum Separation

= 2 nmi non-heavy or

= 5 nmi heavy

per Newark International Airport Capacity 

Enhancement Plan (May 2000)

Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches (DCIA) with 

Converging Runway Display Tools (ghost target spacing)

X

X

22L

11

Rwy 11 

CESTOL 

Ghost

Rwy 22L 

Jet 

Ghost

Y

Y

X = Wake Vortex Minimum Separation Rule (7110.65)

Y = DCIA Minimum Separation

= 2 nmi non-heavy or

= 5 nmi heavy

per Newark International Airport Capacity 

Enhancement Plan (May 2000)

Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches (DCIA) with 

Converging Runway Display Tools (ghost target spacing)

X

X
25 

Figure 11. AvTerminal and FAA 2004 benchmark comparison. 

Figure 11 shows the distribution of joint landing/takeoff counts by 15-minute intervals resulting 

from AvTerminal, and a pair of Pareto envelopes (red lines) at the maximum counts. The envelop 

pair is meant to bracket the maximum throughput, where the horizontal bracket estimates arrival 

acceptance rate, the vertical bracket estimates departure acceptance rate, and the sloped bracket 

estimates total acceptance rate. The shape of the AvTerminal Pareto envelope is nearly identical to 

that (blue lines) of the FAA Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2004 (ref. 5), although both are 

independently derived. The Benchmark Pareto envelop is superimposed on the AvTerminal graph, 

illustrating their near coincidence. 

Table 6 tabulations compare the estimated acceptance rates, showing mutual compatibility. In 

addition to these graphical data, the Benchmark Report estimates the KWER Southwest VFR 

optimum rate to be 84–92/hour, practically the same as AvTerminal total rate (88–92/hour). 

These AvTerminal acceptance rates are the result of the integrated modeling of airspace and runway 

system traffic loading, constraints, and interactions. AvTerminal appears to be a reasonable 

estimator of airspace and airport system traffic handling capability based on its consistency with 

FAA Benchmark capacity data. 

TABLE 6. AVTERMINAL AND FAA 2004 BENCHMARK ACCEPTANCE RATES 

 AvTeminal FAA Benchmark

Capacity Category flights/15 min flights/hour flights/hour 

Arrival Acceptance Rate (AAR) 10–11 40–44 ~46 

Departure Acceptance Rate (DAR) 12–13 48–52 ~52 

Total Acceptance Rate (TAR) 22–23 88–92 ~91 

 

FAA 2004 Benchmark Report: KEWR Pareto Envelope

2004 Conventional KEWR VFR Acceptance Rates

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Takeoffs/15-min

Landings/15-min

AvTerminal FAA Benchmark

AvTerminal: KEWR 

Pareto Envelope
26 
27 

5 NEWARK MODELING RESULTS 

AvTerminal TFM modeling, as applied in this preliminary study, assumes a CESTOL future 

operating environment in which advanced air traffic management (ATM) and flight operating 

systems provide very high-fidelity trajectory prediction and control capabilities. These capabilities 

are based on sophisticated communication, navigation and surveillance (CNS) technologies. 

Assumptions include application of mature ATM automation with time-based metering and DCIA, 

area navigation (RNAV), required navigation performance (RNP), accurate meteorological 

prediction, air-ground data link communication, automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADSB) and KEWR gate, taxiway, parking, and other airport improvements that remove airport surface 

impediments to runway traffic throughput. Although not a factor in this study, CESTOL is 

envisioned to incorporate fuel-efficient, low-noise and low-emission technologies. The AvTerminal 

modeling assumes TFM-planned fix crossing and runway operation times are strictly adhered to 

with advanced ATM time-based metering procedures (i.e., ATC operations implement TFM plans). 

The modeling further assumes zero wind, no weather-related and off-nominal restrictions, and no 

surface taxi and gate movement constraints. 

The remainder of this section presents the results of the AvTerminal modeling of the KEWR 

Southwest VFR basic operation for the 2016 flight demand set, subject to the above assumptions. 

5.1 RUNWAY SYSTEM TRAFFIC LOADING 

The predicted KEWR February 19, 2016 flight demand schedules for the conventional and CESTOL 

aircraft are input data to AvTerminal. Figure 12 shows KEWR February 19, 2016 daily arrival and 

departure traffic demand distributions by successive 15-minute periods for the conventional fleet. 

These represent scheduled landing and takeoff times. Figure 13 shows the corresponding distribution 

for the fleet with CESTOL aircraft. The CESTOL distribution is quite similar to that of the 

conventional traffic, with minor variation. Scheduled departure peaking generally exceeds arrival 

peaking in morning and afternoon, and arrival peaking dominates thereafter. Departure maximum 

peaking approaches 25 flights per 15 minutes, and arrival maximum peaking is less, reaching 20 

flights per 15 minutes. 

 
28 

Figure 12. KEWR 2016 conventional daily traffic demand per 15-minute bin. 

Figure 13. KEWR 2016 CESTOL daily traffic demand per 15-minute bin. 

2016 Conventional Daily Traffic Demand

0

5

10

15

20

25

5:00 AM

6:00 AM

7:00 AM

8:00 AM

9:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

1:00 PM

2:00 PM

3:00 PM

4:00 PM

5:00 PM

6:00 PM

7:00 PM

8:00 PM

9:00 PM

10:00 PM

11:00 PM

12:00 AM

1:00 AM

2:00 AM

3:00 AM

4:00 AM

5:00 AM

KEWR local time (19-Feb-2004)

Number of Operations per 15-Minute bin

Arrivals

Departures

Scheduled Flights per 15-Minute Bin

2016 CESTOL Daily Traffic Demand

0

5

10

15

20

25

5:00 AM

6:00 AM

7:00 AM

8:00 AM

9:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

1:00 PM

2:00 PM

3:00 PM

4:00 PM

5:00 PM

6:00 PM

7:00 PM

8:00 PM

9:00 PM

10:00 PM

11:00 PM

12:00 AM

1:00 AM

2:00 AM

3:00 AM

4:00 AM

5:00 AM

KEWR local time(19-Feb-2004)

Number of Operations per 15-Minute Bin

Arrivals

Departures

Scheduled Flights per 15-Minute Bin
29 

5.2 RUNWAY SYSTEM CAPACITY IMPACTS 

Arrival Acceptance Rates—AvTerminal processes the traffic demand and applies delays due to 

airspace and runway system constraints associated with the KEWR basic Southwest VFR Operating 

Plan. Figure 14 compares resulting runway system arrival throughputs for conventional versus 

CESTOL operations. The CESTOL AAR peaks are significantly higher than those of the 

conventional traffic operation. The CESTOL arrival peaks repeatedly reach or exceed 14 flights/15 

minutes (56/hour), while conventional traffic arrival peaks consistently attain 10 flights/15 minutes 

(40/hour). The conventional traffic profile shows a significant volume of arrivals occurring in night 

hours later than the CESTOL profile. Since the CESTOL and conventional arrival demands are 

essentially the same, this lag indicates conventional flights experience more delay than CESTOL 

flights. These results show the effect of shifting CESTOL arrival traffic to secondary crossing 

runway 11 with a corresponding reduction of traffic loading on primary runway 22R relative to 

conventional traffic operations. 

Departure Acceptance Rates (DARs)—Figure 15 compares resulting runway system departure 

throughputs for conventional versus CESTOL operations. The CESTOL and conventional traffic 

DAR profiles and peaks are essentially similar. The peaks reach or exceed 14 flights/15 minutes 

(56/hour). These results are consistent with the assumption that CESTOL procedures are the same as 

conventional operations. 

Figure 14. KEWR 2016 conventional vs. CESTOL landings per 15-minute bin. 

Arrival Throughput: 2016 Conventional vs. 2016 CESTOL

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

5:00:00 AM6:00:00 AM7:00:00 AM8:00:00 AM9:00:00 AM

10:00:00 AM11:00:00 AM

12:00:00 PM

1:00:00 PM2:00:00 PM3:00:00 PM4:00:00 PM5:00:00 PM6:00:00 PM7:00:00 PM8:00:00 PM9:00:00 PM

10:00:00 PM11:00:00 PM

12:00:00 AM

1:00:00 AM2:00:00 AM3:00:00 AM4:00:00 AM5:00:00 AM

KEWR Local Time in 15-Minute Bins (19-Feb-2016)

AAR (Aircraft per 15-mins)

CESTOL AAR

Conventional AAR

Arrival Acceptance Rate (AAR):
30 

Figure 15. KEWR 2016 conventional vs. CESTOL takeoffs per 15-minute bin. 

Arrival-Departure Capacity—Figure 16 uses Pareto envelopes to illustrate the potential 

improvement in runway system 15-minute acceptance rates due to the introduction of CESTOL 

aircraft in the KEWR 2016 basic Southwest VFR Operating Plan. Each point on these charts is the 

paired landing/takeoff count by 15 minutes. The envelopes are drawn around the peak counts 

representing capacity limits during high volume traffic periods. 

Figure 16. KEWR 2016 conventional vs. CESTOL capacity envelopes. 

 

Departure Throughput: 2016 Conventional vs. 2016 CESTOL

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

5:00:00 AM6:00:00 AM7:00:00 AM8:00:00 AM9:00:00 AM

10:00:00 AM11:00:00 AM

12:00:00 PM

1:00:00 PM2:00:00 PM3:00:00 PM4:00:00 PM5:00:00 PM6:00:00 PM7:00:00 PM8:00:00 PM9:00:00 PM

10:00:00 PM11:00:00 PM

12:00:00 AM

1:00:00 AM2:00:00 AM3:00:00 AM4:00:00 AM5:00:00 AM

KEWR Local Time in 15-Minute Bins (19-Feb-2016)

DAR (Aircraft per 15-mins)

CESTOL DAR

Conventional DAR

Departure Acceptance Rate (DAR):

2016 CESTOL KEWR VFR Acceptance Rates

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Takeoffs/15-min

Landings/15-min

2016 Conventional KEWR VFR Acceptance Rates

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Takeoffs/15-min

Landings/15-min

+36% to 40%

2016 CESTOL KEWR VFR Acceptance Rates

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Takeoffs/15-min

Landings/15-min

2016 Conventional KEWR VFR Acceptance Rates

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Takeoffs/15-min

Landings/15-min

+36% to 40%
31 

TABLE 7. KEWR 2016 CONVENTIONAL VS. CESTOL CAPACITY 

 Peak Capacity

 Flights/15 minutes Flights/hour CESTOL 

Capacity Category Conventional CESTOL Conventional CESTOL Gain

Arrival Acceptance Rate (AAR) 10–11 14–15 42 58 38% 

Departure Acceptance Rate 

(DAR) 

14–15 14–15 58 58 0% 

Total Acceptance Rate (TAR) 24–25 28–30 98 114 16% 

The CESTOL maximum arrival acceptance rate shows significant increase relative to conventional 

rates, and departure rates show no gain, as discussed in the previous paragraphs. Table 7 is a 

numeric summary of the acceptance rate limit values. Arrival capacity increases by 4 flights/15 

minutes (16/hour), which is major improvement (38%) due to CESTOL relative to conventional 

operations. Maximum total acceptance rate increases by 16%, moderated due to the lack of departure 

capacity gain. 

5.3 DELAY IMPACTS 

Airspace capacity is constrained by runway system acceptance rates, TFM restrictions, spacing 

rules, and weather. Due to these and related operational factors and traffic loading patterns, airspace 

throughput varies spatially and temporally, requiring voluminous data for quantitative description 

(e.g., acceptance rate by fix by altitude by time). However, daily delay is a useful and convenient 

metric to quantitatively describe operating efficiency and is used herein. 

AvTerminal records planned delay imposed to resolve network merging, diverging, and runway 

system operations. Table 8 summarizes the airspace and runway system component of the system 

delay resulting from modeling of KEWR Southwest VFR basic operation. These data describe the 

special distribution of daily delay. Delay data entries are associated with a fix according to en route 

airspace, terminal airspace, or runway system domains. 

En route airspace delays at the outer boundary fixes are those due to spacing constraints on aircraft 

that cross a fix at a common altitude at entry to the study area (i.e., the 250-nmi radius). AvTerminal 

permits aircraft overtakes between the outer boundary fixes, and arrival and departure fixes on the 

Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC)-TRACON boundary, but applies spacing rules at this 

boundary. In this preliminary study, only KEWR traffic is modeled, and interactions with other en 

route traffic are not factored into the delay analysis. Hence, en route airspace delays in table 8 are 

constrained only by KEWR-aircraft spacing requirements and are not significant. 

