NextGen for Airports, Volume 5: Airport Planning and Development (2017)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

8 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 2 Chapter 2 describes NextGen technologies and operational capabilities of interest to airport planning practitioners and examines how they could impact and change the airport plan-ning and development process. The NextGen capabilities identified in this chapter are the result of the ACRP 03-33 team’s research efforts into how these capabilities could functionally im- pact airport operations and the relationship between timing of implementation of the technology, the airport planning process, and strategic airport expansion decisions. The technology discussion is organized to establish the near-term NextGen-enabling technologies, existing and emerging Next- Gen technologies, and emerging non-NextGen technologies likely to be implemented over the next 20 years. Each of these sections includes a breakdown of how these technologies may affect airports in the near- and mid-term (0 to 5 years), and the long-term (5 years and beyond) planning hori- zons as defined in the FAA FACT3: Airport Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System publica- tion (www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/media/FACT3-Airport-Capacity-Needs-in-the-NAS.pdf). These planning horizon definitions differ from those used for typical airport planning efforts. Airport planning practitioners should correlate the timing of the technologies presented in this chapter to the typical short-term (0 to 5 years), mid-term (5 to 10 years), and long-term (10 to 20 years) master planning horizons. Near-Term Capabilities That Are Enablers of the NextGen Capabilities This section is focused on core NASA-wide technologies, including automatic dependent surveillance- broadcast (ADS-B), Data Communications (Data Comm), System Wide Information Management, and NextGen Weather, that are enablers of the other more specific FAA NextGen operational im- provements and technologies to be discussed in the next section. These core capabilities will enable the other technologies and efficiencies to be developed and implemented at airports throughout the nation. Later in this chapter, the research team will identify other enablers of specific NextGen opera- tional improvements and technologies. Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) ADS-B is a precise satellite-based surveillance system that uses GPS (global positioning system) tech- nology to determine an aircraft’s location, airspeed, and other data, and broadcasts that information via ADS-B Out capabilities integrated into the aircraft transponders to a network of ground stations. The ground stations relay the data via ADS-B Out to air traffic control displays and to nearby aircraft equipped to receive the data via ADS-B In. Operators of aircraft equipped with ADS-B In can also re- ceive weather and traffic position information delivered directly to the cockpit. NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 9 ADS-B Out will emerge as the core surveillance tool in the future. Although aircraft equipage is re- quired, FAA has mandated a requirement for all aircraft operating in certain airspace. Under the rule, ADS-B Out performance will be required to operate in: 1. Class A, B, and C airspace. 2. Class E airspace within the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL), excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface. 3. Class E airspace at and above 3,000 feet MSL over the Gulf of Mexico from the coastline of the United States out to 12 nautical miles. 4. Around those airports identified in 14 CFR part 91, Appendix D. The rule requires all aircraft operation in the designated airspace to be equipped with ADS-B Out by January 1, 2020. As of August 2016, more than 15,000 GA aircraft and 650 commercial aircraft have been equipped with ADS-B Out avionics. These numbers represent approximately 18 percent of the IFR (instrument flight rules) GA fleet and approximately 33% of the commercial fleet in the U.S. ADS-B ground infrastructure will be added along Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula in 2016 and 2017, pro- viding increased coverage over the Gulf of Mexico. The additional surveillance accuracies of ADS-B Out will, in combination with PBN and Wake RECAT, enable more efficient operations in offset, parallel, simultaneous (dual and triple) configurations in the future. Implementation of ADS-B In and cockpit display of traffic information (CDTI) will, ultimately, provide pilots with the ability to maintain their own separation from other aircraft, which will enable increased efficiencies for operations in the en route, terminal, and arrival environments, especially for closely spaced parallel runways. Data Communications (Data Comm) The Data Comm program is a key element in the implementation of NextGen because it is the first phase of the transition from the current analog voice system to full digital communication. Comple- tion of this transition is considered necessary to handle the projected increases in traffic over the next decade. Data Comm will initially enable increased capacity and efficiencies for ground movements at airports in the NAS, while reducing voice congestion. Data Comm will be implemented in the en route and terminal environments as the technology matures enabling aircraft re-route required navigation performance (RNP) procedures to be uploaded directly from ATC to the aircraft flight management system (FMS). This technology combined with NextGen weather predictive tools and traffic flow modernization technology, will enable controllers to manage weather events impacting en route and terminal flight paths. System Wide Information Management (SWIM) SWIM is an information-sharing platform that will enable increased common situational awareness throughout the NAS. It relies on a standard data format so information from unrelated computer sys- tems may be shared efficiently, which will enable airline operators, air traffic controllers, and airports to share information in near real time. It provides the basic design for all new data-sharing systems in the NAS. This information-sharing platform offers a single point of access of aviation data from multiple sources. Data sharing from airport GIS systems combined with PBN, ADS-B, Data Comm, and NextGen Weather data will serve to reduce system error and increase efficiencies in all flight domains. SWIM will provide airports with access to real-time information from the ATC system and airlines.

10 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT NextGen Weather: The 4D Weather Cube According to FAA, weather accounts for about 70% of traffic delays in the NAS. The FAA is working in conjunction with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS) on the 4D Data Cube, which is formed by merger of model data, automated gridded algorithms, climatology and observational data, and meteorologist input/data manipulation to ensure consistency and accuracy. The 4D weather cube will contain: • Continuously updated weather observations (surface to low earth orbit, including space weather and ocean parameters). • High resolution (space and time) analysis and forecast information (conventional weather param- eters from numerical models). • Aviation impact parameters necessary for initial operational capability (IOC), including: – Turbulence, – Icing, – Convection, – Ceiling and visibility, and – Winds (surface and aloft). It provides a common weather picture for NAS participants (Airlines, DOD, FAA, and airports), and is expected to enable controllers and operators to develop more reliable flight plans, make better decisions, and improve on-time performance. These increased capabilities are expected to result in less weather delay, less frequent flight cancellations and refueling stops, and more dependable flight schedules. En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) As of March 27, 2015, ERAM has replaced the 40-year-old En Route Host computer and backup sys- tem used at 20 FAA Air Route Traffic Control Centers nationwide. ERAM technology supports the tran- sition from a ground-based system of air traffic control to a satellite-based system of air traffic manage- ment and also is the foundational platform required for FAA to enable SWIM, Data Comm, and ADS-B. Also, with ERAM, controllers benefit from increased collaboration and seamless data sharing between Centers. ERAM enables controllers to digest data from 64 radars compared with just 24 for HOST radar sys- tems, allowing them the ability to see beyond their specific center, therefore handling traffic more efficiently. Additionally, ERAM can track 1,900 aircraft at a time, whereas the computer HOST could only track 1,100 aircraft. ERAM has eliminated the need for the FAA HOST computer and consolidates multiple functions of previous en route computer systems. Existing and Emerging NextGen Technologies The descriptions of NextGen technologies included in this section were culled from several FAA and industry documents, including (1) the FAA’s October 2014 Report to Congress titled NextGen Priori- ties Joint Implementation Plan, (2) the May 2015 NextGen Implementation Plan, (3) various pages of the FAA’s NextGen website (https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/), and (4) various reports and presentations

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 11 prepared for the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) established under the auspices of RTCA. In ad- dition, many of these technologies are included in the case studies conducted by the research team, which are documented in Appendix B of this guidebook. The five FAA programs described in the previous section provide the building blocks for multiple NextGen capabilities that may provide benefit for independent, dependent, and closely spaced parallel runway operations; terminal area navigation and operations; surface movements; landing systems; separation management; and surveillance. Table 2-1 highlights the specific applications and capabili- ties these NextGen technologies offer by function for airports and identifies the scheduled timing of the technology based on a near-, mid-, or long-term planning horizon. Table 2-1. NextGen capabilities related to airports. FUNCTION CAPABILITY TIME FRAME Multiple Runway Operations (MRO)- Independent Runways Wake Turbulence Recategorization (Wake RECAT) NM Phase I (Aircraft Grouping Reclassification) NM Phase II (Aircraft specific) NM MRO-Dependent Runways Wake Turbulence Avoidance Procedures NM Wake Turbulence for Parallel Runways (<2,500’ spacing—small/ large leading) NM Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Arrivals-Procedures (<2,500’ spacing—B757/heavy leading) NM Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Departures (WTMD) (Upwind runways) NM MRO-Closely Spaced Parallel Operations Dual Independent Parallel Operations (>3,600’ spacing) NM Dual Dependent Parallel Operations (2,500’–3,600’ spacing) NM Triple Dependent Parallel Operations (>3,900’ spacing) NM Dual Independent Parallel Operations with Offset (>3,000’ spacing) NM Dependent Parallel Operations (>4,300’ spacing) NM RNP Parallel Approaches with Transition (RPAT) L Paired Approaches L Performance- Based Navigation (Terminal Area) Lateral Navigation (LNAV) NM LNAV/Vertical Navigation (VNAV) NM RNP NM Surface Operations & Data Sharing Collaborative Decision Making/Terminal Flight Data Management (TFDM) NM SWIM NM continued

