Oligoyne wires

The objective of the NAS-wide Benefits task for the IM for Arrivals to Dependent Parallel Runways is to estimate the net benefit of the concept for a set of representative airports across the NAS. The approach taken is to first qualitatively evaluate the airports to select candidates that meet minimum criteria, such as runway lengths, for application of the concept, and to identify other factors that might influence the benefit of the concept. Then, we conduct quantitative analysis to estimate the capacity of each airport

under the baseline conditions and application of the concept, and the frequency of concept application.

4.4.1 Candidate Airports for Concept Application

Table 4.9 presents the information considered to identify airports as candidates for concept application and benefits assessment. For the particular parallel arrival runway pair of each airport, evaluation considered the runway lengths to support arrival landings, the existence of instrument approach procedures to support dependent approaches, and the sharing of an arrival runway for departures that could impact throughput benefit.

Approaches include ILS, Localizer (LOC) and Localizer-type Directional Aid (LDA) Very High Frequency (VHF) Omni-Directional Radio (VOR) Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) approaches, and Area Navigation (RNAV) approaches.

Table 4.9. Airport Factors Impacting Implementation of Dependent Parallel Approaches.

Apt Arrival Runways Runway Lengths, Feet

BNA::20L,20R 8000, 7703 ILS/DME, ILS/DME 20L,20R

BWI::33L,33R 9500, 5000 ILS, ILS 33R

CLT::36C,36L,36R 10000, 9000, 8676 ILS/DME, ILS/DME, ILS/DME

36C,36R

DAL::13L,13R 7752, 8800 ILS/DME, ILS/DME 13L,13R

DEN::35L,35R 12000, 12000 ILS, ILS Not applicable

DFW::17C,17L,18R 13401, 8500, 13400 ILS, ILS, ILS 17C

DTW::21L,22R 8501, 10000 ILS, ILS NA

FLL::10L,10R 9000, 8000 ILS/DME, ILS/DME 10L,10R

IAD::19C,19L 11500, 11500 ILS, ILS 19L

IAH::8L,8R 9000, 9402 ILS, ILS Not applicable

IND::23L,23R 10000, 11200 ILS/DME, ILS/DME 23L,23R

JFK::4L,4R 12079, 8400 ILS/DME, ILS/DME 4L

LAX::24R,25L 8296, 11095 ILS, ILS 24R,25L

MCO::17L,18L 9001, 12005 ILS, VOR/DME or

RNAV

17L,18L

MEM::36L,36R 9320, 9000 ILS, ILS 36L

MIA::8L,9 8600, 13016 LOC/DME, ILS 8L,9

MSP::12L,12R 8200, 10000 ILS, ILS 12L,12R

ORD::9L,9R,10C 7500, 7967, 10801 ILS, ILS, ILS 10C,9R

PDX::10L,10R 9825, 11000 ILS/DME, ILS/DME 10L,10R

PHX::25L,25R,26 7800, 10300, 11489 ILS/DME, ILS/DME, ILS/DME

25R,26 SLC::34L,34R,35 12000, 12000, 9597 ILS, ILS, LDA/DME or

RNAV

34R,35

TPA::19L,19R 8300, 11000 LOC/DME, ILS/DME 19L,19R

40

The results indicate BWI is the only airport with insufficient runway length to support dependent parallel arrivals. Almost all airports have ILS approach procedures to each runway to support dependent parallel arrivals. Exceptions are MCO 18L, MIA 8L and SLC 35 which have GPS RNAV approach procedures. Most airports exhibit shared-use runways which would impact frequency of applying the concept and the resultant benefit.

4.4.2 Airport Arrival Capacity Benefit

To estimate the arrival capacity benefit of each airport, we compare the baseline arrival capacity to the theoretical arrival capacity for each airport.

To estimate the baseline arrival capacity of each airport, we identify from the FAA ASPM data the most frequently used parallel arrival runway pair during 1-hour periods of IMC when scheduled airport arrivals exceeded the called airport capacity (excess arrival demand). We then identify from FAA ASPM data all the 1-hour periods when that parallel arrival runway pair was used in IMC, regardless of the demand-capacity condition. We compute the average of the called arrival rates among those 1-hour periods of IMC when the parallel arrival runway pair was in use.

To estimate the theoretical arrival capacity of each airport, we identify from FAA ASPM data each 1-hour period where the airport was operating in IMC and the parallel arrival runway pair of interest was in use. For each 1-hour time period, we enforce the minimum theoretical arrival rate of 30 arrivals per hour per runway, as estimated from our Maximum Benefits analysis, if the called arrival rate was less than that. We then estimate the theoretical arrival capacity as the average of the revised arrival rates for the 1-hour periods. Figure 4.14 depicts the average of the called arrival rates and the average of the theoretical arrival rates for each airport during 1-hour periods of IMC when the airport is in its primary parallel arrival runway configuration.

Figure 4.14. Average Arrival Rates for Parallel Arrival Runways of Airports for Historical Called Arrival Rates and Theoretical Arrival Rates Using Dependent Parallel

Approaches.

The results indicate that the majority of the airports demonstrate some level of arrival capacity increase with application of the dependent parallel arrival runways concept to the most-used parallel arrival runways. In particular, TPA SLC, PHX, PDX, MSP, MIA, JFK, IND, FLL, DAL, CLT and BNA demonstrate noticeable arrival capacity increases.

4.4.3 NAS-Wide Arrival Capacity Benefit

To estimate a NAS-wide arrival benefit of the concept, we estimate the arrival capacity impact of the concept and the frequency of concept application across the airports evaluated.

We estimate the arrival capacity impact as the difference between the theoretical and baseline capacities for each airport for the most-used parallel arrival runways. We sum the capacity changes of the airports to estimate a NAS-wide arrival capacity increase. We estimate the frequency with which arrival capacity increases could be realized based on the number of 1-hour periods that each airport was operating in IMC during 2014 (from FAA ASPM data).

Table 4.10 presents, for each airport in its primary parallel arrival runway configuration, the average of the called rates in IMC, the average of the theoretical arrival rates in IMC, and the difference between the two. The per-airport changes are summed to estimate the

42

total NAS-wide arrival capacity impact of the dependent arrival operations concept.

Table 4.10 also presents the number of 1-hour periods each airport was operating in IMC in 2014. The per-airport values are averaged to estimate the number of hours that the NAS-wide arrival capacity impact of the dependent arrival operations concept could be realized.

Table 4.10. Comparison of the Average Airport Arrival Rates in IMC for Baseline Historical and Theoretical Dependent Parallel Approach Conditions and the Number of Time Periods in IMC.

Airport::Runways

Average Airport Arrival Rate in IMC (Arrivals/Hour) Number of Hourly

The results indicate that, on average, the NAS could accommodate 237 additional arrivals per hour among these airports, and that, on average, this capacity could be realized for 1691 hourly periods throughout the year. Caveats to these values include, but are not limited to the shared use of arrival runways with departures was not accounted for; and, periods where the called arrival rate of the airport was zero due to, presumably, the airport being shut down due to weather or other causes, were not filtered from the analysis. In addition, analysis has only considered a single parallel arrival runway configuration for each airport, and the concept is assumed applicable to all time periods of IMC.

5 Interval Management for Departure Operations- Initial Climb Out