En route airspace delays at the terminal arrival fixes are due to the 5-nmi spacing constraint on 

inbound aircraft within a common traffic stream (conventional or CESTOL), regardless of fix 

crossing altitude. In this study, the AvTerminal modeling configuration does not apply spacing 

constraints to aircraft in different arrival streams, provided 1,000-ft. altitude separation is 

maintained. En route airspace delays at terminal departure fixes are due to the 15-nmi TFM 

restriction on outbound aircraft regardless of departure traffic streams or crossing altitude. Arrival 

fixes (SWEET, DYLIN) serving inbounds from the west and southwest have the most en route delay 
32 

to conventional operations in table 8 due to 5-nmi spacing, and 2 departure fixes (ELIOT, WHITE) 

serving outbound flights to the west and south have the most delay due to 15-nmi TFM restriction. 

AvTerminal applies a 3-nmi spacing constraint in terminal airspace to aircraft within a common 

traffic stream (conventional or CESTOL) regardless of altitude. Terminal airspace delays at a fix are 

those needed for merging, diverging, and in-trail operations, and represent delays and maneuvers 

imposed to maintain spacing and preclude overtakes along the trajectory segment downstream of the 

subject fix. Terminal airspace delay data entries in table 8 for arrival fixes represent delays required 

to preserve spacing at the fix and after the aircraft enters the terminal airspace along the segment 

downstream of the arrival fix. These delays are in addition to any delays cascading from further 

downstream segments as modeled by the look-ahead congestion analysis logic of the AvTerminal. 

AvTerminal increments delay as aircraft are processed through the network of merge (and 

diverging) operations. Arrival fixes (SWEET, DYLIN, SHAFF, RBV) serving inbounds from the 

west, south, and north show major terminal airspace delay to conventional operations in table 8 due 

to terminal airspace congestion. 

TABLE 8. KEWR 2016 DAILY DELAY BY FIX 

Conventional Delay (minutes) CESTOL Delay (minutes)

Fix_Name En Route Terminal Runway Total En Route Terminal Runway Total

OUTER_BOUNDARY

All Outer Bndry fixes 22 0 0 22 20 0 0 20

ARRIVAL

SWEET_J 66 18568 0 18634 18 125 0 143

DYLIN_J 70 16087 0 16157 21 151 0 172

SHAFF 16 6293 0 6308 3 10 0 13

RBV_J 1 333 0 334 0 1 0 1

Other fixes 0 0 0 0 32 83 0 114

Arrival Fix Total 153 41281 0 41434 73 371 0 444

TERMINAL MERGE

KEWRA80 0 830 0 830 0 132 0 132

HOKIR 0 704 0 704 0 129 0 129

METRO 0 376 0 376 0 14 0 14

KEWRA30 0 1 0 1 0 130 0 130

Other fixes 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9

Terminal Merge Fix Tot 0 1910 0 1910 0 414 0 414

TERMINAL_DIVERGE

All TD fixes 0 59 0 59 0 52 0 52

DEPARTURE

ELIOT 267 4 30 302 259 4 31 294

WHITE 90 0 0 90 81 0 0 81

Other Fixes 185 17 6 208 168 17 6 192

Departure Fix Total 542 22 36 600 509 22 36 567

FINAL_APPROACH

RWY_22L_FAF 0 264 0 264 0 93 0 93

RWY_11_FAF 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 65

Final Approach Fix Tot 0 264 0 264 0 158 0 158

RUNWAY

22L 0 0 12873 12873 0 4134 4134

22R 0 0 11615 11615 0 0 8670 8670

11 0 0 8 8 0 0 2701 2701

Runway Total 0 0 24496 24496 0 0 15505 15505

Total 716 43536 24532 68784 602 1017 15541 17160

Percent of Total 1% 63% 36% 100% 4% 6% 91% 100%
33 

Delays at terminal airspace merge fixes within the terminal boundary have the same interpretation as 

those for arrival fixes (i.e., delays are dependent on downstream network congestion as well as fix 

crossing constraints), as are delays at terminal airspace diverge fixes. Terminal merge fixes 

(KEWRA80, HOKIR, METRO) receiving inbound traffic from arrival fixes to the west, south, and 

north show significant terminal airspace delay to conventional operations in table 8 due to network 

merge congestion. 

Runway system delays are the result of application of the minimum separation time matrix and 

departure fix restrictions as described in the preceding paragraphs addressing capacity impacts. The 

primary runways (22R, 22L) serving takeoff and landings show major delay to conventional 

operations in table 8 due to the runway system constraints. 

Table 9 summarizes and compares conventional and CESTOL delays by fix type. With conventional 

operations, terminal airspace constraints generate much of the total delay (63%), which is near 

double that of runway delay (36%). The majority of conventional traffic delay accrues to arrival fix 

operations (which include downstream overtake and merge resolutions). CESTOL operations 

eliminate much of the terminal airspace delay, resulting in only 6% of total CESTOL delay due to 

terminal airspace constraints. This results in a major reduction in total delay (51,625 minutes 

rounded off) when comparing CESTOL versus conventional operations (17,160 versus 68,784 

minutes of total delay). 

Table 10 summarizes CESTOL delay reduction results by fix type, showing significant reductions 

due to CESTOL. The improved terminal airspace operations due to CESTOL aircraft operations 

account for 82% the CESTOL total delay savings. 

Table 11 consolidates the KEWR daily delay reduction data according to airspace and runway 

system domains. By introducing CESTOL aircraft into the system, airspace delays are reduced by 

96%, and runway system delays are reduced by 37%. The combined effect is a 75% reduction in 

total daily delay just by the introduction of CESTOL-capable aircraft. 

TABLE 9. KEWR 2016 DAILY DELAY BY FIX TYPE 

Conventional Delay (minutes) CESTOL Delay (minutes)

Fix Type En Route Terminal Runway Total En Route Terminal Runway Total

All Outer Boundary Fix 22 0 0 22 20 0 0 20

Arrival Fix 153 41281 0 41434 73 371 0 444

Terminal Merge Fix 0 1910 0 1910 0 414 0 414

Terminal Departure Fix 0 59 0 59 0 52 0 52

Departure Fix 542 22 36 600 509 22 36 567

Final Approach Fix 0 264 0 264 0 158 0 158

Runway System 0 0 24496 24496 0 0 15505 15505

Total 716 43536 24532 68784 602 1017 15541 17160

Percent of Total 1% 63% 36% 100% 4% 6% 91% 100%

 
34 

TABLE 10. KEWR 2016 DAILY DELAY REDUCTION BY FIX TYPE 

TABLE 11. KEWR 2016 DAILY DELAY REDUCTION BY DOMAIN 

Figure 17 graphically compares delay distribution across en route airspace, terminal airspace, and 

runway system domains for February 19, 2016 conventional and CESTOL traffic operations. 

Figure 18 compares KEWR runway system daily arrival delays (projected for February 19, 2016) 

for conventional versus CESTOL operations, and shows major delay reduction with CESTOL 

operations. 

 

Figure 17. KEWR 2016 conventional and CESTOL delay spatial distribution. 

 CESTOL Delay Reduction (minutes)

Fix Type En Route Terminal Runway Total Percent

All Outer Boundary Fix 2 0 0 2 0%

Arrival Fix 80 40910 0 40989 79%

Terminal Merge Fix 0 1496 0 1496 3%

Termina Departure Fix 0 6 0 6 0%

Departure Fix 33 0 0 33 0%

Final Approach Fix 0 106 0 106 0%

Runway System 0 0 8991 8991 17%

Total 115 42519 8991 51625 100%

0% 82% 17% 100%

CESTOL Delay Reduction (minutes) CESTOL Delay Reduction Distribution(%)

Domain En Route Terminal Runway Total En Route Terminal Runway Total

Airspace 115 42519 0 42633 16% 98% 0% 96%

Runway System 0 0 8991 8991 0% 0% 37% 37%

All 115 42519 8991 51625 16% 98% 37% 75%

DYLIN

+16,087

SWEET

+18,568 KEWR 

+12,873

FAF +264

HOKIR +704

METRO +376

SHAFF 

+6293 

minutes 

delay

KEWRA80 +830

RBV +333

Conventional Operations CESTOL Operations

Runway 22L

Delay Magnitude

Runway 11

+nnn Minutes of delay

DYLIN

+151

RBV +1 

SWEET

+125 KEWR 22L +4134

11 +2709

22L-FAF +93

HOKIR +129

METRO +14

SHAFF +10 minutes delay

KEWRA80 +80

KEWRA30+13

0 

11-FAF +65
35 

Figure 18. KEWR 2016 conventional vs. CESTOL landing delay per 15-minute bin. 

Figure 19 compares runway system daily departure delays for conventional versus CESTOL 

operations, and shows a minor delay change with CESTOL operations. This minor change is due to 

CESTOL aircraft using the same departure runway as conventional aircraft. If another runway could 

be used for CESTOL aircraft takeoff, the delay would be further reduced, or possibly eliminated if 

the outbound terminal airspace could handle it. 

Figure 19. KEWR 2016 conventional vs. CESTOL takeoff delay per 15-minute bin. 

2016 Arrival Delay: Conventional vs CESTOL

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

5:00 AM

6:00 AM

7:00 AM

8:00 AM

9:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

1:00 PM

2:00 PM

3:00 PM

4:00 PM

5:00 PM

6:00 PM

7:00 PM

8:00 PM

9:00 PM

10:00 PM

11:00 PM

12:00 AM

1:00 AM

2:00 AM

3:00 AM

4:00 AM

5:00 AM

KEWR local time (19-Feb-2004)

Delay at local time (min)

Conventional Arrival Delay

CESTOL Arrival Delay

Average Delay by 15-Minute Bin

2016 Departure Delay: Conventional vs CESTOL

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

5:00 AM

6 0: 0 AM

7 0: 0 AM

8 0: 0 AM

9 0: 0 AM

10 0: 0 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

1 0: 0 PM

2 0: 0 PM

3 0: 0 PM

4:00 PM

5:00 PM

6:00 PM

7 0: 0 PM

8 0: 0 PM

9 0: 0 PM

10 0: 0 PM

11 0: 0 PM

12:00 AM

1 0: 0 AM

2 0: 0 AM

3 0: 0 AM

4 0: 0 AM

5:00 AM

KEWR local time (19-Feb-2004)

Delay at local time (min)

Conventional Departure Delay

CESTOL Departure Delay

Average Delay by 15-Minute Bin
36 
37 

6 OEP AIRPORTS CESTOL FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS 

For ACES modeling of NAS-wide CESTOL operations, a subset of conventional aircraft types 

serving the OEP airports in the ACES February 19, 2016 flight data set were converted to CESTOL 

aircraft (see Appendix A). Table 12 lists the OEP 34 domestic airports (i.e., exclusive of Honolulu 

International, KHNL) that are the subjects of this study. 

The following sections describe the aircraft type conversion process used to define the CESTOL 

fleet composition serving the OEP airports. The factors used to define the CESTOL fleet 

composition were flight distance, aircraft seat capacity, and runway length, without regard to 

business case formulations. 

The conversion process converts eligible commercial passenger flights in the conventional aircraft 

February 19, 2016 daily flight data set to CESTOL if the flight complies with the aircraft seat size 

limit, the 2,000-nmi flight distance, and the 2,000-ft. arrival and departure airport runway length 

limits (per table 1). The runway length limit is not a constraining factor because NAS airports 

serving the candidate commercial flights in the ACES 2016 daily flight data set have runways at 

least 2,000 ft. long. 

TABLE 12. OEP DOMESTIC AIRPORTS 

• Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International 

(KATL) 

• New York LaGuardia (KLGA) 

• Boston Logan International (KBOS) • Orlando International (KMCO) 

• Baltimore-Washington International (KBWI) • Chicago Midway International (KMDW) 

• Cleveland Hopkins International (KCLE) • Memphis International (KMEM) 

• Charlotte/Douglas International (KCLT) • Miami International (KMIA) 

• Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International 

(KCVG) 

• Minneapolis-St Paul International (KMSP) 

• Ronald Reagan Washington National (KDCA) • Chicago O’Hare International (KORD) 

• Denver International (KDEN) • Portland International (KPDX) 

• Dallas/Fort Worth International (KDFW) • Philadelphia International (KPHL) 

• Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (KDTW) • Phoenix Sky Harbor International (KPHX) 

• Newark Liberty International (KEWR) • Greater Pittsburgh International (KPIT) 

• Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International 

(KFLL) 

• San Diego International-Lindbergh Field 

(KSAN) 

• Washington Dulles International (KIAD) • Seattle-Tacoma International (KSEA) 

• Houston George Bush Intercontinental (KIAH) • San Francisco International (KSFO) 

• New York John F. Kennedy International 

(KJFK) 

• Salt Lake City International (KSLC) 

• Las Vegas McCarran International (KLAS) • Lambert-St. Louis International (KSTL) 

• Los Angeles International (KLAX) • Tampa International (KTPA) 
38 

6.1 FLIGHT DISTANCE CONVERSION FACTORS 

Table 13 describes the distribution of daily flights among origin-destination distance ranges by OEP 

airport. Most OEP airports have at least 90% of their flights within the 2,000-nmi qualification range 

for conversion to CESTOL aircraft. Only four OEP airports (Newark, New York JFK, Los Angeles, 

and San Francisco) have less than 90% of their flights qualifying for conversion to CESTOL aircraft 

based on flight distance constraint. This table also shows the flight range distribution among all NAS 

airports for information purpose. 