12 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FUNCTION CAPABILITY TIME FRAME Improved Landing Systems LPV (Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance) NM LP (Localizer Performance) NM LNAV NM LNAV/VNAV NM GBAS NM CAT I Approaches (multiple runway ends)* NM CAT II/III Approaches (multiple runway ends) NM Separation Management Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures (ATOP) NM Terminal Automation Modernization and Replacement (TAMR) NM ERAM NM Established on RNP (EoR) NM Equivalent Lateral Spacing Operations (ELSO) National Standard (reduced divergence angle) NM Unified Departure Operational Spacing (UDOS) NM CDTI Based Separation L Multilateration (Surveillance) Wide Area Multilateration (WAM)—En Route and Terminal Airspace NM Airport Surveillance Detection Equipment-Model X (ASDE-X), ASDE-3/Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS), Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (ASSC) NM ADS-B (Surveillance) Traffic Information Services Broadcast (TIS-B) NM Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Rebroadcast (ADS-R) NM Flight Information Services Broadcast (FIS-B) NM CDTI L Notes: *Currently available for Category (CAT) I instrument landing systems (ILSs) as a non-federal system. Research and development ongoing for CAT II/III operations. NM = Near- or mid-term implementation, 0–5 years. L = Long-term implementation, 5 years and beyond. Table 2-1. Continued

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 13 Near- and Mid-Term NextGen Capabilities with Benefits for Airports The following sections highlight the near and mid-term NextGen capabilities and describe their effects on airport planning and development. Wake Turbulence Recategorization Through research conducted by the FAA, the U.S.DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, the aviation industry, and EUROCONTROL (the 39-nation European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation) experts found that regrouping aircraft types according to similarities in their wake turbu- lence characteristics, rather than by maximum gross takeoff weights, allows safe reduction in separa- tion between aircraft, which will increase efficiency and airport capacity. The FAA previously used five wake turbulence separation categories based primarily on weight: Super, Heavy, B757, Large, and Small. Wake RECAT applies advances in knowledge of wake vortex character- istics of the breadth of aircraft types in terms of both the strength of the wake vortices generated by each aircraft type and the ability of each aircraft type to withstand a wake encounter. Using the results of this data collection and analysis program, the FAA Wake Turbulence Office has changed wake turbu- lence separation minima from the current standard to a new standard, which involved placing aircraft into six categories (labeled A–F) for defining minimum separations between each lead-trail pair of the six aircraft types. These new separation minima recognize that there are significant differences in the wake characteris- tics of the various aircraft previously classified as “Heavy” jets. Similarly, there are significant differences in the way characteristics of the various aircraft previously classified as “large.” Phase 2 of Wake RECAT will determine the optimal wake separation between any two given aircraft from a sample of 100 types that represent 99 percent of the global traffic. Wake RECAT Phase 2 is planned for completion in fiscal year 2017. Effects on Airport Planning and Development Wake RECAT could affect the following major elements of airport planning and development programs: DEMAND/CAPACITY These new separation minima could result in significant improvements in maximum arrival and depar- ture throughput at airports that have significant numbers of heavy Jets and B757s in their aircraft-fleet mix. In November 2012, the FAA implemented the new wake separation standards at Memphis Interna- tional Airport. Since then FedEx has experienced an increase in airfield capacity of 20% at Memphis. The airline burns 4.2 million fewer gallons of fuel each year and emits 39,992 fewer metric tons of CO2. FedEx also saves an average of 3.3 minutes per flight in taxi-out time and 2.6 minutes per flight in aircraft delay. Airport planners should be cautioned that the benefit of increased throughput is heav- ily dependent on the fleet mix and specific conditions at their individual airports. At some airports the increase in throughput due to Wake RECAT is on the order of 4%.

14 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Wake RECAT is strictly a change in the ATC separation rules. No additional facility requirements are needed on the ground, and no additional equipment is needed in the airplane. Wake RECAT is sup- ported by advanced decision support tools and displays for air traffic controllers, but these tools had been developed before Wake RECAT. ALTERNATIVES Wake RECAT would not affect the analysis of alternatives at an airport except that the FAA Wake Tur- bulence Office has been asking representatives of both airports and local FAA air traffic whether they would be interested in implementing Wake RECAT at their airport. In some cases, the airport and local ATC representatives have decided not to participate in the Wake RECAT program, most likely because they thought it would not make much difference because of the aircraft fleet mix at the airport, par- ticularly if it did not include a significant number of heavy jets or B757s. Another reason for declining to participate in the Wake RECAT program has been the existence of severe departure airspace constraints at an airport due to limited departure headings or interactions with other traffic. In such cases, these departure airspace constraints govern the achievable departure capacity, not the existing wake turbulence separations. TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION • Memphis was the first airport where Phase 1 of Wake RECAT separation standards were implemented. Below is the implementation schedule for subsequent and Phase 2 Wake RECAT installations: • January 2015—Current RECAT airports [Memphis International Airport (MEM), Louisville Interna- tional Airport (SDF), Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG), and Hartsfield- Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL)]. • March 2015—New York Metroplex [John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), LaGuardia Interna- tional Airport (LGA), New York/Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), Teterboro Airport (TEB), Westchester County Airport (HPN), and Long Island MacArthur Airport (ISP)]. • March 2015—Charlotte Metroplex [Charlotte Intenational Airport (CLT)]. • June 2015—Chicago Metroplex [Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) and Chicago Midway International Airport (MDW)]. • September 2015—Northern California Metroplex [San Francisco International Airport (SFO), Oak- land International Airport (OAK), and San Jose International Airport (SJC)] and Ted Stevens Anchor- age International (ANC). • March 2016—Southern California Metroplex [Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)]. • Fiscal Year 2017—Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, Wold-Chamberlain Field (MSP), Miami International Airport (MIA), and Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD). Closely Spaced Parallel Runways There are multiple airports in the NAS with closely spaced parallel runways. These runways can be constrained in low weather conditions because of current runway separation standards. Efforts are underway to apply NextGen PBN, GBAS, and ADS-B technologies to enable increased capacity during marginal visual flight rules (VFR) and IFR conditions for closely spaced parallel runways served by preci- sion instrument approach procedures with vertical guidance. This could include instrument landing system (ILS) approaches, RNAV/RNP approaches, or RNAV (GPS) approaches such as localizer perfor- mance with vertical guidance (LPV) approaches. Below is a summary of those efforts:

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 15 • FAA Order 7110.308 (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO%207110.308.pdf), 1.5-Nautical Mile Dependent Approaches to Parallel Runways Spaced Less Than 2,500 Feet Apart, allows a reduction in the required wake separations for dependent operations for runways spaced less than 2,500 feet apart when small or large category aircraft are leading in the dependent pair. • Dual Independent Parallel Operations: This capability allows dual simultaneous operations for run- ways spaced greater than 3,600 feet. • Dependent Parallel Operations Between 2,500 Feet and 3,600 Feet: This capability reduces the dependent stagger separation from 1.5 nautical miles (nm) to 1.0 nm for runways separated by more than 2,500 feet. • Triple Independent Parallel Operations: This capability allows triple simultaneous operations for runways spaced greater than approximately 3,900 feet. • Dual Independent Parallel Operations with Offset: This capability allows dual simultaneous opera- tions with the use of an offset for runways spaced greater than approximately 3,000 feet. • Dependent Parallel Operations for Runways Greater than 4,300 Feet: This capability reduces the dependent stagger separation from 2.0 nm to 1.5 nm for runways greater than 4,300 feet. • WTMD: When wind conditions allow, WTMD permits any aircraft to depart from the “upwind” runway without waiting two or three minutes after Heavy or B757 aircraft depart the “downwind” runway. This technology is specific to San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and will remain for further testing of dependent concepts. • Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Arrivals-Procedures: This capability allows a reduction in required wake separations for dependent operations for runways spaced less than 2,500 feet apart when Heavy or B757 aircraft are leading in the dependent pair. The foregoing programs directly related to closely spaced parallel operations (CSPO) are illustrated in Figures 2-1 and 2-2 below: An additional concept for RPAT has been developed by NextGen working groups and is in the process of implementation. The concept is based on the use of RNP to ensure separation in a dual simultane- ous arrival scenario. Figure 2-3 highlights the RPAT concept. Effects on Airport Planning and Development CSPO concepts combined with Wake RECAT could affect the following major elements of airport plan- ning and development programs: DEMAND/CAPACITY The foregoing rules affecting wake turbulence separations and the spacing requirements for CSPO could enable significant capacity increases at airports that (1) have significant volumes of Heavy jet aircraft, (2) already have closely spaced parallel runways that could be used more efficiently under the new rules, or (3) could implement closely spaced parallel runways on available airport property and provide either more efficient independent or dependent parallel operations that could not otherwise have been provided within the available space. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS CSPO are currently conducted very efficiently at airports in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) but experience a significant capacity drop in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) because they do not meet the current spacing requirements for dependent or independent approaches. The

16 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT foregoing potential rule changes affecting spacing requirements for CSPO assume that the associated parallel runways would be served by precision instrument approach procedures with vertical guidance, which could include ILS approaches, RNAV/RNP approaches, or RNAV (GPS) approaches such as LPV approaches and adequate terminal radar approach control (TRACON) automation. Advanced con- cepts will require a high-update radar or fused ADS-B surveillance, NextGen-enabling technology, and advanced FMS capabilities. ALTERNATIVES The potential changes in the rules for the minimum spacing between parallel runways required for dependent or independent approaches could open up new opportunities at airports that previously would not qualify for such approaches. Therefore, new alternatives could be considered in the airport planning and development process for such airports. Such alternatives would have to be evaluated in terms of how the spacing between the parallel runways could facilitate the development of passenger terminal facilities between those runways and also how the new capabilities could affect noise expo- sure in the surrounding communities and operations at other nearby airports. TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION CSPO changes focusing on dependent runways with separations greater than 2,500 feet and less than 3,600 feet have been implemented into FAA Order 7110.65W as of December 2015 primarily. FAA has plans to implement these capabilities at multiple airports by 2017. Further enhancement of offset, simultaneous triple, and independent operations capability will extend into the mid-term. Advanced Figure 2-1. Expected changes in CSPO independent separation standards.

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 17 concepts to include RPAT and paired approaches will likely be implemented in the long-term horizon. The most recent anticipated timing for the foregoing changes in the rules associated with CSPO is summarized in the FAA’s NextGen Priorities Joint Implementation Plan. Figure 2-2. Expected changes in CSPO dependent separation standards. Figure 2-3. RPAT approach.

18 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PBN PBN refers to instrument flight rules and procedures that primarily use satellite-based navigation and on board aircraft equipment to navigate with greater precision and accuracy than with electronic ground-based navigation. PBN defines the performance requirements for routes and procedures en- abling aircraft to navigate directly to points in space. Performance requirements include the navigation accuracy, integrity, continuity, and functionality requirements for an aircraft to operate in the NAS. PBN may define required aircraft- and ground-based sensors and equipment. The aircraft’s FMS is typi- cally the primary tool for conducting PBN operations. Two key components of PBN are area navigation (RNAV) and RNP. RNAV is a broad term that refers to flight paths within the limits of space-, ground-, or aircraft-based navigational aids (NAVAIDs). RNAV is split into two categories: LNAV and lateral and vertical navigation (LNAV/VNAV). LNAV has lateral guidance only based on GPS or distance measuring equipment (DME) navigational input. LNAV/VNAV systems use the same inputs for lateral navigation as well as barometric sensing for vertical guidance. RNAV enables the aircraft to follow the route of flight with a certain degree of lateral and/or vertical precision. RNP extends LNAV/VNAV capability with aircraft onboard monitoring of its navigation per- formance and alerting to the flight crew if the required precision cannot be met. PBN is leveraged to design instrument flight procedures (IFP) for the departure, en route, arrival, and approach phases of flight. IFP comprise lateral routes, altitude restrictions, speed restrictions, and other specifications for aircraft guidance. PBN procedures most relevant to airports include SID procedures from the airport, and standard terminal arrival route (STAR) procedures and standard instrument approach procedures (SIAP) to the airport. PBN procedures provide a foundation for flight paths, airspace design, route separation, and obstacle clearance. RNAV procedures provide routing flexibility, efficient flight paths, and airport ac- cess in congested airspace or bad weather. RNAV LNAV, RNAV LNAV/VNAV, and RNAV LP may achieve non-precision minimums (as low as 250 feet above the threshold). RNP procedures increase airport access in bad weather and mountainous terrain and help procedurally separate multi-airport traf- fic, particularly with curved paths, achieving non-precision minimums (as low as 250 feet above the threshold). PBN arrival procedures enabling optimized profile descent (OPD) reduce fuel burn, emis- sions, and pilot-controller communications. There can be additional efficiency benefits from new PBN procedures closer to airport. The RNAV-enabled ELSO national standard capitalizes on the increased navigational precision of RNAV departure operations to provide a reduced divergence angle while maintaining the established minimum lateral spacing between departure paths. This capability, depicted in Figure 2-4, is currently in use at ATL and is being considered at other major airports including Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) and Denver International Airport (DEN). The capability could enable substantial increases in departure rates at airports that currently have difficulty meeting the minimum diversions require- ments for efficient successive departures. Two other RNAV-enabled departure procedures also offer the promise of increasing the departure ca- pacity of single or multiple runway operations: UDOS and established-on-departure operation (EDO). Both UDOS and EDO (like ELSO) are intended to enable departure divergence at locations that previ- ously could not provide the divergence necessary for efficient departure throughput. UDOS and EDO are intended to provide such divergence at points several miles after takeoff at a defined divergence point. Applications of these new systems are expected to reduce in-trail spacing in the terminal and transition airspace. Figure 2-5 highlights the UDOS capability. The effects of PBN procedures have caused significant concerns over increased noise exposure at some airports where they have been implemented. The concentration of flight paths over a narrow geo- graphic area, which is a characteristic of RNP, has caused an increase in noise exposure and significant

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 19 adverse community reaction and litigation in several PBN implementations. The current environmental screening methods used by the ATO do not capture noise effects below the DNL 65 level, which has been established as the federal threshold of significance for airplane noise by FAA. However, noise impacts below that DNL value can provoke significant adverse community reaction. On the plus side, PBN procedures following precise flight paths can be designed to avoid noise sensitive areas and pos- sibly provide multiple departure headings. Figure 2-4. ELSO. Figure 2-5. UDOS.