TABLE 13. 2016 CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT FLIGHT DISTANCE DISTRIBUTION 

Distribution of Airport Arrival Flights by Origin-Destination Distance (%)

OEP Arrival Airport Airport Id 0 - 500 501 - 1000 1001 - 1500 1501 - 2000 2001 - 2500 > 2500 Total

Atlanta KATL 54% 36% 4% 5% 0% 1% 100%

Boston KBOS 55% 24% 11% 3% 5% 2% 100%

Baltimore KBWI 57% 29% 9% 4% 1% 1% 100%

Cleveland KCLE 79% 15% 2% 4% 0% 0% 100%

Charlotte KCLT 74% 22% 2% 2% 0% 0% 100%

Cincinnati KCVG 70% 24% 3% 2% 0% 1% 100%

Washington DCA KDCA 67% 27% 5% 1% 0% 0% 100%

Denver KDEN 34% 51% 14% 1% 0% 0% 100%

Dallas-Fort Worth KDFW 37% 41% 20% 1% 0% 1% 100%

Detroit KDTW 67% 24% 3% 4% 0% 1% 100%

Newark KEWR 38% 36% 9% 5% 7% 5% 100%

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood KFLL 34% 49% 14% 2% 2% 0% 100%

Washington IAD KIAD 64% 17% 5% 6% 4% 4% 100%

Houston KIAH 37% 41% 18% 2% 0% 1% 100%

New York JFK KJFK 20% 28% 8% 9% 17% 17% 100%

Las Vegas KLAS 50% 19% 15% 15% 1% 0% 100%

Los Angeles KLAX 48% 13% 11% 14% 10% 3% 100%

New York LGA KLGA 60% 34% 6% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Orlando KMCO 34% 55% 6% 3% 1% 1% 100%

Chicago MDW KMDW 58% 29% 7% 6% 0% 0% 100%

Memphis KMEM 60% 29% 7% 3% 0% 1% 100%

Miami KMIA 28% 42% 19% 2% 3% 6% 100%

Minneapolis-St. Paul KMSP 48% 35% 16% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Chicago ORD KORD 40% 41% 10% 6% 0% 3% 100%

Portland KPDX 67% 22% 4% 5% 2% 0% 100%

Philadelphia KPHL 58% 28% 6% 3% 3% 2% 100%

Phoenix KPHX 45% 30% 15% 10% 0% 0% 100%

Pittsburgh KPIT 84% 11% 1% 4% 0% 0% 100%

San Diego KSAN 61% 12% 14% 8% 5% 0% 100%

Seattle KSEA 41% 36% 9% 7% 6% 1% 100%

San Francisco KSFO 47% 15% 7% 14% 14% 3% 100%

Salt Lake City KSLC 57% 29% 9% 4% 0% 0% 100%

St. Louis KSTL 60% 31% 8% 1% 0% 0% 100%

Tampa KTPA 50% 42% 6% 2% 0% 0% 100%

All OEP Airports Total 51% 31% 9% 5% 2% 2% 100%

All NAS Airports Total 64% 23% 7% 3% 1% 2% 100%
39 

6.2 SEAT SIZE CONVERSION FACTORS 

The updated guidelines (see table 1) apply a 50-seat lower limit to the conversion of conventional 

aircraft to CESTOL, and a 120- to130-seat range as the upper limit. This upper limit range 

supersedes the initial 120-seat limit applied in the earlier AvTerminal modeling of Newark Airport 

operations. Table 3 identifies the NAS-wide conventional aircraft types that are within the 50- to 

120-seat eligibility range for CESTOL replacement. Table 14 identifies 4 conventional aircraft types 

that are in the 121–130 seat range inclusively. These aircraft types are eligible for CESTOL 

conversion in addition to those in the 50–120 seat range, all in the ACES 2016 daily flight data set. 

TABLE 14. NAS-WIDE 121–130 SEAT CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT CANDIDATES 

FOR CESTOL REPLACEMENT 

Aircraft 

Type

Engine 

Type

Number 

of Seats 

B737 J 126 

B733 J 126 

DC9 J 125 

A319 J 124 

Seat size data sources: references 12 and 13. 

Table 15 describes the distribution of daily flights among seat size ranges by OEP airport. The 

proportion of conventional flights having seat sizes qualifying for CESTOL varies significantly 

among the OEP airports, but most airports have at least 25% of their flights qualifying for 

replacement based on seat size. However, New York JFK has less than 10% qualifying, and Fort 

Lauderdale-Hollywood and Minneapolis-St. Paul have less than 25% of their conventional aircraft 

fleet qualifying for CESTOL replacement based on 50–130 seat size constraints. This table also 

shows the conventional aircraft seat size distribution among all NAS airports for information 

purpose. 

6.3 CESTOL FLEET SIZE ESTIMATE 

Table 16 shows the results of converting conventional aircraft in the ACES NAS-wide February 19, 

2016 daily flight data to CESTOL aircraft where eligible to meet seat size, flight distance, and 

runway length constraints at OEP airports only. This table compares the CESTOL distributions by 

seat size for both the 50–120 and 50–130 seat qualification ranges. Expanding the upper seat limit 

from 120 to 130 seats increases the CESTOL fleet proportion of the total traffic at all OEP airports 

from 23% to 35%, a gain of 52%. The relatively high volume of flights (see Appendix C) in the 

121–130 seat range has a significant influence on the likelihood of replacing conventional aircraft 

with CESTOL aircraft. The 50–130 seat range in the ACES modeling of CESTOL impacts on NASwide operations, described in the next section of this report, was used to account for this influence. 

With reference to table 16, most of the 34 OEP airports have at least 25% of their flights qualifying 

for replacement. The nine exceptions are Boston, Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, New York, Las 

Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco. This table also shows the 

distribution of traffic among OEP airports and the seat size comparison among all NAS airports for 

information purposes. 
40 

TABLE 15. 2016 CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT SEAT SIZE DISTRIBUTION 

 

 2016 Distribution of Conventional Aircraft OEP Airport Arrival Flights 

by Aircraft Seat Size

OEP Arrival Airport Airport Id 0 - 49 50 - 120121 - 130 > 130 Total 

Atlanta KATL 9% 44% 2% 45% 100%

Boston KBOS 35% 12% 17% 35% 100%

Baltimore KBWI 24% 12% 45% 19% 100%

Cleveland KCLE 32% 44% 11% 13% 100%

Charlotte KCLT 30% 25% 22% 24% 100%

Cincinnati KCVG 52% 27% 0% 20% 100%

Washington DCA KDCA 24% 34% 23% 19% 100%

Denver KDEN 18% 26% 29% 27% 100%

Dallas-Fort Worth KDFW 15% 27% 4% 54% 100%

Detroit KDTW 16% 38% 12% 33% 100%

Newark KEWR 11% 40% 11% 38% 100%

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood KFLL 31% 8% 13% 49% 100%

Washington IAD KIAD 41% 31% 4% 23% 100%

Houston KIAH 12% 43% 15% 30% 100%

New York JFK KJFK 13% 5% 2% 80% 100%

Las Vegas KLAS 21% 5% 35% 39% 100%

Los Angeles KLAX 22% 11% 21% 46% 100%

New York LGA KLGA 33% 21% 15% 30% 100%

Orlando KMCO 22% 11% 17% 50% 100%

Chicago MDW KMDW 42% 8% 28% 22% 100%

Memphis KMEM 29% 28% 4% 39% 100%

Miami KMIA 22% 9% 7% 62% 100%

Minneapolis-St. Paul KMSP 21% 35% 12% 33% 100%

Chicago ORD KORD 8% 45% 12% 35% 100%

Portland KPDX 48% 13% 19% 21% 100%

Philadelphia KPHL 29% 25% 19% 28% 100%

Phoenix KPHX 16% 16% 39% 29% 100%

Pittsburgh KPIT 50% 22% 11% 17% 100%

San Diego KSAN 26% 11% 36% 27% 100%

Seattle KSEA 26% 14% 18% 42% 100%

San Francisco KSFO 22% 14% 17% 48% 100%

Salt Lake City KSLC 31% 35% 16% 18% 100%

St. Louis KSTL 25% 40% 15% 19% 100%

Tampa KTPA 38% 10% 20% 32% 100%

All OEP Airports Total 24% 25% 16% 35% 100%

OEP Airports Percent of All 

NAS Airports Total 46% 20% 11% 24% 100%
41 

TABLE 16. 2016 CESTOL AIRCRAFT SEAT SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS AND SHARE COMPARISON 

 

CESTOL Share (%) 

of Each Airport's Arrivals

OEP Arrival Airport

Airports 

Share (%) 

of All OEP 

Arrivals Airport Id

50-120 

Seat 

Aircraft

50-130 

Seat 

Aircraft

% Change 

in CESTOL 

Share

Atlanta 6% KATL 43% 45% 2%

Boston 3% KBOS 11% 22% 11%

Baltimore 2% KBWI 11% 55% 44%

Cleveland 2% KCLE 42% 53% 11%

Charlotte 3% KCLT 23% 45% 22%

Cincinnati 3% KCVG 26% 27% 0%

Washington DCA 2% KDCA 33% 56% 23%

Denver 4% KDEN 22% 45% 23%

Dallas-Fort Worth 5% KDFW 26% 30% 4%

Detroit 3% KDTW 37% 50% 12%

Newark 3% KEWR 37% 47% 10%

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood 2% KFLL 7% 20% 13%

Washington IAD 3% KIAD 29% 32% 3%

Houston 4% KIAH 41% 56% 15%

New York JFK 2% KJFK 4% 5% 1%

Las Vegas 4% KLAS 3% 19% 16%

Los Angeles 4% KLAX 4% 14% 9%

New York LGA 2% KLGA 20% 30% 10%

Orlando 3% KMCO 11% 27% 17%

Chicago MDW 2% KMDW 7% 35% 28%

Memphis 3% KMEM 26% 30% 4%

Miami 3% KMIA 9% 16% 7%

Minneapolis-St. Paul 4% KMSP 34% 46% 12%

Chicago ORD 6% KORD 44% 56% 12%

Portland 2% KPDX 3% 9% 6%

Philadelphia 4% KPHL 23% 40% 17%

Phoenix 4% KPHX 7% 31% 23%

Pittsburgh 2% KPIT 22% 33% 11%

San Diego 1% KSAN 3% 23% 20%

Seattle 2% KSEA 5% 11% 6%

San Francisco 2% KSFO 6% 11% 6%

Salt Lake City 2% KSLC 18% 27% 9%

St. Louis 2% KSTL 39% 55% 16%

Tampa 2% KTPA 9% 29% 20%

All OEP Airports 100% 23% 35% 12%

All NAS Airports 16% 25% 8%
42 
43 

7 ACES NAS-WIDE MODELING 

The ACES model described in Section 1.4 was used to conduct a first-cut investigation of the 

potential impact of CESTOL on nationwide delay. The ACES application analyzes the sensitivity of 

delay to CESTOL-based potential capacity improvement where airport acceptance rates represent 

capacity. The approach assigns ACES runway system VFR capacity values to the 34 domestic OEP 

airports based on extrapolations of the Newark Airport estimated capacity gains. 

7.1 ACES OEP AIRPORT CAPACITIES 

Table 17 lists the arrival, departure, and total acceptance rates associated with conventional aircraft 

operations for each OEP airport for the 2016 timeframe. These AAR, DAR, and TAR values are the 

FAA Benchmark best rates for optimum (i.e., VFR) runway configuration use. These rates2

represent future capacities corresponding to technological and procedural improvements planned for 

each OEP airport based on the FAA Airport Capacity Benchmark 2004 Report (ref. 5). 

TABLE 17. CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT 2016 OEP AIRPORT CAPACITIES 

 

 

2

Total rate source: FAA Airport Capacity Benchmark 2004 Report (ref. 5). Arrival/Departure distribution source: LMI, 

“LMINET_102AptCapacity_OEP_Baseline_July07.xls” 

Conventional Aircraft-Only 

Acceptance Rate (aircraft/hour)

Airport Airport Id Departure Arrival Total

Atlanta KATL 127 125 243

Boston KBOS 73 76 132

Baltimore KBWI 61 63 120

Cleveland KCLE 66 63 115

Charlotte KCLT 75 72 131

Cincinnati KCVG 107 118 176

Washington DCA KDCA 48 44 87

Denver KDEN 141 159 281

Dallas-Fort Worth KDFW 152 160 303

Detroit KDTW 101 130 189

Newark KEWR 55 49 93

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood KFLL 36 43 62

Washington IAD KIAD 110 90 174

Houston KIAH 162 116 231

New York JFK KJFK 54 55 87

Las Vegas KLAS 57 74 113

Los Angeles KLAX 101 91 173

New York LGA KLGA 46 43 85

Orlando KMCO 121 156 221

Chicago MDW KMDW 40 36 71

Memphis KMEM 106 121 191

Miami KMIA 88 97 154

Minneapolis-St. Paul KMSP 95 117 167

Chicago ORD KORD 141 111 200

Portland KPDX 68 81 120

Philadelphia KPHL 66 66 116

Phoenix KPHX 75 86 150

Pittsburgh KPIT 101 84 160

San Diego KSAN 35 40 58

Seattle KSEA 63 63 102

San Francisco KSFO 64 63 114

Salt Lake City KSLC 88 93 160

St. Louis KSTL 89 90 159

Tampa KTPA 61 70 105
44 

The potential for improving capacity for each OEP airport is estimated by assessing the capability of 

each airport to take advantage of CESTOL operations. Our assessments examine runway system 

configurations, airport operating alternatives, and potential CESTOL traffic loadings. The FAA 

Benchmark optimal acceptance rates (per table 17) provide the baseline for extrapolating capacity 

impacts due to CESTOL. The extrapolations estimate the relative extent to which the AvTerminalderived KEWR capacity gains were applicable to each OEP airport as follows. 

Available information (refs. 5, 16, and 17) describing runway system design and operations was 

examined to determine the existence of “shorter” runways at each airport. These represent runways 

that could be used for CESTOL operations to alleviate traffic loadings on other runways used by 

conventional jet aircraft. As a general guideline, an airport is considered a candidate for CESTOLbased capacity improvement if an alternative runway has a length of 5,00–6,000 ft. However, longer 

runways are considered for CESTOL use where local operations are similar to those of KEWR 

(recall a 6,800-ft. crossing secondary runway is assumed for CESTOL operations at KEWR). Local 

operational practices and circumstances at each OEP airport were reviewed, and consultations were 

conducted (ref. 10) with respect to the practicality and potential effectiveness of CESTOL 

operations. These reviews included consideration of the construction of a new short CESTOL 

runway where feasible. This process results in the identification of 15 OEP airports (see table 18) as 

potential subjects for capacity improvement due to CESTOL. 

TABLE 18. CAPACITY ASSESSMENT FACTORS AT IMPACTED AIRPORTS 

Airport 

Id

Arrival 

Runways1 

Departure 

Runways1

Potential CESTOL 

Runway Id / Length

CESTOL 

Arrivals Share2

KATL 26R, 27L, 28 26L, 27R, 28 28R (new short runway3) 45%

KBWI 33L, 33R 28, 33R 33R/5000 ft (props4) 55%

KCLE 24R, 24L 24R, 24L 28/6017 ft 53%

KDCA 19, 15, 22 19, 15 15/5204 ft; 22/4911 ft (props4) 56%

KDFW 13R,18R,17L/C 18L, 17R, 13L 13L prop departures4 30%

KEWR 4R, 4L 4L 11/6800 ft (props4) 47%

KFLL 9R, 9L 9R, 9L 9R/5276 ft (props4);13/6930 ft 20%

KJFK 31R (& 31L) 31L (& 31R) 22R/11,351 ft 5%

KLGA 22 13 13L (new new runway3) 30%

KMDW 31C, 31R/L 31C, 22L 31R/5141 ft (small aircraft4) 35%

KPDX 28R, 28L 28R, 28L 3 or 21/7001 ft 9%

KPHL 27R (26, 35) 27L (35) 26/5000 ft(GA/AirTaxi4); 35/5460 ft 40%

KSAN 27 27 27R (new short runway3) 23%

KSLC 34L, 34R, 35 34L, 34R, 35 32/4892 ft;35(not used by airlines4) 27%

KTPA 18L, 18R 18R (18L) 27/6999 ft (props4) 29%

1. Optimum (VFR) configuration; source: FAA Airport Capacity Benchmark 2004 Report. 

2. Based on 50–130 seat aircraft, 2000-nmi range, at least 2000-ft runway. 

3. KATL 28R is between easterly parts of 28 and 27; KLGA 13L is on marine fill;

 KSAN 27R is north of easterly part of 27 (alternative short runway may be on taxiway D). 

4. Current procedure. 
45 

Table 18 also provides various assessment factors used in estimating OEP airport CESTOL capacity 

impact, including FAA Benchmark optimal arrival-departure runway configurations at each airport. 

The table also identifies existing runways that are projected for effective CESTOL operations, as 

well as a new runway at each of three airports (KATL, KLGA, and KSAN) that would service 

CESTOL. Each CESTOL runway is assumed to serve takeoffs and landings, which improves both 

arrival and departure capacity (typically during time-separated inbound and outbound rushes), 

except at the New York airports (KEWR, KJFK, and KLGA) and Dallas-Fort Worth (KDFW). 

CESTOL-based capacity gains at the New York airports are limited to arrival operations-only due to 

local procedures that severely constrain departure fix crossings. At DFW, CESTOL takeoff 

operations are assumed to increase the use of an existing runway (13L) used for propeller-driven 

aircraft departures without affecting airport-wide arrival operations. 

CESTOL-based capacities at each of the potential capacity-improved OEP airports are extrapolated 

from the AvTerminal analysis of CESTOL impacts on KEWR arrival, departure, and total 

acceptance rates. Table 19 tabulates the results, which are graphically presented in figure 20. The 

AvTerminal-derived KEWR capacity gains per table 7 are AAR: 38%, DAR: 0%, and TAR: 16%. 

For initial estimation purposes (see left-side columns in table 19), arrival and total capacity gains at 

a capacity-improved OEP airport are assumed to be the same as that for KEWR (i.e., AAR gain: 

38% and TAR gain: 16%), except at Atlanta (KATL) and Dallas-Fort Worth. At KATL, potential 

gains would be constrained because operations on the relatively large number of runways are less 

impacted by the one CESTOL runway than at other airports with fewer runways. At KDFW, 

CESTOL-based gains would be limited to only departure operations. With respect to departure 

impacts at other airports, the estimated KEWR DAR gain of zero percent results from the severe 

departure procedure constraints imposed at the New York airports. For the non-New York airports, 

some form of departure constraints likely would apply, but not necessarily as severe as those of the 

New York airports. To allow for departure capacity gains at the non-New York airports, such gains 

are assumed to be half the arrival gains. Hence, a non-New York and non-KATL airport DAR gain 

is assumed to be 19% for initial estimation purposes. 

These initial capacity gain estimates are further adjusted to account for the relative magnitude of 

CESTOL traffic at each airport. Table 18 lists the projected CESTOL arrival share of the traffic 

volume of each airport resulting from the conversion of conventional-aircraft-only flights to 

CESTOL. For the ACES NAS network modeling, the assumption is made that flights by 

conventional aircraft in the 50- to 130-seat range are eligible for conversion to CESTOL based on 

the maximum 130-seat-limit criteria in table 1. Because the 130-seat criteria differs from that 

assumed in the earlier AvTerminal exercise, the initial capacity gain estimates are adjusted by 

applying a traffic share multiplier factor (see table 19) to account for increased CESTOL traffic. 

This factor is the ratio of CESTOL traffic share in table 18 to the baseline CESTOL traffic share 

(i.e., the AvTerminal KEWR 38% share based on the original 50–120 seat conversion range). 
46 

TABLE 19. 2016 ACCEPTANCE RATES AT CESTOL CAPACITY-IMPROVED OEP AIRPORTS. 

The CESTOL traffic share at some of the OEP airports (e.g., 56% at KDCA) is significantly higher 

than the KEWR baseline share (38%). Because AvTerminal-like capacity impact modeling results 

for airports with higher CESTOL traffic share is not available, capacity gains cannot be assumed to 

necessarily continuously increase at higher levels of CESTOL traffic share growth. A limit to the 

capacity growth gains was chosen and applied based on the following considerations. Our non-New 

York airport initial capacity gain estimates due to CESTOL VFR operation approach 40%, and the 

departure and total capacity gain estimates each approach 20% in table 19 (see left-side columns) 

prior to adjustment for CESTOL traffic share. For the ACES-based sensitivity analysis, these rates 

are assumed to represent maximum limits on CESTOL-based acceptance rates achievable at an 

airport (i.e., AAR gain limit: 40%, DAR gain limit: 20%, and TAR gain limit: 20%). Table 19 (see 

right-side columns) shows the resulting estimated CESTOL-improved capacities after adjustment for 

the proportion of CESTOL traffic at each airport. 

 

2016 OEP CESTOL with Conventional Aircraft Airport Acceptance Rates

CESTOL Accept Rate Gain OEP CESTOL CESTOL CESTOL with Conventional Aircraft

due to Operations Impact1 Traffic Share Acceptance Rate Gain2,4 Acceptance Rates (aircraft/hour)

Airport Airport Id Departure Arrival Total Percent Factor3 Departure Arrival Total Departure Arrival Total

Atlanta KATL 6% 13% 5% 45% 1.18 7% 15% 6% 136 144 258

Baltimore KBWI 19% 38% 16% 55% 1.45 20% 40% 20% 73 88 144

Cleveland KCLE 19% 38% 16% 53% 1.39 20% 40% 20% 79 88 138

Washington DCA KDCA 19% 38% 16% 56% 1.47 20% 40% 20% 58 62 104

Dallas-Fort Worth KDFW 19% 0% 0% 30% 0.79 15% 0% 0% 175 160 303

Newark KEWR 0% 38% 16% 47% 1.24 0% 40% 20% 55 69 111

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood KFLL 19% 38% 16% 20% 0.53 10% 20% 8% 40 52 67

New York JFK KJFK 0% 38% 16% 5% 0.13 0% 5% 2% 54 58 89

New York LGA KLGA 0% 38% 16% 30% 0.79 0% 30% 13% 46 56 96

Chicago MDW KMDW 19% 38% 16% 35% 0.92 18% 35% 15% 47 49 81

Portland KPDX 19% 38% 16% 9% 0.24 5% 9% 4% 71 88 125

Philadelphia KPHL 19% 38% 16% 40% 1.05 20% 40% 17% 79 92 136

San Diego KSAN 19% 38% 16% 23% 0.61 12% 23% 10% 39 49 64

Salt Lake City KSLC 19% 38% 16% 27% 0.71 14% 27% 11% 100 118 178

Tampa KTPA 19% 38% 16% 29% 0.76 15% 29% 12% 70 90 118

Factors: 1. Base 2. Limit 3. Traffic Share Factor: Ratio of OEP CESTOL share to AvTerminal-based

AAR Gain 38% 40% KEWR share (38%) of airport total arrivals 

DAR Gain 19% 20% 4. Final Rate Gain % = MINIMUM {(Ops Impact Gain * Traffic Share Factor), Limit} 

TAR Gain 16% 20%
47 

Figure 20. 2016 CESTOL capacity-improved OEP airport acceptance rates. 

 

Departure Acceptance Rate (DAR) 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

KATL

KBWIKCLE

KDCA

KDFW

KEWR

KFLL

KJFK

KLGA

KMDW

KPDXKPHL

KSAN

KSLCKTPA

OEP Airport

DAR (flights/hour)

Conventional CESTOL

Arrival Acceptance Rates (AAR)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

KATL

KBWI

KCLE

KDCA

KDFWKEWR

KFLL

KJFK

KLGA

KMDW

KPDX

KPHL

KSANKSLCKTPA

OEP Airport

AAR (flights/hour)

Total Acceptance Rates (TAR)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

KATL

KBWI

KCLE

KDCA

KDFW

KEWR

KFLLKJFK

KLGA

KMDW

KPDXKPHLKSANKSLC

KTPA

OEP Aiport

TAR (flights/hour)
48 

7.2 ACES MODELING AND RESULTS 

ACES is applied using its February 16, 2016 NAS-wide daily flight schedules and each set of VFR 

acceptance rates (i.e., AAR, DAR, and TAR) separately for conventional-aircraft-only and 

CESTOL-mixed-with-conventional-aircraft traffic. The CESTOL traffic assumes a 130-seat 

CESTOL aircraft. For conventional traffic modeling, conventional aircraft acceptance rates are 

applied to all NAS airports using the OEP airport capacities listed in table 17 and ACES-provided 

capacity data for the other airports. For CESTOL traffic modeling, the CESTOL-based acceptance 

rates are applied only to the 15 CESTOL-improved OEP airports per table 19, with conventional 

acceptance rates applied to all other NAS airports. 

Table 20 provides the resulting arrival traffic distribution, average flight daily delay, total delay, and 

percent CESTOL-based total delay reduction by OEP airport. The NAS-wide airport total delay for 

the conventional traffic operation is less than that of the OEP airports because traffic congestion is 

more severe at the major airports than at the others. The arrival traffic count is less for CESTOL 

than conventional aircraft operations. This difference is due to the conventional-to-CESTOL flight 

conversion process in which closely-scheduled smaller conventional aircraft flights may be 

combined into one CESTOL flight. 