20 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT The FAA’s plans call for PBN procedures to be implemented at all 35 Operational Evolution Plan (OEP)/ Core 30 airports, 35 Non-OEP/Non-Core airports, and other airports throughout the NAS. The FAA has also undertaken the implementation of PBN procedures through its Metroplex initiative, 3rd-Party Ven- dor Process, and other case-by-case projects. The FAA’s Metroplex program calls for design and imple- mentation of PBN procedures in the following Metroplexes throughout FY11–FY18: Washington D.C., North Texas, Houston, Charlotte, Atlanta, Northern California, Southern California, Florida, Phoenix, Chicago, Memphis, Cleveland/Detroit, Las Vegas, and Boston. Airport planners should be aware that PBN procedures implemented as part of a Metroplex project will entail a full EA (environmental assess- ment) and public process, while PBN procedures adopted as local initiatives may not afford that level of public process unless the airport intercedes and requests an EA by citing the potential for significant adverse public opposition on environmental grounds (CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 15056(c) 1 and 2). Effects on Airport Planning and Development PBN can affect airport planning and development through increased reliability of approaches and efficiency of operations (positive functional and economic benefits). Moreover, PBN combined with other NextGen technologies, such as ADS-B Out, could be an enabler of other potential operational improvements that could ultimately reduce the required separation between parallel runways and the required minimum separations between successive aircraft on approach or departure. Nevertheless, PBN has become controversial because of its potential concentration of flight tracks over noise sensi- tive areas near an airport. PBN could significantly affect the following major elements of airport planning and development programs: DEMAND/CAPACITY PBN combined with improved TRACON and surveillance and automation system provides controllers the ability to sequence aircraft into tighter intervals and better control traffic flow. On the negative side, the concentration of flight paths over a narrow band can cause an increase in noise exposure and community reaction close into the airport. With the tighter tolerances, controllers will be able to significantly reduce delay across the entire system and at the local level. The PBN systems will allow aircraft to be continuously monitored and tracked via new flight management technologies therefore increasing situational awareness for both pilots and controllers alike. The airlines will see an added benefit in fuel cost, reserve fuel, and aircraft operating expenses as a result of increased efficiency (direct routing) across the NAS. An additional added benefit is reduced aircraft emissions and reducing individual aircraft carbon footprints. Weather rerouting will also be improved for pilots and controllers with FAA staff having the ability to open and close departure and arrival routes in real time. The majority of aircraft delays originate on the East Coast of the United States, often due to convective weather or periods of low visibility and ceilings. NextGen allows better sequencing for aircraft and the ability to route traffic in narrower pathways alleviates stress on the system from delayed aircraft. High-precision GPS technologies may also reduce cancellations and diversions. Some airports may see extra departures per hour from the increase in available departure routes. Others may see an increase in capacity derived through better efficiencies in the terminal area or through better approach minimums, which may drive the need for additional hold and parking areas on the airport to manage terminal bottlenecks. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS It is FAA’s policy not to add new systems to the network of ILSs in place. Airports should plan for PBN approaches. Airports will generally not have to add any facilities to take advantage of these advanced

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 21 PBN procedures. However, they may assume responsibility for increased obstacle clearance if the pro- cedures result in lower minimums. ALTERNATIVES When airport planners are looking at alternative development scenarios, the impact of PBN could have a material effect on how those alternatives stack up. For example, one of the case studies presented in Section 9 (for Friedman Memorial Airport) actually dealt with an RNP approach and its resultant benefits compared to relocating the airport entirely for purposes of increased reliability. TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION The PBN program is well underway and new applications are emerging each year. Implementation has occurred through collaborative local initiatives as well as the FAA Metroplex program efforts includ- ing ATL, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), DEN, CLT, IAD, McCarran International Airport (LAS), John Wayne Airport (SNA), and SEA. PBN has begun its rollout across the United States with implementation across a wide range of airport sizes and functions. New procedures are being developed and implemented for airports continuously and aircraft equipage is forecast to increase. Figure 2-6 depicts the current equipage status for the U.S. air transportation and air taxi fleet. Significant efforts are required for the development and implementation of PBN. The FAA and airlines have dedicated personnel who continuously are developing and flight checking IFP. Airports have used consulting services associated with PBN development, modeling, and implementation as well. PBN requires avionics capable of receiving and transmitting precise GPS signals to determine the aircraft’s spatial reference. Air carriers absorb significant costs to upgrade existing systems and outfit cockpits for PBN avionics. Airports incur very little, if any, capital costs and are generally not required to locate navigational aids on-field. Some local augmentation systems will be required for ground sensing, though most of the navigation system will be guided through satellite-based systems. The average cost of equipping aircraft with NextGen avionics systems is between $35K and $140K per aircraft for basic systems. Advanced systems may cost $500K or more. (Source: www.washingtonpost. com). Surface Operations and Data Sharing/Collaborative Decision Making/SWIM Improved surface operations will improve safety, efficiency, and flexibility on the airport surface by implementing new traffic management capabilities for pilots and controllers using shared surface movement and en route data. The capabilities address surface movement and the exchange of infor- mation between controllers, pilots, and air traffic managers that occur from before the aircraft pushes back from its gate up to the departure of the aircraft from the airport, and for landing traffic, from exiting the runway to arriving at the terminal gate. The sharing of data has enabled the establishment of collaborative decision making (CDM) efforts between FAA and industry stakeholders and between stakeholders at individual airports. Federal CDM groups follow guidelines established in the Collaborative Decision Making Leadership, Strategies, Structure, and Guidelines V 4.0 document. CDM is enabled through the dissemination of traffic flow data management and other SWIM-enabled data to CDM group to enable: • Improved real-time decision making, • Tools and procedures to be established to enable air navigation service providers and the flight operators to more easily respond to changing conditions, and

22 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • Advanced technological solutions that evolve the NAS and influence global CDM for all stakeholders. Surface operation and CDM data sharing technology track the movement of surface vehicles and aircraft, incorporating the movement data into the airport surveillance infrastructure and sharing the information with controllers, pilots, and airline operations managers. This is being done as part of the Terminal Flight Data Modernization Program which aims to integrate electronic flight data, traffic flow management data, and CDM for the replacement and consolidation of multiple NAS systems. In spring of 2016, FAA awarded a 13-year contract for the development and implementation of TFDM into the NAS. Effects on Airport Planning and Development Surface operations, data sharing, and CDM could significantly affect the following major elements of airport planning and development programs: 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Pe rc en t Navigational Technology NextGen Aircraft Navigational Equipage Air Transport Air Taxi Notes: 1. Source: FAA.gov, March 10, 2015 2. ** Indicates oceanic capable aircraft equipage 3. Air Transport includes FAR Part 121 Operators. Air Taxi includes FAR Part 91 and 135 operators. 4. Further detail included in ACRP 03-34: NextGen - The Airports Role in Performance Based Navigation RNP AR = RNP authorization required, ITP = in-trail procedures, FANS = future air navigation system, HUD = head up display, EFVS = enhanced flight vision systems. EFB = electronic flight bag. Figure 2-6. Current NextGen aircraft equipage. Notes: 1. Source: FAA.gov, March 10, 2015 2. ** Indicates oceanic capable aircraft equipage 3. Air Transport includes FAR Part 121 Operators. Air Taxi includes FAR Part 91 a d 135 pera ors. 4. Further detail included in ACRP 03-34: NextGen - The Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation. RNP AR = RNP authorization required, ITP = in-trail procedures, FANS = future air navigation system, HUD = heads-up display, EFVS = enhanced flight vision systems. EFB = electronic flight bag.

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 23 DEMAND/CAPACITY Benefits include increased flexibility, efficiency, safety, and operational validation. These potential ben- efits are further described below: Flexibility • Improve the timely exchange of data to enable aircraft operators to more accurately adjust their departure and arrival times for the most efficient use of available runways, taxiways, and gates. • Permit taxi operations that support improved flows for takeoff, improving surface efficiency. • Reduce the effect of weather related delays. Efficiency • Enabling more effective scheduling in response to runway, departure fix, and traffic flow manage- ment ground-management constraints, with automatic reassessment and update of the departure schedule. • Assisting in assuring optimized use of available capacity so that all of the available departure throughput capability can be used by aircraft. • Enhancing the ability to react to changing airport conditions, such as severe weather, by issuing digital pre-departure clearances, including routing revisions, using Data Comm. • Improving awareness of surface congestion at major hub airports, greatly streamlining the coordi- nation of corrective action, and improving the resilience of the system. • Reducing fuel burn, operating costs, emissions, and surface congestion related to long departure queues. • Reducing delays by improving event data quality and adherence to controlled departure times. • Reducing FAA operating costs through the use of automated flight strips. Safety • Enhance safety on the airport surface by improving pilot and controller awareness of surface traffic. • Surface movement data can be used to support the safety risk management processes by provid- ing a means to calculate the location, type, and duration of an aircraft operation on any part of the airfield. These calculations may provide a basis for determining the probability or likelihood of a hazard incident. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS One of the key elements of improved surface operations is departure metering to reduce the departure queue and thereby fuel burn, emissions, and surface congestion. However, effective departure meter- ing requires ample apron area, gates, and hold pads, which many congested airports have difficulty providing. Therefore, improved surface operations could increase facility requirements on the airfield. Airports should coordinate with their airlines using CDM to determine what infrastructure is needed to support the desired operation. Historical surface movement data may serve as a baseline for any type of surface study identifying the current use of parallel taxiways, connector taxiways, high-speed exit taxiways, holding areas, and deicing facilities. The data can accurately identify duration of operations, feeding any modeling efforts. Surface movement data may also be useful to track the exact usage of any pavement area on the air- field as part of pavement management systems, enabling pavement wear and useful life calculations.

24 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Alternatives Surface movement data may assist in the development of metrics for the evaluation and selection of conceptual alternatives to accommodate future airport needs over the Master Plan planning horizon. However, traditional metrics on ramps and gates may not meet CDM needs. Alternatives need to be developed that match stakeholder needs and available infrastructure. In addition, to the extent that additional facilities are required to support effective departure metering, there may be additional al- ternatives to consider for establishing holdpads and potential relocation of existing facilities to accom- modate those holdpads. One of the case studies analyzed by the research team was the application of departure metering at John F. Kennedy International Airport, a description of which is included in Appendix B. Timing and Implementation The SWIM program currently collects and provides ASDE-X data to industry users. Real-time data is needed for CDM. Real-time and historical data can be obtained through execution of a user agreement. Improved NextGen Landing Systems Improved NextGen landing systems include those enabled by PBN and GBAS. PBN technology [RNAV, RNP, WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) LP and LPV], previously described, allows for near Category (CAT) I minimums with lateral and vertical guidance. GBAS systems augment the existing GPS, which enables CAT I approach minimums and are expected to ultimately enable CAT II/III preci- sion approach minimums. PBN procedures are being established at airports throughout the NAS to improve arrival, approach, and departure operations for multiple runway configurations at airports. The goal of GBAS implementation is to provide GBAS Landing System (GLS) approaches as an alterna- tive to ILS approaches supporting the full range of approach and landing operations. GLS approaches have been implemented at Newark Liberty International Airport and George Bush Intercontinental Airport/Houston as airport funded, non-federal landing systems GBAS system installation is flexible and can be installed at multiple locations on an airfield including on top of buildings. One system may provide approach capability to all runway ends at an airport and possibly to other airports in proximity (approximately 23 miles) to the installation. However, this con- cept has not been operationally approved to date. Aircraft using GBAS systems must be equipped with a multi-mode receiver in order to use the system. Landing system improvements face implementation challenges but will have a significant impact on the capacity of the NAS as well as specific airport environments. The following highlights demand/ capacity impacts, facility requirements, alternatives, and timing and implementation considerations of these improvements. Effects on Airport Planning and Development Improved landing systems could significantly affect the following major elements of airport planning and development programs:

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 25 DEMAND/CAPACITY Implementation of PBN-enabled landing systems has already proven to provide access to airports in low-visibility conditions where no access was available previously, reduce noise and emissions, and increase the efficiency of the airspace in multiple locations. Current initiatives are focused on providing improved capacity for closely spaced parallel runways for arrivals and departures. New PBN-enabled procedures including EoR are applicable to closely spaced and widely spaced paral- lel runway approaches and enable controllers to clear aircraft on an RNP approach while on the down- wind to the airport without the need to use the standard 1,000 feet of vertical separation when the aircraft turns to align with the runway centerline. This change to separation standards allows aircraft to turn to align to the runway much closer to the field as compared to a conventional ILS procedure, reducing track miles and fuel burn. This capability also increases the flexibility to design approach pro- cedures, including the downwind, base, and final segments, in such a way as to minimize overflights of noise sensitive areas. GBAS is designed to provide CAT I, II, and III approach minimum capability for multiple runway ends. It will be most beneficial in potentially providing access to airports in CAT II/III conditions as one system may serve multiple runway ends. GBAS will aid in capacity enhancement for closely spaced runways as it allows for multiple offset approaches with no additional ground infrastructure. Implementation of PBN or GBAS procedures may eliminate or reduce the need to protect for ILS and localizer critical areas leading to more efficient use of taxiways and potentially increasing runway capacity. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Implementation of PBN-enabled landing systems can be initiated locally and sponsored by airlines or an airport. The implementation of the procedures is performed by FAA. Development of RNAV SIDs and STARs requires little infrastructure at airports. Development of SIAPs requires an appropri- ate current aeronautical survey and compliance with airport design standards in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A. GBAS is still considered a non-federal system and requires the airport to purchase and install the equip- ment, and to have it commissioned by FAA. A single system can be procured and installed for approxi- mately $1M to $2M. The siting of a GBAS system is flexible and can even be mounted on existing structures or building on an airfield. Requirements include a clear line of sight to runway ends and satellites for the very high frequency data broadcast (VDB) antenna and the remote satellite monitor- ing units. Further details can be found in FAA Order 6884.1, Siting Criteria for Ground-Based Augmenta- tion System. ALTERNATIVES PBN can be used in multiple alternative situations on a case-by-case analysis of the airport or terminal area environment. PBN offers flexible design to avoid obstacles, terrain, and sensitive land use areas, while providing access and unique simultaneous or staggered operations at airports with multiple runways. Development of PBN procedures is typically done by FAA. However, third-party vendors can develop special procedures, and third-party vendors who are certified may develop public RNP AR procedures. Procedure development costs may range from $30K to over $1M depending upon the complexity and challenges of the airspace environment. The initial concept of operation for GBAS was for straight-in final approach guidance for CAT I, II, and III operations. The benefits of GBAS greatly increase at a CAT II/III landing system as one installation

26 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT serves several runway ends, eliminating the need for multiple expensive CAT II/III ILS systems. As GBAS is implemented into the FAA inventory and aircraft equipage expands, it will likely replace CAT II/III ILS systems in the long term. GBAS systems could be used for multiple other applications including offset approaches for closely spaced parallel runways, multiple approaches at varying glide path angles, positive course guidance for continuous descent profiles in the terminal area, and flexible approaches to temporary pavements used during construction. The corrected GBAS signal may also be broadcast for ground vehicle track- ing and survey purposes. Whereas this capability exists, it has not been operationally approved to date. TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION EoR safety assessments are still in development but a waivered procedure has been approved for DEN. The DEN procedure will provide data to support concept validation for a proposed national standard. The FAA has scheduled the development of a national standard making it possible to implement the technology at eligible locations throughout the NAS. The FAA will use the Metroplex and single-site processes to deploy the capability. Industry has identified MIA, ORD, CLT, George Bush Intercontinen- tal Airport (IAH), and Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) as candidate locations. The FAA GBAS program is currently conducting a research and development (R&D) and prototyping effort to reduce the technical risk and validate new requirements associated with meeting the GBAS approach service type capable of supporting approaches to Category III (CAT III) minima. The FAA has delayed its plans for a federal acquisition and implementation of the system. However, the system can be purchased and installed by airports as part of the non-federal navigational aid (NAVAID) program. The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey purchased and operates the first public-use system to receive FAA operational approval for Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR). The Houston Airport System (HAS) owns and operates the second GBAS to receive FAA operational approval for Houston’s IAH. The GBAS systems at both EWR and IAH are currently being used by United Airlines with Boeing 737 and Boeing 787 aircraft. The Boeing Company has a private-use GBAS installed and approved at its R&D facility at Moses Lake Airport (MWH) in Washington State and another private-use GBAS installed in Charleston, South Carolina (CHS) to support B-787 customer acceptance flights at the Charleston assembly plant. Honeywell is pursuing the certification of the system for CAT II/III operations. Certification is antici- pated in the next one to three years. Separation Management Separation management focuses on the enhancement of aircraft separation assurance. Separation management improvements will provide air traffic controllers with tools and procedures to separate aircraft with different kinds of navigation equipment and wake performance capabilities, what is known as a mixed environment. The elements of this portfolio will achieve success by enhancing current NAS infrastructure through the integration into ATC automation systems of enabling technologies, new standards, and new pro- cedures. The key automation systems impacted by this portfolio are ATOP, TAMR, ERAM, TFDM, and time-based flow management (TBFM).