The table 20 data show significant delay reduction due to CESTOL-based airport capacity gains at 

the 15 CESTOL capacity-improved OEP airports. These capacity gains result in total delay 

reduction of 23.2% across all OEP airports relative to conventional-aircraft-only operations, with a 

maximum total delay reduction of 64% at KEWR. A total delay reduction of 12.8% is estimated for 

non-OEP airports, and a 19.6% reduction is estimated for all airports NAS-wide. 

The NAS-wide delay reductions represent gains accrued by the entire airport-airspace system due to 

network propagation effects. ACES is a network model that generates delays due to airport and 

airspace congestion and potential conflicts, and propagates delay through the system. The delays 

tabulated by airport in table 20 are network-induced delays and not necessarily due only to 

constraints at the specific airport. Conversely, effects of delay reductions at airports (such as those at 

the CESTOL-improved OEP airports) are propagated to other airports, inducing further delay 

reductions and flight time savings. The ACES delay data are tabulated at the end of each flight by 

differencing between the scheduled and the actual terminal gate arrival times. The resulting delay is 

due to delay imposed by the ACES simulation at any point during a flight. This includes any delay 

due to departure airport runway system takeoff, airspace spacing conflict and arrival airport runway 

system landing constraints, and includes predeparture delays propagated by TFM restrictions. 

Figure 21 graphically describes CESTOL-induced average flight delay reductions listed in table 20. 

This figure shows estimated delay reductions separately for CESTOL capacity-improved and noncapacity-improved OEP airports. The delay propagation effects are imbedded in these results such 

that delay reductions indicated for an airport are the cumulative effects of network and local 

interactions. The delay reductions shown for the CESTOL capacity-improved airports are 

attributable to a combination of propagated delay reductions and the local capacity gain impacts of 

CESTOL operations. Newark, Philadelphia, and Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood airports have the 

largest delay reductions at 64%, 60.9%, and 50.7%, respectively. The delay reductions shown for the 

non-capacity-improved OEP airports are associated with network delay reduction propagation 

initiated by capacity improvements at other OEP airports. Of the non-capacity-improved OEP 

airports, Chicago O’Hare shows the largest reduction at 21.8%. 
49 

TABLE 20. 2016 OEP AIRPORT AND NAS-WIDE FLIGHT DELAY 

(AT M 0.8 CESTOL CRUISE SPEED) 

In the ACES modeling described above, CESTOL aircraft are assigned a Mach 0.8 nominal cruise 

speed which is roughly comparable with conventional aircraft speeds. Conventional aircraft cruise 

speeds are assigned according to actual ETMS flight data. ACES models each 4D trajectory, and 

assesses and resolves en route pair-wise spacing conflicts among aircraft. 

2016 Conventional Aircraft-only 2016 CESTOL (M.8) with Conventional Aircraft

Airport Id

Number of 

Arrivals

Share of 

OEP 

Operations 

Average 

Arrival 

Delay 

(min / flt)

Total 

Arrival 

Delay 

(minutes) Id

Number of 

Arrivals

Share of 

OEP 

Operations 

Average 

Arrival 

Delay 

(min / flt)

Total 

Arrival 

Delay 

(minutes)

Total 

Arrival 

Delay 

Reduction 

Impact 

Atlanta* KATL 1601 6.1% 29.8 47630 KATL* 1543 6.0% 25.2 38857 18.4%

Boston KBOS 678 2.6% 34.1 23117 KBOS 674 2.6% 27.8 18764 18.8%

Baltimore* KBWI 542 2.1% 19.1 10331 KBWI* 541 2.1% 15.6 8454 18.2%

Cleveland* KCLE 492 1.9% 29.6 14542 KCLE* 478 1.9% 21.1 10068 30.8%

Charlotte KCLT 836 3.2% 40.0 33413 KCLT 795 3.1% 32.8 26084 21.9%

Cincinnati KCVG 774 3.0% 26.9 20852 KCVG 767 3.0% 24.6 18834 9.7%

Washington DCA* KDCA 444 1.7% 20.2 8954 KDCA* 441 1.7% 16.0 7040 21.4%

Denver KDEN 930 3.6% 33.5 31110 KDEN 922 3.6% 30.6 28244 9.2%

Dallas-Fort Worth* KDFW 1266 4.8% 12.3 15514 KDFW* 1246 4.9% 11.6 14449 6.9%

Detroit KDTW 918 3.5% 32.6 29952 KDTW 893 3.5% 31.1 27758 7.3%

Newark* KEWR 811 3.1% 89.8 72827 KEWR* 777 3.0% 33.7 26197 64.0%

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood* KFLL 606 2.3% 111.6 67608 KFLL* 598 2.3% 55.7 33331 50.7%

Washington IAD KIAD 762 2.9% 24.9 18954 KIAD 731 2.8% 21.3 15591 17.7%

Houston KIAH 1032 3.9% 14.5 14946 KIAH 983 3.8% 12.5 12261 18.0%

New York JFK* KJFK 572 2.2% 68.3 39088 KJFK* 571 2.2% 61.4 35044 10.3%

Las Vegas KLAS 962 3.7% 64.4 61938 KLAS 962 3.7% 63.3 60880 1.7%

Los Angeles KLAX 1011 3.9% 36.1 36473 KLAX 1008 3.9% 31.1 31374 14.0%

New York LGA* KLGA 640 2.4% 34.3 21957 KLGA* 634 2.5% 17.7 11242 48.8%

Orlando KMCO 661 2.5% 40.5 26799 KMCO 657 2.6% 37.8 24836 7.3%

Chicago MDW* KMDW 484 1.8% 39.4 19077 KMDW* 484 1.9% 33.9 16426 13.9%

Memphis KMEM 873 3.3% 19.4 16966 KMEM 854 3.3% 18.8 16041 5.5%

Miami KMIA 651 2.5% 20.5 13352 KMIA 623 2.4% 17.3 10791 19.2%

Minneapolis-St. Paul KMSP 1049 4.0% 50.5 52949 KMSP 1040 4.1% 47.3 49203 7.1%

Chicago ORD KORD 1691 6.5% 127.6 215846 KORD 1597 6.2% 105.7 168832 21.8%

Portland* KPDX 426 1.6% 25.1 10689 KPDX* 426 1.7% 20.8 8877 16.9%

Philadelphia* KPHL 969 3.7% 69.0 66842 KPHL* 946 3.7% 27.6 26129 60.9%

Phoenix KPHX 934 3.6% 34.5 32259 KPHX 932 3.6% 31.5 29356 9.0%

Pittsburgh KPIT 534 2.0% 16.6 8842 KPIT 532 2.1% 15.4 8171 7.6%

San Diego* KSAN 368 1.4% 47.1 17328 KSAN* 367 1.4% 32.6 11965 31.0%

Seattle KSEA 535 2.0% 24.5 13112 KSEA 535 2.1% 23.8 12758 2.7%

San Francisco KSFO 555 2.1% 52.2 28960 KSFO 553 2.2% 45.5 25150 13.2%

Salt Lake City* KSLC 631 2.4% 25.4 16040 KSLC* 620 2.4% 21.7 13482 15.9%

St. Louis KSTL 446 1.7% 20.8 9266 KSTL 435 1.7% 21.3 9263 0.0%

Tampa* KTPA 504 1.9% 28.3 14284 KTPA* 502 2.0% 27.1 13584 4.9%

*Capacity Impacted Airport 10356 42.7 442712 10174 27.0 275145 37.9%

Non-Impacted Airport 15832 43.5 689104 15493 38.4 594191 13.8%

100% 100%

All OEP Airports 26188 43.2 1131816 OEP 25667 33.9 869336 23.2%

Non-OEP NAS Airports 32194 19 607191 NonOEP 31797 17 529269 12.8%

All NAS Airports 58382 29.8 1739007 NAS 57464 24.3 1398605 19.6%
50 

Figure 21. 2016 OEP delay reductions, M 0.8 CESTOL cruise speed. 

There is a history within the aerospace community of developing aircraft concepts that possessed 

short-field performance, but turned out to be unviable as jet transports due to cruise speeds that were 

lower than other conventional jet transports. NASA sees a potential greater use of the CESTOL 

concept if it is to get short-field performance during takeoff landing while also cruising at high 

subsonic speed (~Mach 0.8) as efficiently as conventional transports. Therefore, understanding the 

overall system impact to either achieving, or failing to achieve that desired cruise speed is important. 

To investigate sensitivity of delay to CESTOL speed, ACES is applied assuming a Mach 0.7 cruise 

speed for all CESTOL flights assuming CESTOL capacity gains at the impacted OEP airports. Table 

21 tabulates the resulting estimated traffic and delay statistics for Mach 0.7 cruise speed, and 

provides comparison with Mach 0.8 statistics (same as table 20). These show CESTOL to achieve 

significant delay reductions, but generally less than those estimated for the Mach 0.8 assumption. 

The reduction in delay savings is attributed to ACES-generated increases in flight delays and 

diversions to resolve additional aircraft spacing conflicts resulting from greater speed differences 

among aircraft and longer flight time during cruise.
51 

TABLE 21. 2016 OEP AIRPORT AND NAS-WIDE FLIGHT DELAY 

(AT M 0.7 CESTOL CRUISE SPEED).

 

ACES delay (minutes) at end of flight, CESTOL (M.7) vs. CESTOL (M.8)

2016 CESTOL (M.7) with Conventional Aircraft 2016 CESTOL (M.8) with Conventional Aircraft

Airport Id

Number of 

Arrivals

Share of 

OEP 

Operations 

Average 

Arrival 

Delay 

(min / flt)

Total 

Arrival 

Delay 

(minutes)

Total 

Arrival 

Delay 

Reduction 

Impact 

 Average 

Arrival 

Delay 

(min / flt)

Total 

Arrival 

Delay 

(minutes)

Total 

Arrival 

Delay 

Reduction 

Impact 

Atlanta* KATL* 1568 6.1% 24.7 38667 18.8% KATL* 25.2 38857 18.4%

Boston KBOS 674 2.6% 30.2 20377 11.9% KBOS 27.8 18764 18.8%

Baltimore* KBWI* 541 2.1% 17.1 9275 10.2% KBWI* 15.6 8454 18.2%

Cleveland* KCLE* 478 1.9% 26.2 12515 13.9% KCLE* 21.1 10068 30.8%

Charlotte KCLT 810 3.1% 37.0 29951 10.4% KCLT 32.8 26084 21.9%

Cincinnati KCVG 766 3.0% 25.2 19276 7.6% KCVG 24.6 18834 9.7%

Washington DCA* KDCA* 441 1.7% 18.8 8306 7.2% KDCA* 16.0 7040 21.4%

Denver KDEN 922 3.6% 34.0 31311 -0.6% KDEN 30.6 28244 9.2%

Dallas-Fort Worth* KDFW* 1246 4.8% 12.7 15871 -2.3% KDFW* 11.6 14449 6.9%

Detroit KDTW 903 3.5% 32.3 29165 2.6% KDTW 31.1 27758 7.3%

Newark* KEWR* 780 3.0% 38.6 30091 58.7% KEWR* 33.7 26197 64.0%

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood* KFLL* 600 2.3% 56.8 34105 49.6% KFLL* 55.7 33331 50.7%

Washington IAD KIAD 737 2.9% 21.5 15858 16.3% KIAD 21.3 15591 17.7%

Houston KIAH 983 3.8% 12.9 12719 14.9% KIAH 12.5 12261 18.0%

New York JFK* KJFK* 571 2.2% 64.0 36542 6.5% KJFK* 61.4 35044 10.3%

Las Vegas KLAS 962 3.7% 60.4 58131 6.1% KLAS 63.3 60880 1.7%

Los Angeles KLAX 1008 3.9% 32.5 32734 10.3% KLAX 31.1 31374 14.0%

New York LGA* KLGA* 631 2.4% 18.7 11782 46.3% KLGA* 17.7 11242 48.8%

Orlando KMCO 657 2.5% 36.9 24247 9.5% KMCO 37.8 24836 7.3%

Chicago MDW* KMDW* 484 1.9% 37.3 18061 5.3% KMDW* 33.9 16426 13.9%

Memphis KMEM 856 3.3% 17.5 14944 11.9% KMEM 18.8 16041 5.5%

Miami KMIA 637 2.5% 18.2 11614 13.0% KMIA 17.3 10791 19.2%

Minneapolis-St. Paul KMSP 1042 4.0% 45.6 47493 10.3% KMSP 47.3 49203 7.1%

Chicago ORD KORD 1631 6.3% 106.4 173500 19.6% KORD 105.7 168832 21.8%

Portland* KPDX* 426 1.7% 23.7 10115 5.4% KPDX* 20.8 8877 16.9%

Philadelphia* KPHL* 949 3.7% 29.0 27506 58.8% KPHL* 27.6 26129 60.9%

Phoenix KPHX 932 3.6% 31.1 29000 10.1% KPHX 31.5 29356 9.0%

Pittsburgh KPIT 532 2.1% 16.8 8938 -1.1% KPIT 15.4 8171 7.6%

San Diego* KSAN* 367 1.4% 36.0 13208 23.8% KSAN* 32.6 11965 31.0%

Seattle KSEA 535 2.1% 26.6 14256 -8.7% KSEA 23.8 12758 2.7%

San Francisco KSFO 553 2.1% 48.9 27031 6.7% KSFO 45.5 25150 13.2%

Salt Lake City* KSLC* 620 2.4% 25.7 15958 0.5% KSLC* 21.7 13482 15.9%

St. Louis KSTL 437 1.7% 20.4 8933 3.6% KSTL 21.3 9263 0.0%

Tampa* KTPA* 502 1.9% 22.5 11311 20.8% KTPA* 27.1 13584 4.9%

100%

All OEP airports OEP 25781 35.0 902793 20.2% OEP 33.9 869336 23.2%

All NAS airports NAS 57670 25.0 1443748 17.0% NAS 24.3 1398605 19.6%

* CESTOL capacity-impacted airport
52 
53 

8 FINDINGS 

This study applies the 4D trajectory-based AvTerminal and ACES modeling capabilities to estimate 

impacts of CESTOL operations on capacity at Newark Airport, and impacts on delay at the domestic 

OEP airports as well as all other airports within the NAS. The modelings compare conventionalaircraft-only and CESTOL-mixed-with conventional-aircraft traffic projections for the year 2016. 

This preliminary study assumes a CESTOL future operating environment in which advanced ATM 

and flight operating systems provide very high-fidelity trajectory prediction and control capabilities. 

These capabilities are based on sophisticated CNS technologies. Assumptions include application of 

mature ATM automation with time-based metering and DCIA procedures, RNAV, RNP, accurate 

meteorological prediction, air-ground data link communication, ADS-B, and advanced airport 

surface technologies. CESTOL is envisioned to incorporate fuel-efficient, low-noise, and lowemission technologies. 

Newark Airport Analysis Findings—The Newark Airport study examines operations and assesses 

acceptance rates, delays, and delay sources for CESTOL and conventional operations. Results 

indicate CESTOL vehicles have significant capability to increase arrival capacity and reduce delays 

by taking advantage of otherwise unused and/or underutilized terminal airspace and runways where 

available. Runway capacity impacts at KEWR (see table 7) show a major increase in estimated 

arrival acceptance rates (38%) and departure acceptance rates (16%).The estimated delay reduction 

(98%) to arrival flights in KEWR terminal airspace is very large (see table 22). Runway arrivals also 

achieve significant delay savings (47%), and runway departures achieve less but still significant 

savings (25%). 

These results for KEWR show the beneficial effect of shifting CESTOL arrival traffic to a secondary 

crossing runway with a corresponding reduction of traffic loading on primary runways relative to 

conventional traffic operations. This procedural strategy segregates the CESTOL and conventional 

arrival airspace trajectories, without significantly altering departure procedures. Takeoff and landing 

operations interleave with each other, such that start of takeoff typically is dependent on execution 

of a previous landing. Since CESTOL does not impact departure procedures, gains in departure 

runway operations are attributed to reductions in arrival delays. 

TABLE 22. KEWR 2016 DAILY DELAY IMPACT SUMMARY 

 

ESTOL Delay Reduction Distribution (%)

Domain Arrival Departure Total

Airspace 98% 5% 96%

Runway System 47% 25% 37%

Total 86% 24% 75%
54 

NAS-wide Analysis Findings—The ACES NAS-wide modeling extends the results of the localized 

Newark Airport analysis. The ACES-derived NAS network analysis of CESTOL KEWR capacity 

gain extrapolations to 15 major domestic airports shows significant delay reductions across the 

network of airports. CESTOL-based capacity gains reduce average flight delay by 10.2 minutes for 

the 34 OEP airports and 5.9 minutes for all airports NAS-wide (see table 23). Among the OEP 

airports, average flight delay reduction is more prominent at the 15 airports where capacity is 

specifically improved by CESTOL than at the other 19 OEP airports where capacity is not improved 

by CESTOL (16.5- versus 6.1-minute delay reductions). Delay reductions across all airports are due 

to reduced NAS network delay propagation generated by improved operations at the 15 capacityimproved OEP airports. 

The delay results of the Newark Airport and NAS-wide analysis are sensitive to the modeling 

assumptions including those addressing flight consolidation/replacement due to CESTOL. The 3% 

reduction in traffic demand due to CESTOL lessens the load on airports, contributing to reduced 

delay. A slight increase in this traffic demand (associated with modeling uncertainty) during periods 

where an airport is operating near capacity could yield a significant increase in delay. Thus, the 

estimated 3% reduction in demand may yield a disproportionate reduction in delay if the majority of 

delay is at periods of high runway utilization. Note that this study is not an exercise in examining 

flight consolidation benefits. Flight consolidation is used as part of the rationale to create a CESTOL 

fleet and forecast a traffic demand schedule. 

Cruise Speed Variation Findings—Table 24 summarizes ACES-derived delay impact results as a 

function of cruise Mach Number. This table first shows results assuming a CESTOL Mach 0.8 

nominal cruise speed, similar to conventional aircraft speeds. CESTOL-based capacity gains are 

estimated to reduce total flight delay by 23.2% for the 34 OEP airports and 19.6% for all airports 

NAS-wide. Total delay reduction (37.9%) is greater at the 15 OEP airports where capacity is 

improved than at the other 19 OEP airports (13.8%). 

To investigate sensitivity of delay to lower CESTOL speeds and associated spacing incompatibilities 

with faster conventional aircraft, ACES is applied assuming a Mach 0.7 cruise speed for all 

CESTOL flights and capacity gains at the 15 impacted OEP airports. Results (see table 24) show the 

CESTOL Mach 0.7 aircraft still achieve significant total delay reductions, but slightly less than those 

estimated for the Mach 0.8 assumption. Reduction in CESTOL cruise speed from Mach 0.8 to 0.7 

lessens the 34 OEP airport delay reduction by 3% (20.2% versus 23.2%) and NAS-wide delay 

reduction by 2.6% (17% versus 19.6%). 

TABLE 23. OEP AND NAS-WIDE AIRPORTS: MACH 0.8 CESTOL-BASED DELAY REDUCTIONS 

Airport Type

Total Delay Impact CESTOL OEP Non-CESTOL OEP All OEP All NAS

 Total Delay Reduction (minutes) 167567 94913 262480 340402

Total Delay Reduction Distribution 64% 36% 100%

Average Flight Delay Impact

Number of Arrivals (flights) 10174 15493 25667 57464

Number of Arrivals Distribution (%) 40% 60% 100%

Average Delay Reduction (minutes/flight) 16.5 6.1 10.2 5.9
55 

TABLE 24. OEP AND NAS-WIDE AIRPORTS: CESTOL-BASED TOTAL DELAY 

REDUCTION IMPACT 

Summary Findings—This preliminary simulation-based analysis assumes operational conditions 

supportive of CESTOL in which advanced air traffic and flight management systems implement 4D 

trajectory optimization. However, the estimated delay savings (19.6% NAS-wide) are significant, 

indicating that even with relaxation of the analysis assumptions, CESTOL is a serious candidate for 

further study and development with respect to potential capabilities to increase throughput and 

reduce delay throughout the NAS. 

Our NAS-wide modeling evaluates operational impacts assuming a 130-seat CESTOL aircraft 

having a flying range of 2,000 nmi and requiring a runway length of at least 2,000 ft. These criteria 

are used to facilitate this preliminary analysis and do not imply that CESTOL development is 

restricted to a single aircraft design. Alternative CESTOL aircraft designs could serve different 

markets based on range, size, runway, and other related requirements. 

 

 CESTOL-Based Total Delay Reduction Impact

Airport Type

CESTOL OEP Non-CESTOL OEP All OEP All NAS

CESTOL Mach 0.8 37.9% 13.8% 23.2% 19.6%

CESTOL Mach 0.7 33.7% 11.6% 20.2% 17.0%
56 
57 

APPENDIX A—CONVENTIONAL-TO-CESTOL AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT 

E. Wendel, Sensis Corporation 

The replacement process is premised on a 737-300-like aircraft with short takeoff/landing 

capabilities without reagard to business case models. The CESTOL flight demand set generation 

specifications are as follows. 

Inputs: 

• Airport database containing 

1. 4-letter airport ID, 

2. airport latitude, 

3. airport longitude, 

4. and longest airport runway length. 

• Conventional (non-CESTOL) aircraft characteristic database containing 

1. aircraft type, 

2. maximum seat capacity, 

3. and a Boolean flag indicating if the aircraft is CESTOL-capable. 

• A Flight Demand/Data Set (FDS), version 1, containing the following fields, in this order: 

- Flight ID 

- Airline call sign 

- Aircraft type 

- Equipage 

- TCAS enabled 

- Departure airport 

- Arrival airport 

- Gate departure time 

- Cruise altitude 

- Cruise speed 

- Flight path 

• The following CESTOL aircraft parameters are user-defined inputs: 

1. Maximum CESTOL flyable range (e.g., 2,000 nmi). 

2. Minimum CESTOL takeoff length (e.g., 2,000 feet). 

3. Passenger seat capacity of a CESTOL aircraft (e.g., 130 seats). 

• The following user-defined inputs govern the function behavior: 

1. Choose the maximum number of flights to consolidate into an CESTOL flight. (The user 

may choose the number 0, or any positive integer not equal to 1.) 

2. Specify the runway takeoff or landing consolidation time interval within which 

CESTOL-capable flights will be considered for consolidation into one CESTOL flight 

(e.g., 60 minutes). 

3. Specify the target airports to consider for CESTOL operations (e.g., KEWR). 

 
58 

• A special AvAnalyst© (a capacity and delay analysis tool for post-processing simulation 

results) output dataset containing user class data for the desired input FDS dataset. 

• AvAnalyst will require an ETMS dataset with user class data for the same day as the input 

FDS dataset. 

Outputs: 

• A new FDS version 2 dataset with CESTOL flights, and the same fields as the input dataset, 

with the following fields appended: 

- Spherical great circle distance between departure and arrival airports 

- Departure airport maximum runway length 

- Arrival airport maximum runway length 

- Flight user class data 

• A log of all changes to the input FDS dataset. 

• A log of all errors or missing data, including unmatched aircraft types and missing airport 

data. 

• A new airport database with the same fields as the input, but with an additional field: 

- Boolean flag indicating if the airport is CESTOL-capable 

Method: 

1. Consider an aircraft to be CESTOL-capable if it is flagged in the input database as such. 

2. Consider an airport to be CESTOL-capable if its runway length is greater than or equal to the 

minimum CESTOL takeoff length or if it is a user-specified target airport. 

3. Do not consider flights as CESTOL that have a Flight user class that is not commercial, ‘C’, 

or air taxi, ‘T’. 

4. Calculate great circle distance between all flights in the input FDS dataset using Napier’s 

rule for triangular segments of a sphere. 

5. Consider a flight record in the input FDS dataset to be CESTOL-capable if 

a. its Aircraft type field is in the set of CESTOL-capable aircraft, 

b. the spherical great circle distance between the arrival and departure airports is less 

than or equal to the user-specified CESTOL maximum flyable range, 

c. and if the arrival and departure airports’ maximum runway lengths are greater than or 

equal to the user-specified CESTOL minimum runway takeoff length. 

Mark these flights as CESTOL by pre-pending the character string “CESTOL1_” to the 

Aircraft type field in the output FDS dataset. Log these changes in a separate file. 

6. Estimate arrival times for all of the flights in the input FDS dataset. Since arrival time is not 

part of the FDS dataset, it will be roughly calculated from the Cruise speed field and average 

TRACON, taxi-in, and taxi-out times using the following formula: 

TRACON out in

cruise

arr t t t

v

d

t = + 2× + + gcd

 where vcruise is is the cruise speed from the input FDS dataset; dgcd is the spherical great 

circle distance from the departure airport to the arrival airport; tTRACON is the default 

TRACON transit time (e.g., 10 minutes); tout is the default taxi-out time (e.g., 10 minutes); 

and tin is the default taxi-in time (e.g., 4 minutes). 

 
59 

7. If indicated by the user, attempt to consolidate CESTOL flights into the earliest-departing 

flight if 

a. flights regardless of airline have the same departure and arrival airports, 

b. for consecutive arrivals, they have arrival times within the user-specified 

consolidation time interval; and, for consecutive departures, they have departure 

times within the user-specified consolidation time interval, 

c. and the sum of the consolidated flights’ seat capacities is less than or equal to the 

user-specified CESTOL aircraft seat capacity. 