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 27 Effects on Airport Planning and Development Separation management could significantly affect the following major elements of airport planning and development programs: DEMAND/CAPACITY Separation management will enhance the NAS by providing controllers the ability to safely reduce separation between aircraft, resulting in increased efficiency and capacity. Increased airport through- put via TRACON facilities and managed final approach procedures will be of great benefit to airports and the NAS as a whole. Additionally, aircraft on oceanic routes will be provided the ability to ascend and descend to their preferred altitudes and allow controllers to approve requests for direct routing. Wake vortex impacts will be reduced due to reduced but monitored separations along with accurate climatological data to aid in managing separations. Capabilities in this portfolio will support an increase in capacity by increasing airport throughput as a result of the closer spacing of flights accepted from TRACON airspace and managed on final approach. Automation capabilities will also enable air traffic controllers and pilots through reduced separation between aircrafts to manage increasing traffic levels in oceanic airspace. This portfolio will provide improved efficiency through the introduction of capabilities that will enable more oceanic flights to ascend and descend to their preferred altitudes. Controllers will also be able to approve additional pilot requests for direct routes and more efficient altitudes. This technology provides controllers automated information about wake vortex separation require- ments for any given aircraft pair, along with accurate wind data that will help predict more accurate and safer separation standards. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS The deployment of these systems and implementation of standards and procedures is managed by FAA through various programs. However, if a need can be demonstrated, identification of separation management techniques may be considered as part of the local planning process. Follow-on efforts may be required to harmonize the requirement with FAA implementation requirements. ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED ATOP, TAMR, and ERAM systems are customized for each installation based on the requirements of the airspace environment in which they serve. The capabilities of these systems may be used as the basis for capacity-enhancement alternatives. TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION Software is currently being developed and will be released to key sites in the near future. FAA expects operational rollout to be achieved in 2016/2017 for oceanic in-trail climb and descent with trajectory management expected to begin in 2017. En route and ATOP management is expected to be pre- pared and ready for implementation by 2022. Sector enhancements via ERAM and trajectory-based UAS (unmanned aircraft systems) integration, along with wake turbulences and RECAT procedures are being developed today through 2017 and on. Multilateration Multilateration (MLAT) is surveillance capability comparable to secondary surveillance radar enabling air traffic controllers to track aircraft in areas where no radar coverage exists. An MLAT system consists

28 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT of a transmitter, receiving antenna sensors, a central processor, and an optional interrogator system. The sensors and transmitters send out signals interrogating the transponder that, in turn, transmits a response. The response from the transponder is interpreted by the computers to accurately locate an aircraft using triangulation by measuring the “time difference of arrival” (TDOA) of the signal from the transponder at three or more synchronized receiver sites. The altitude of the aircraft is obtained directly from the required Mode C altitude-reporting transponder. The position information is fused with existing radar systems, providing a “target” on the radar screen, enabling air traffic controllers to provide positive control of the aircraft. MLAT was not a part of early NextGen initiatives but has now been adopted into the NextGen Program. MLAT can be deployed in many configurations in en route, terminal, or airport environments. En route and terminal configurations supporting surveillance are re- ferred to as WAM whereas airport installations supporting surface movement, virtual air traffic control towers, and noise monitoring systems are referred to as MLAT. WAM systems are currently deployed in mountainous airports in Colorado, the state of Alaska, oceanic oil drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, and other locations to provide surveillance in remote areas where radar coverage is not available. These systems provide a “radar-like” environment for aircraft operations. MLAT systems are used for surface movement systems across the world. FAA incorporates MLAT sen- sors into the ASDE-X systems to provide ATC with surface movement information across an airfield. This system is deployed at the top 35 major airports in the U.S. and is used on a daily basis for operations. Another provision planned is the development of an ASSC at nine airports that use ASDE-3/AMASS for surface surveillance and situational awareness. The ASSC system fuses multilateration ground sensor data with ADS-B–equipped aircraft information into an airport surveillance radar/mode select terminal and airport tower controller display (included as part of the ASSC configuration). The FAA recently awarded a contract for ASSC and is scheduled to have the system operational at the nine sites includ- ing Anchorage, Andrews Air Force Base, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, Cleveland, Kansas City, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Portland (Oregon), and San Francisco by FY 2017. MLAT technology is scheduled to be integrated into the precision runway monitoring (PRM) radar sys- tem to refresh the aging technology. These systems have been beneficial in supporting simultaneous operations at airports with closely spaced runways. Currently, the PRM at SFO is the only installation scheduled for refresh. MLAT is used to supplement secondary surveillance radar internationally and will likely be the backup system for ADS-B Out. MLAT systems serve as a major component for surveillance for virtual ATC tow- ers. Virtual tower systems have not been implemented in the U.S. but are currently certified in Norway and Sweden. MLAT systems are also used by airports as part of noise abatement and revenue tracking systems. These systems are tailored for each installation, providing aircraft tracking on the ground and in the vicinity of an airport. Effects on Airport Planning and Development Multilateration could significantly affect the following major elements of airport planning and develop- ment programs: DEMAND/CAPACITY Multilateration technologies will allow for the continuous surveillance of aircraft, especially those around mountainous or precipitous terrain, therefore increasing safety and reliability in aircraft track-

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 29 ing. High costs associated with radar installations will be reduced as cheaper remote sensing units can be installed in less accessible areas. The systems will allow more aircraft to be flown in and out of airports all while being continuously monitored via remote sensing sites. WAM also allows control- lers to automate a number of tasks including minimum safe altitude warnings, recording of air traffic events, and tracking aircraft and conflict alerts. An additional benefit of the system is the reduced glare and the ability for controllers to select what they see within a sector and customize color coding of aircraft to aid in organization. Multilateration systems allow for the aircraft to receive its own positions through ground stations signals and could be a backup should the GPS system fail. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS MLAT requires the deployment of a network of sensors and integration into the NAS surveillance sys- tem. No additional aircraft equipage is required for mode C equipped aircraft. ALTERNATIVES MLAT can be configured for multiple types of applications on the surface and in a wide area. TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION MLAT technologies will be rolled out across the system beyond the 2020 timeframe. Operational readiness has been demonstrated at 16 of the 20 en route facilities across the NAS as of the end of 2014; the remaining en route facilities were expected to demonstrate capabilities and readiness by the end of 2015. FAA costs are significantly reduced, especially in remote areas where there are high capital costs as- sociated with radar installations. Differing sensors and transponders are required depending on the altitude at which aircraft will most likely operate. In the Colorado WAM (case study), it was reported that costs were shared between the state of Colorado and the FAA. The state of Colorado, however, made significant up-front (and at-risk) investments in order to give the program momentum. Longer-Term NextGen Programs Longer-term NextGen programs include ADS-B In, and CDTI systems. These technologies are further defined in the following sections. Multiple Runway Operations/Closely Spaced Parallel Operations—Paired Approaches An advanced concept of paired approaches is currently in the applied research phase. This capability will leverage precision navigation (e.g., from GLS or LPV), ADS-B In, CDTI, linked FMS systems, and 4D trajectory information to support paired approaches by multiple aircraft to closely spaced runways. The advanced paired approach concept is intended to be used in IFR conditions and to support stag- gered aircraft spacing of ¼ nm on closely spaced parallel runways. Figure 2-7 highlights this concept. Effects on Airport Planning and Development The paired approach concept combined with Wake RECAT could affect the following major elements of airport planning and development programs:

30 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEMAND/CAPACITY The capability would provide a significant capacity increases at airports that (1) have significant vol- umes of Heavy jet aircraft, (2) already have closely spaced parallel runways that could be used more efficiently under the new rules, or (3) could implement closely spaced parallel runways on available airport property and provide either more efficient independent or dependent parallel operations that could not otherwise have been provided within the available space. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Closely spaced parallel runway operations are currently conducted very efficiently at airports in VMC but experience a significant capacity drop in IMC because they do not meet the current spacing requirements for dependent or independent approaches. The foregoing potential rule changes affect- ing spacing requirements for CSPO assume that the associated parallel runways would be served by precision instrument approach procedures with vertical guidance, which could include ILS approaches, RNAV/RNP approaches, or RNAV (GPS) approaches such as LPV. This concept will likely require high- update radar (HUR), NextGen-enabling technology, and advanced FMS capabilities. Source: Fe (https://ww deral Aviation Adm w.faa.gov/airports/ inistration, FACT3 planning_capacity : Airport Capacity /media/FACT3-Airp Needs in the Natio ort-Capacity-Need nal Airspace Syste s-in-the-NAS.pdf m, January 2015 ) Source: Federal Aviation Administration, FACT3: Airport Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System, January 2015 (https://www.faa. gov/airports/planning_capacity/media/FACT3-Airport-Capacity-Needs-in-the-NAS.pdf) Figure 2-7. Advanced paired approaches.