 
60 
61 

APPENDIX B – KEWR MINIMUM SEPARATION TIME REQUIREMENTS 

 KEWR Runway System Minimm Separation Requirements (nmi) - Southwest Operating Plan Separation (seconds) Focal Airport: KEWR Op Plan Southwest Op Condition VFR1 Trailing Aircraft 2 Runway 22L Arrival Runway 22R Departure Runway 11 Arrival Lead Aircraft 1 Small ESTOL Large B757 Heavy Small ESTOL Large B757 Heavy Small ESTOL Large B757 Heavy Runway 22L Arrival sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec Small 76 76 76 79 76 0 0 0 0 0 51 51 51 53 50 ESTOL 97 76 76 79 76 0 0 0 0 0 51 51 51 53 50 Large 97 76 76 79 76 0 0 0 0 0 51 51 51 53 50 B757 143 120 120 125 96 0 0 0 0 0 129 129 129 133 124 Heavy 143 120 120 125 96 0 0 0 0 0 129 129 129 133 124

Runway 22R Departure sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec secSmall 36 36 36 38 38 60 60 60 60 60 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INFESTOL 36 36 36 38 38 60 60 60 60 60 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INFLarge 36 36 36 38 38 60 60 60 60 60 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INFB757 36 36 36 38 38 120 120 120 60 60 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INFHeavy 36 36 36 38 38 120 120 120 120 60 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INFRunway 11 Arrival sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec secSmall 51 51 51 53 50 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INF 386 386 386 400 372ESTOL 51 51 51 53 50 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INF 386 386 386 400 372Large 51 51 51 53 50 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INF 386 386 386 400 372B757 129 129 129 133 124 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INF 386 386 386 400 372Heavy 129 129 129 133 124 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INF 386 386 386 400 372Base Separation (nmi or seconds)Focal Airport: KEWROp Plan SouthwestOp Condition VFR1

Trailing Aircraft 2

Runway 22L Arrival Runway 22R Departure Runway 11 Arrival

Lead Aircraft 1 Small ESTOL Large B757 Heavy Small ESTOL Large B757 Heavy Small ESTOL Large B757 HeavySpeed (mni/hr) 140 140 140 135 145 140 140 140 135 145 140 140 140 135 145Runway 22L Arrival nmi nmi nmi nmi nmi sec sec sec sec sec nmi nmi nmi nmi nmi

Small 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 3.06 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2ESTOL 3.77 2.97 2.97 2.97 3.06 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2Large 3.77 2.97 2.97 2.97 3.06 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2B757 5.57 4.67 4.67 4.67 3.86 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5Heavy 5.57 4.67 4.67 4.67 3.86 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5Runway 22R Departure nmi nmi nmi nmi nmi sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec

Small 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.52 60 60 60 60 60 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INFESTOL 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.52 60 60 60 60 60 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INFLarge 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.52 60 60 60 60 60 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INFB757 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.52 120 120 120 60 60 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INFHeavy 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.52 120 120 120 120 60 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INFRunway 11 Arrival nmi nmi nmi nmi nmi sec sec sec sec sec nmi nmi nmi nmi nmi

Small 2 2 2 2 2 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INF 15 15 15 15 15ESTOL 2 2 2 2 2 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INF 15 15 15 15 15Large 2 2 2 2 2 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INF 15 15 15 15 15B757 5 5 5 5 5 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INF 15 15 15 15 15Heavy 5 5 5 5 5 -INF -INF -INF -INF -INF 15 15 15 15 15
62 

Data Sources/AssumptionsFocal Airport: KEWROp Plan SouthwestOp Condition VFR1

Trailing Aircraft 2

Runway 22L Arrival Runway 22R Departure Runway 11 Arrival

Lead Aircraft 1 Small ESTOL Large B757 Heavy Small ESTOL Large B757 Heavy Small ESTOL Large B757 HeavySpeed (mni/hr) Reference 1 Reference 1 Reference 1Runway 22L Arrival nmi nmi nmi nmi sec sec sec sec nmi nmi nmi nmi

Small Arv-Arv Arv-Dep Arv-ArvESTOLLarge Single Runway Close Parallel Runways Crossing RunwaysB757 2.5nmi Arv Wake Vortex Dependency Takeoff dependent on landing DCIA

Heavy Reference 3 Reference 4 Reference 2Runway 22R Departure nmi nmi nmi nmi sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec

Small Dep-Arv Dep-Dep Dep-ArvESTOLLarge Close Parallel Runways Single Runway Crossing Displaced Runways B757 Arrivals Wake Vortex Dependency Departures Wake Vortex Dependency Non-interactingHeavy Reference 3 Reference 3 Reference 1Runway 11 Arrival nmi nmi nmi nmi sec sec sec sec nmi nmi nmi nmi

Small Arv-Arv Arv-Dep Arv-ArvESTOLLarge Crossing Runways Crossing Displaced Runways Single RunwayB757 DCIA Non-interacting 2.5nmi Arv Wake Vortex Dependency 

Heavy Reference 2 Reference 1 Reference 3References1. Federal Aviation Administration, "Newark International Airport Summary Data Package, Airport Capacity Enhancement Design Team Study," 

DOT/FAA/CT-TN99/26, FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City international Airport, NJ (October 1999)2. US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration and Port Authority of New York an Neew Jersy, Newark International Airport Capacity EnhancementPlan (May 2000)3. Correspondence, Helen Hunt, "Aircraft Separations-VFR1,VFR2, IFR Simmulations at EWR, Draft, FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center (March 2007)4. Consultation, J. P. Clarke, Georgia Institute of Technology (June 2007)
63 