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 31 ALTERNATIVES The potential changes in the rules for the minimum spacing between parallel runways required for dependent or independent approaches could open up new opportunities at airports that previously would not qualify for such approaches. Therefore, new alternatives could be considered in the airport planning and development process for such airports. Such alternatives would have to be evaluated in terms of how the spacing between the parallel runways could facilitate the development of passenger terminal facilities between those runways and also how the new capabilities could affect noise expo- sure in the surrounding communities and operations at other nearby airports. TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION Advanced concepts to will likely be implemented in the long-term horizon as additional research and advanced avionics are required. Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In ADS-B In provides operators of properly equipped aircraft with weather and traffic position informa- tion delivered directly to the cockpit. ADS-B In-equipped aircraft have access to the graphical weather displays in the cockpit as well as text-based advisories, including Notices to Airmen and significant weather activity. The FAA provides three forms of ADS-B In Services: TIS-B, ADS-R, and FIS-B. Effects on Airport Planning and Development ADS-B In could significantly affect the following major elements of airport planning and development programs: DEMAND/CAPACITY Implementation of ADS-B In will increase situational awareness in all phases of flight, improving ef- ficiencies in sequencing and separation, enabling the use of multiple runways (closely spaced and converging) and enhancing capacity in all weather conditions. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS There are no airport facilities required for ADS-B In. User requirements for ADS-B In include aircraft equipage and the development of cockpit systems to take advantage of all the capabilities available through the technology. TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of ADS-Out is in process. FAA has deployed ADS-B sensors across the NAS and is plan- ning on expanding the network to Mexico in 2016 and 2017. FAA has a regulation requiring ADS-B Out equipage by the year 2020. No formal requirement exists to equip with ADS-B In. In order to take full advantage of ADS-B, a majority of aircraft must be equipped. Avionics manu- factures offer ADS-B In solutions for aircraft operators. However, the full benefits of the technology can only be realized when a substantial proportion of aircraft are operating in the vicinity of similarly equipped aircraft. Over the past decade UPS has used ADS-B In and Out technology for their opera- tions at the Louisville International Airport. The technology enables them to space operations efficient- ly in the air and sequence aircraft on the ground.

32 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) CDTI is an airborne system which, when combined with ADS-B In and Out, displays neighboring air- craft information, on the ground or in the air, to the flight crew as well as automation functions that, in some cases, provides speed or maneuver guidance to the crew. Benefits to be provided by CDTI system include: • Airborne Traffic Situation Awareness—providing enhancements in flight crew knowledge of sur- rounding surface and airborne traffic; • Airborne Spacing—allowing flight crews to ensure a spacing value from a designated aircraft; • Airborne Separation—allowing flight crews to ensure separation from a designated aircraft, which relieves the controller from the responsibility for separation between these aircraft; and • Airborne Self-Separation—allowing flight crews the ability to ensure separation of their aircraft from all surrounding traffic. CDTI systems were demonstrated in the Safe Flight 21 Ohio Valley trials in the late 1990s. System functionality requirements have been in development as part of industry efforts since that time. Some of the automation functions of the system include: • Avoid Collisions, • Avoid Wake, • Cross, • De-conflict, • Follow, • Hold, • Merge, • Pair, • Pass, • Separate, • Space, • Stagger, and • Time Departure. Effects on Airport Planning and Development CDTI could significantly affect the following major elements of airport planning and development programs: DEMAND/CAPACITY According to FAA, implementation of CDTI may increase situational awareness in all phases of flight improving efficiencies in sequencing and separation, enabling the use of multiple runways (closely spaced and converging); and, to the extent that CDTI permits a reduction in in-trail buffers, it can produce slight increases in capacity in all weather conditions.

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 33 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS A CDTI will be required to take full advantage of the benefits provided by ADS-B In. Aircraft equipage levels of the fleet will drive the various capabilities available through the technology. ALTERNATIVES CDTI systems combined with ADS-B In will enable alternatives for the enhancement of capacity and safety to include marginal VFR operations, low-visibility surface movements, MRO, CSPO, offset ap- proach configurations, reduced wake turbulence separation, and efficient separation in all phases of flight. Each alternative will provide an increase in safety and situational awareness for operators and increased capacity during low-level weather conditions. TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION Avionics manufacturers offer CDTI solutions for aircraft operators but equipage is voluntary. This will slow the realization of all the benefits of the system. It is likely that this technology will mature over the next 20 years. Non-NextGen Technologies and Capabilities for Airports Multiple technologies and capabilities useful to airports exist today that are not categorized as or included in the NextGen program. These technologies may be emerging toward inclusion of Next- Gen, part of other FAA programs, or stand alone. Table 2-2 provides a list of known technologies and capabilities by function to be considered as part of airport planning. Table 2-2. Non-NextGen technologies and capabilities for airports. FUNCTION CAPABILITY Independent Runways NA Dependent Runways NA CSPO NA Performance-Based Navigation (Terminal Area) NA Surface Operations & Data Sharing CDM Intelligent Routing and Guidance System/Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (A-SMGCS)/Airfield Lighting Control and Monitoring System (ALCMS) LED Lighting Technology Ground Vehicle Tracking Traffic Display and Analysis Systems (Non-ATC Automation) continued

34 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FUNCTION CAPABILITY Improved Landing Systems Synthetic Vision, Enhanced Vision Systems, and Heads-Up Displays LED Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) LED Approach Lighting Separation Management NA Multilateration (Surveillance) Virtual ATC Towers Virtual Ramp Control Noise Monitoring Systems ADS-B (Surveillance) Virtual ATC Towers Virtual Ramp Control The following sections describe these technologies and their effects on airport planning in develop- ment in further detail. Surface Operations and Data Sharing Non-NextGen surface operations and data sharing technology includes CDM, intelligent routing and guidance systems, automated docking systems, LED airport lighting, ground vehicle tracking, and traffic display and analysis systems. The following sections describe each of these technologies and highlight their relevance to the airport planning process. Collaborative Decision Making CDM programs established locally at airports are different from FAA-led initiatives. On-airport groups may use guidelines established in the Collaborative Decision Making Leadership, Strategies, Structure and Guidelines V 4.0 document and obtain data enabled through the dissemination of TFDM and other SWIM-enabled data to supplement decision making. However, other local factors influencing the day- to-day operations are considered including construction, maintenance, wind and weather conditions, runway use systems, the changing nature of airport environments, and special events. EFFECTS ON AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Local CDM programs could significantly affect the following major elements of airport planning and development programs: Demand/Capacity Benefits include increased flexibility, efficiency, safety, and validation. These are further described below: Flexibility • Improve the timely exchange of data to enable aircraft operators to more accurately adjust their departure and arrival times for the most efficient use of available runways, taxiways, and gates. Table 2-2. Continued