APPENDIX C –NAS-WIDE 2016 AIRCRAFT FLEET SEAT DISTRIBUTION 

Aircraft 

Type

Eng 

Type Seats

Daily 

Arrivals 

B773 J 550 8 

B747 J 524 4 

B74R J 498 1 

B74S J 498 1 

B741 J 452 20 

B742 J 452 120 

B744 J 416 371 

B743 J 400 33 

B777 J 400 1 

A346 J 380 12 

A342 J 375 5 

B74A J 375 0 

B74B J 375 2 

A330 J 335 2 

L101 T 320 22 

CONC J 314 0 

A343 J 313 115 

A345 J 313 3 

B772 J 305 278 

A333 J 295 61 

A340 J 290 2 

DC10 J 285 186 

MD11 J 285 157 

A332 J 253 86 

L011 J 253 1 

A30B J 251 62 

C141 J 250 0 

B764 J 245 106 

B753 J 243 120 

A3ST J 231 0 

EA34 J 231 0 

A310 J 220 104 

EA31 J 220 0 

B763 J 218 710 

B752 J 201 2101 

B703 J 195 0 

B707 J 195 0 

B769 J 190 1 

R722 J 189 9 

C17 J 188 0 

IL62 J 186 0 

A321 J 185 319 

B767 J 181 9 

B762 J 181 218 

B757 J 180 7 

DC8 J 180 4 

DC86 J 180 19 

B739 J 177 101 

A306 J 166 327 

B738 J 162 1202 

MD90 J 153 55 

DC85 J 152 0 

DC87 J 152 41 

DC8Q J 152 90 

T154 J 150 0 

A320 J 150 1917 

B73F J 149 0 

B73J J 149 0 

B73S J 149 0 

B734 J 147 580 

Aircraft 

Type

Eng 

Type Seats

Daily 

Arrivals 

B722 J 145 200 

B72Q J 145 469 

B721 J 143 34 

MD81 J 143 35 

MD82 J 143 1134 

MD83 J 143 409 

MD88 J 143 18 

VC10 J 140 0 

B720 J 140 1 

MD80 J 139 790 

DC95 J 135 143 

B73A J 133 7 

B73B J 133 0 

B73C J 133 0 

B73Q J 133 390 

B737 J 126 1401 

B733 J 126 3153 

DC9 J 125 47 

A319 J 124 1375 

B732 J 120 686 

DC94 J 120 50 

MD87 J 117 24 

B735 J 110 843 

B736 J 110 14 

DC93 J 110 486 

B712 J 106 603 

RJ85 T 100 159 

CRJ3 J 100 0 

B717 J 100 0 

A318 J 100 25 

F100 J 97 239 

B727 J 94 26 

B462 J 90 148 

B463 J 90 47 

BA46 J 90 98 

DC9Q J 90 187 

L188 T 90 9 

BA11 J 89 8 

CRJ9 J 86 67 

DC91 J 85 55 

DC92 J 85 0 

B461 J 80 4 

DC6 P 80 29 

F70 J 80 25 

H1 T 78 1 

ATR T 72 2 

CRJ7 J 70 520 

RJ1H J 70 86 

A225 J 70 1 

FK70 J 69 0 

DH8D T 68 174 

AT72 T 66 311 

F28 J 65 5 

ATP T 64 45 

DHC7 T 55 11 

FK10 J 55 0 

A32 T 55 1 

CR2 T 50 0 

DH8C T 50 379 

E145 J 50 2281 

Aircraft 

Type

Eng 

Type Seats

Daily 

Arrivals 

F50 T 50 56 

CRJ2 J 50 3143 

E45X J 50 236 

AT42 T 48 6 

AT43 T 48 100 

CV58 T 46 4 

CL60 J 45 279 

CL64 J 45 55 

CRJ J 45 1 

CRJ1 J 45 796 

E1 U 45 1 

HUNT U 45 2 

F27 T 44 79 

AN26 T 44 7 

E140 J 44 2 

CVLP P 40 7 

SB20 T 40 13 

DH8A T 37 795 

DH8B T 37 420 

E135 J 37 973 

SH36 T 36 106 

BA41 T 35 0 

CARJ J 35 0 

DH8 T 35 83 

DHC8 T 35 9 

SH33 T 34 38 

SF3 T 34 1 

SF34 T 33 1071 

D328 T 30 184 

E120 T 30 625 

JS41 T 30 288 

SD3 T 30 2 

J328 J 30 308 

DC3T T 24 1 

GLB T 23 1 

BD70 T 23 1 

AC9L T 22 1 

G159 T 21 4 

L410 P 21 5 

FA90 T 21 3 

GLAX J 21 1 

G2 J 20 5 

G3 J 20 4 

G4 J 20 6 

G5 J 20 5 

SC7 T 20 10 

YK42 J 20 0 

SWA4 T 20 1 

B190 T 19 1507 

C212 T 19 6 

DHC6 T 19 30 

GULF J 19 0 

B19C T 19 1 

B19D T 19 4 

SW5 T 19 9 

SW4A T 18 16 

SW4 T 17 407 

B99 T 17 3 

HS25 J 15 22 

B300 T 15 11 
64 

Aircraft 

Type

Eng 

Type Seats

Daily 

Arrivals 

D228 T 14 1 

F406 T 14 4 

F900 J 14 119 

GL4 J 14 0 

GLF2 J 14 86 

GLF3 J 14 95 

GLF4 J 14 242 

GLF5 J 14 72 

F20 J 14 1 

A748 T 13 44 

AC69 T 13 9 

AC90 T 13 76 

BA31 T 13 0 

BE02 T 13 1 

BE3B T 13 0 

BE9F T 13 0 

BN2T T 13 0 

CV24 P 13 0 

CV44 P 13 0 

DH6 T 13 2 

LR55 J 13 7 

M7T T 13 0 

MU2B T 13 0 

P31T T 13 0 

P46T T 13 60 

PAY4 T 13 6 

PAYE T 13 8 

STAR T 13 0 

BE99 T 12 214 

C425 T 12 70 

E110 T 12 42 

F2TH J 12 152 

SBR2 T 12 7 

C680 J 12 2 

SBL1 T 12 1 

S900 T 12 1 

B430 J 11 1 

JS31 T 11 45 

JS32 T 11 102 

LR60 J 11 2 

P180 T 11 20 

AC80 T 11 2 

BE2O T 11 1 

A95 T 11 1 

FA1 J 11 1 

GL2 T 11 1 

BELF T 10 0 

C441 T 10 108 

CL61 J 10 0 

DA90 J 10 1 

DH5 T 10 0 

DH7 T 10 0 

FA20 J 10 154 

FK27 T 10 3 

GLEX J 10 54 

LJ36 J 10 16 

LR31 J 10 10 

LR36 J 10 0 

PAY3 T 10 44 

ZZZ J 10 0 

GALX J 10 39 

BR9L T 10 1 

BE9 T 10 1 

Aircraft 

Type

Eng 

Type Seats

Daily 

Arrivals 

G200 J 10 8 

L36 J 10 1 

L35 J 10 1 

L29 J 10 1 

LR45 J 10 7 

LJ40 J 10 3 

C208 T 9 903 

L29B J 9 15 

LJ28 J 9 1 

E121 T 9 1 

BN2A P 8 9 

AC21 J 8 0 

ASTR J 8 96 

B350 T 8 190 

BE10 T 8 229 

BE18 P 8 18 

BE19 P 8 6 

BE20 T 8 929 

BE23 P 8 14 

BE30 T 8 194 

BE40 J 8 388 

BE90 T 8 90 

BE9L T 8 557 

BE9T T 8 38 

C526 J 8 14 

C550 J 8 559 

C551 J 8 24 

C560 J 8 657 

C56X J 8 360 

C750 J 8 245 

CVLT T 8 26 

DA20 J 8 1 

DA50 J 8 8 

EA32 J 8 0 

FA50 J 8 165 

H25A J 8 74 

H25B J 8 564 

H25C J 8 58 

JCOM J 8 0 

LJ23 J 8 0 

LJ55 J 8 102 

LJ60 J 8 207 

LR24 J 8 3 

MU2 T 8 183 

MU3 J 8 4 

MU30 J 8 29 

PC12 T 8 290 

S601 J 8 3 

SBR1 J 8 33 

SW3 T 8 100 

TRIS P 8 5 

PC6T T 8 1 

RC70 P 8 8 

AC70 U 8 1 

BE70 P 8 2 

C424 P 8 1 

B60 T 8 1 

A100 T 8 1 

C25A J 8 84 

CE25 J 8 1 

PRM1 T 8 21 

B90T T 8 1 

PRIM J 8 1 

Aircraft 

Type

Eng 

Type Seats

Daily 

Arrivals 

CL30 J 8 10 

H25 J 8 6 

MU23 T 8 1 

SRB1 J 8 2 

CE55 J 8 2 

C52A J 8 1 

TC56 J 8 2 

H25G J 8 1 

H47 T 7 1 

C650 J 7 234 

DA10 J 7 3 

LJ45 J 7 239 

P34 P 7 2 

TBM T 7 2 

AC6T T 6 0 

BE35 P 6 121 

BE36 P 6 264 

BE58 P 6 497 

BE65 P 6 0 

C207 P 6 3 

C501 J 6 80 

C525 J 6 307 

FA10 J 6 93 

LJ24 J 6 74 

LJ25 J 6 157 

LJ31 J 6 185 

LJ35 J 6 515 

LR25 J 6 12 

LR35 J 6 27 

N265 J 6 0 

PA31 P 6 635 

PA46 P 6 93 

TBM7 T 6 74 

C06T P 6 1 

AC56 P 6 1 

A36 P 6 2 

P32 P 6 2 

P27 P 6 1 

C90 P 6 1 

B58P P 6 6 

P31P P 6 1 

TMB7 T 6 1 

BO6 J 6 7 

C510 J 6 2 

TAMP P 5 5 

EC35 U 5 2 

AC50 P 5 89 

AN12 T 5 1 

BE60 P 5 25 

C206 P 5 59 

C210 P 5 290 

C310 P 5 288 

C414 P 5 208 

C421 P 5 188 

C500 J 5 91 

PA27 P 5 82 

PA32 P 5 226 

PA34 P 5 293 

PAY2 T 5 151 

LA4 P 4 0 

AA1 P 4 0 

AA5 P 4 13 

AA5B P 4 1 
65 

Aircraft 

Type

Eng 

Type Seats

Daily 

Arrivals 

AC11 P 4 18 

AC12 P 4 1 

AC14 P 4 2 

AC60 P 4 0 

AC68 P 4 4 

AC6L P 4 0 

AC95 P 4 21 

AEST P 4 51 

BE17 P 4 0 

BE24 P 4 6 

BE33 P 4 82 

BE50 P 4 0 

BE55 P 4 137 

BE77 P 4 1 

BE80 P 4 20 

BE95 P 4 2 

BIRD P 4 0 

BL17 P 4 14 

BN2 P 4 1 

BN2P P 4 7 

C150 P 4 3 

C152 P 4 7 

C160 T 4 0 

C170 P 4 1 

C172 P 4 577 

C175 P 4 0 

C177 P 4 30 

C180 P 4 5 

C182 P 4 228 

C185 P 4 4 

C205 P 4 4 

C303 P 4 9 

C320 P 4 3 

C335 P 4 8 

C337 P 4 27 

C340 P 4 131 

C401 P 4 28 

C402 P 4 291 

C404 P 4 14 

C72R P 4 10 

C77R P 4 3 

C82R P 4 24 

COUR P 4 0 

DC3 P 4 10 

DHC2 P 4 0 

DV20 P 4 3 

E300 P 4 0 

G2T1 P 4 0 

GA7 P 4 3 

GC1 P 4 0 

M020 P 4 2 

M20 P 4 11 

M20J P 4 10 

M7 P 4 5 

MO20 P 4 13 

MO21 P 4 0 

MY20 P 4 0 

NAVI P 4 2 

P210 P 4 9 

P28A P 4 178 

P28R P 4 68 

P28T P 4 4 

P32R P 4 68 

Aircraft 

Type

Eng 

Type Seats

Daily 

Arrivals 

P32T P 4 7 

P68 P 4 2 

PA18 P 4 0 

PA20 P 4 0 

PA38 P 4 0 

PA42 T 4 2 

PA44 P 4 83 

PA60 P 4 3 

PARO P 4 1 

PASE P 4 2 

PAT4 P 4 0 

PAY1 T 4 86 

PAZT P 4 4 

PN68 P 4 0 

PROP T 4 0 

S108 P 4 0 

T34 P 4 0 

T34P P 4 0 

T6 P 4 0 

TB20 P 4 1 

TOBA P 4 0 

TRIN P 4 6 

WW24 J 4 135 

P28 P 4 12 

AA5A P 4 2 

R44 P 4 1 

C195 P 4 3 

DA40 P 4 12 

SR22 P 4 126 

Z43 P 4 1 

SR20 P 4 31 

M20C P 4 4 

C410 P 4 1 

F33A P 4 2 

CM11 P 4 2 

M20E P 4 4 

M20F P 4 4 

M20R P 4 4 

PR P 4 1 

M20K P 4 3 

COL3 P 4 3 

LC40 P 4 4 

M20M P 4 2 

M2OT P 4 1 

LC30 P 4 1 

DH81 P 4 24 

M20P P 3 92 

M20T P 3 29 

PA23 P 3 26 

PA24 P 3 30 

PL12 P 3 1 

BK17 T 2 1 

S76 T 2 8 

SK76 T 2 0 

AJ25 J 2 1 

AT45 T 2 2 

BE76 P 2 49 

DH2T T 2 0 

F14 J 2 0 

P28B P 2 13 

PA28 P 2 108 

PA30 P 2 36 

SW2 T 2 17 

Aircraft 

Type

Eng 

Type Seats

Daily 

Arrivals 

SW4B T 2 0 

T34T T 2 0 

WW2 J 2 0 

WW23 J 2 0 

WW25 J 2 0 

H269 P 2 5 

CH2T P 2 1 

C72 P 2 2 

Z42 P 2 1 

RF6 P 2 3 

F260 P 2 1 

AG5B P 2 1 

GLST P 2 1 

T18 P 2 1 

RV6 P 2 1 

RV4 P 2 2 

GLAS P 2 3 

RV8 P 2 1 

PA1 P 2 1 

LNC2 P 2 1 

WHIL P 2 1 

LNC4 P 2 4 

PC9 P 2 2 

DA22 P 2 1 

AH1 T 1 0 

CH46 T 1 0 

CH47 T 1 0 

CH53 T 1 0 

H46 T 1 0 

H53 T 1 0 

H60 T 1 0 

MH60 T 1 0 

SH3 T 1 0 

UH1 T 1 0 

UH60 T 1 0 

A1 P 1 0 

A10 J 1 0 

A124 J 1 3 

A4 J 1 0 

A6 J 1 0 

AT38 J 1 0 

AV8 J 1 0 

B1 J 1 0 

B52 J 1 0 

C12 T 1 0 

C130 T 1 13 

C135 J 1 0 

C2 T 1 0 

C21 J 1 0 

C23 T 1 0 

C46 P 1 4 

C5 J 1 0 

C9 J 1 0 

E2 T 1 0 

E3 J 1 0 

E3TF J 1 0 

E6 J 1 0 

EA6 J 1 0 

EA6B J 1 0 

F117 J 1 0 

F15 J 1 0 

F4 J 1 0 

F5 J 1 0 
66 

Aircraft 

Type

Eng 

Type Seats

Daily 

Arrivals 

FA18 J 1 0 

HAR J 1 0 

IL76 J 1 0 

K35E J 1 0 

K35R J 1 0 

KC10 J 1 0 

KC35 J 1 0 

KE35 J 1 0 

KR35 J 1 0 

MD10 J 1 90 

P3 T 1 0 

S3 J 1 0 

T1 J 1 0 

T2 J 1 0 

T33 J 1 0 

T37 J 1 0 

T38 J 1 0 

Aircraft 

Type

Eng 

Type Seats

Daily 

Arrivals 

T39 J 1 0 

T44 T 1 0 

T45 J 1 0 

U2 J 1 0 

A109 T 1 2 

AS50 T 1 0 

AS55 T 1 0 

B06 T 1 24 

B222 T 1 4 

F16 J 1 0 

F18 J 1 0 

JS20 T 1 1 

P24 P 1 1 

TMP9 Unk 0 1 

P281 Unk 0 1 

HM17 Unk 0 2 

C82T Unk 0 1 

Aircraft 

Type

Eng 

Type Seats

Daily 

Arrivals 

P181 Unk 0 1 

BD36 Unk 0 1 

RANG P 0 2 

P32A P 0 1 

HXB Unk 0 3 

C302 Unk 0 1 

PA2Y Unk 0 2 

HXC Unk 0 2 

V550 Unk 0 1 

LT24 Unk 0 1 

CS11 Unk 0 1 

DA2 Unk 0 1 

Unknown Unk 0 1 

 

Seat size data sources: 

references 12 and 13.
67 

REFERENCES 

1. Hange, C.; Wardwell, D.; and Zuk, J.: Technical Interchange Consultations. NASA Ames 

Research Center, Advanced Aircraft Project Office, Moffett Field, CA, Jan.–July, 2007. 

2. Federal Aviation Administration: Operational Evolution Partnership, Executive Overview. 

Version 1.0, 2001–2025, www.faa.gov/programs/oep. Accessed June 2007. 

3. NASA Raytheon ACES Design Team: CDRL 19 System/Subsystem Design Description 

(SSDD)/Software Design Document (SDD). NASA Ames Research Center, Airspace Concept 

Evaluation System (ACES) NASA Contract Number: NNA05BE01C, Nov. 2005. 

4. Federal Aviation Administration: Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM). 

http://www.apo.data.faa.gov/. Accessed July 2007. 

5. Federal Aviation Administration: Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2004. 

http://www.faa.gov/events/benchmarks/. Accessed Sept. 2004. 

6. VATUSA/VATSIM: N90 TRACON–Newark, Standard Operating Procedures. 

http://www.nyartcc.org/index.php/atc/facility/menu. Accessed Oct. 2006. 

7. Federal Aviation Administration, Port of New York and New Jersey, airlines (anon.): Newark 

International Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan, May 2000. 

8. Monk, H.; and Penrith, D.: Newark International Airport Summary Data Package, Capacity 

Enhancement Team Design Team Study. FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center, Report No. 

DOT/FAA/CT-TN99/26, Oct. 1999, and H. Monk, Technical Interchange Consultations, Mar. 

2007. 

9. Stouffer, V.; Johnson J.; and Gribko, J.: Civil Tiltrotor Feasibility Study for New York and 

Washington Terminal Areas. NASA Langley Research Center, NASA/CR-2001-210659, Jan. 

2001. 

10. Guffey, Donald: Technical Interchange Consultations, Federal Aviation Administration, 

Benefits/Modeling and Simulation, AJP-A3 NextGen Integration and Implementation Office, 

ATO- NextGen and Ops Planning, Washington, DC, Jan.–July 2007. 

11. Couluris, G. J.; and Weidner, T. J.: Terminal Airspace Decision Support Tools Preliminary 

Potential Benefits Analysis. NASA Contract NAS2-98074 (Subcontract R-0003), Seagull 

Technology, Inc., Report No. 99185.02-01, Dec. 1999. 

12. Lundgren Aerospace: The Wings of the Web. http://www.airliners.net/. Accessed April 2007. 

13. Federal Aviation Administration: 

http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/releasable_aircraf

t_download/. Accessed Jan. 2007. 

14. Federal Aviation Administration: Air Traffic Control. FAA Order 7110.65R, 

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/air_traffic_orders/media/7110.65R. 

pdf. Accessed Aug. 2007. 

15. EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC): Base of Aircraft Data (BADA). BADA 3.6, 

http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/ACE_bada.html. Accessed June 2007. 
68 

16. AirNav, LLC: AirNav.Com. Airport Information. http://www.airnav.com/airports/. Accessed 

Jan. 2008. 

17. Federal Aviation Administration: Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System 2007-2025, 

aka: Future Airport Capacity Task 2 (FACT2), 

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/publications/reports/media/fact2.pdfAcc

essed May 2007.