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 35 • Permit taxi operations to occur that support low-visibility operations for takeoff, improving access during those times. • Reduce the effect of weather-related delays. Efficiency • Enable more effective scheduling that includes runway, departure fix, and traffic flow management ground-management constraints, with automatic reassessment and update of the departure sched- ule based on the ability of departing flights to meet the designated departure schedule. • Enhance the ability to react to changing airport conditions, such as severe weather, by issuing digi- tal pre-departure clearances, including routing revisions, using Data Comm. • Improve awareness of surface congestion at major hub airports, greatly streamlining the coordina- tion of corrective action and improving the resilience of the system. • Reduce fuel burn and operating costs related to long departure queues. • Reduce delays by improving event data quality and adherence to controlled departure times. • Reduce FAA operating costs through the use of automated flight strips. Safety • Capabilities in this portfolio enhance safety on the airport surface by improving pilot and control- ler awareness of surface traffic. This benefit is enabled through data distribution and flight deck capabilities. • Enhancements to the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing System (ASIAS) can support NextGen with in-depth analysis of safety data from industry and government sources to identify existing or prospective operational risks that exist in the NAS. These safety analyses have secondary benefits to NextGen key performance areas and may reveal potential improvements for efficiency and capacity. • Surface movement data can be used to support the safety risk management processes by provid- ing a means to calculate the location, type, and duration of an aircraft operation on any part of the airfield. These calculations may provide a basis for determining the probability or likelihood of a hazard incident. Validation and the Development of Performance Metric SWIM data may serve to validate assumptions developed as part of planning efforts and measure the actual performance of the implementation of NextGen concepts. For example, radar data in the termi- nal area may be used to determine participation on RNAV and OPD procedures, utilization of landing systems-approach concepts, and environmental compliance. Facility Requirements Historical surface movement data may serve as a baseline for any type of surface study identifying the current use of parallel taxiways, connector taxiways, high speed exit taxiways, holding areas, and deic- ing facilities. The data can accurately identify duration of operations feeding any modeling efforts. Surface movement data may also be useful to track the exact usage of any pavement area on the air- field as part of pavement management systems enabling pavement wear and useful life calculations. Airports may be asked to support CDM through contracting with outside data supply or analysis contracts.

36 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Alternatives Surface movement data may assist in the development of metrics for the evaluation and selection of conceptual alternatives to accommodate future airport needs over the Master Plan planning horizon. Timing and Implementation The SWIM program currently collects and provides ASDE-X data to industry users. This data can be obtained through execution of a user agreement. Intelligent Routing and Guidance Systems Intelligent routing and guidance systems are being implemented in Europe and some Middle East countries to automatically control surface movements. Supported by the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR), the system integrates an advanced surface movement guidance and control system (A-SMGCS), airfield lighting control and monitoring system (ALCMS), surface radar or multilateration and ATC tower automation to allow for the automated movement of aircraft on an airfield during low- visibility conditions. The A-SMGCS identifies and provides real-time surveillance of taxiing aircraft. The system provides taxi routes for aircraft (conflict-free) through use of optical sensors and warns pilots that a conflict is ahead even without controller intervention. A-SMGCS functionality varies across four levels (Level 1–Level 4). Level 1 provides improved surveillance while Level 4 provides full airport-wide ground movement planning and routing and full conflict resolution. The ALCMS allows for control and monitoring of ever light on the airfield movement area including land and hold short operations (LAHSO), stop bar lighting, runway guard lights, and safety and cen- terline lighting. The health of each light may be monitored as well aiding in reducing airfield main- tenance effort. The tower automation systems allow controllers to select routing for an aircraft based on automated preferred routes or a custom route. Some systems utilize a touch pad to enable this operation. When these systems are integrated they may provide guidance in low-visibility conditions using a “follow the green” (FtG) method. The FtG system automatically leads aircraft around the airfield by illuminating ground-based centerline lighting green along a specified path in front of an aircraft. The system can be configured to automatically route aircraft to and from the end of the runway and gates while automatically providing conflict detection and resolution. EFFECTS ON AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Intelligent routing and guidance systems could significantly affect the following major elements of airport planning and development programs: Demand/Capacity An intelligent routing system will aid in increasing the capacity of an airfield in low-visibility conditions by providing enhanced situational awareness to pilot and controller, automating routing and aircraft movement, and automating conflict detection and avoidance. The system reduces pilot and controller workload and the need for the use of “follow me” vehicles operating on the airfield. Facility Requirements Requirements of the system are based on the level of automation desired. A fully automated system will require in-pavement lights, circuitry designed to support the desired functionality, ALCMS and A-

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 37 SMGCS hardware and software, integration with surface radar, and integration with ATC automation. The system will also need to have dedicated and backup power. Alternatives The system may be tailored to support movement of aircraft by blocks or through the FtG concept. The movement of aircraft may be controlled throughout the entire airport including the apron and ramp areas. Some airports are exploring the use of the system during VMC conditions as it provides for reduced controller workloads. Timing and Implementation These systems have been deployed in Germany and are being implemented today in the United Arab Emirates. These systems have not been deployed in the U.S. since FAA has not adopted the concept of the full technology into the NextGen program. Intelligent lighting systems and an ALCMS are avail- able to airports in the U.S. and from various vendors. Automated Docking Systems Automated docking systems (ADS) provide guidance to pilots for aircraft gate parking. The system uses laser scanning technology to identify the incoming aircraft and verify the correct model as that selected by the airline or operator. The ADS also provide distance-to-stop positioning, lateral-position assessment, right-left indicators, and continuous closing rate of the aircraft as it proceeds down- centerline. Once docking is complete the system will read “stop” and “ok” to inform a pilot the aircraft is parked and docked correctly within a stand. These systems also provide flight information, pushback time and takeoff time. The ADS can be integrated into an intelligent routing and guidance system making all operations on the airfield automated. EFFECTS ON AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ADS could significant may affect the following major elements of airport planning and development programs: Demand/Capacity The use of ADS may provide an increase in safety and efficiency in the gate areas. Parking and push- back times may be reduced creating additional throughput. Facility Requirements Installation of an ADS may vary based on the design of the terminal gate, apron area, and aircraft type. Facility requirements analysis should consider the existing and future fleet mix at the airport, terminal design, and manufacturer’s information to establish the requirements of the system. Alternatives ADS may be configured in multiple ways depending upon the gate environment and the aircraft type. Timing and Implementation ADS are available today and are being integrated at airports as part of efficient surface movement operations.

38 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LED Airfield Lighting Technology (Ground-Based Lighting) Over the past decade, airports have slowly been adopting LED technology to replace runway, taxiway, and obstruction lights. Manufacturers offer multiple LED lights meeting the requirements of the exist- ing airport lighting systems. LED lighting units and fixtures are more expensive to purchase but less expensive to operate. The low operating costs are attributed to the low wattage requirements of an LED and the significantly longer lifespan of the lamps. When first installed, pilots noticed the LED lamps were much brighter than the incandescent lamps when both were set at the same intensity level. As a result, many pilots, when flying an approach to a runway in low-visibility conditions, were seeing the approach light system as they always have and, as they approached the runway, were blinded by the LED lamps, resulting in a go around. In addition aircraft operating with Heads-Up Display (HUD) systems are not able to see the LED lights as they lack the heat intensity of an incandescent bulb. FAA and industry are conducting research to solve these problems for the future. Some modifications have included modification of fixture lenses, use of lower intensity lamps, and the incorporation of infrared lights into the fixture. EFFECTS ON AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LED airfield lighting may affect the following elements of airport planning and development programs: Demand/Capacity LED technology will not increase demand or capacity at an airport. Facility Requirements Airport practitioners should consider the implementation of LED technology in an effort to reduce operating costs and energy consumption. Facility requirements need to be developed based on the type and application of the lighting systems to be replaced or new installations to ensure compatibility with operations. Alternatives Developing alternatives to compare LED and incandescent lighting should be conducted to highlight the benefits and costs associated with the implementation of the technology. In some cases, the wir- ing and fixtures may need replacing (versus simply plugging a lamp into an existing fixture) to achieve the maximum benefit of the LED technology. This increases the acquisition costs of the technology implementation and extends the break-even time frame further into the future. Timing and Implementation LED technology is available today from various airfield lighting manufacturers for implementation. The technology continues to evolve. Ground Vehicle Tracking Ground vehicle tracking systems provide improved runway safety by allowing tracking and positional awareness of aircraft and airfield service trucks, including snow removal equipment, aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) vehicles, and construction/maintenance vehicles. The FAA approved ground vehicle tracking systems are based on ADS-B technology and require the installation of certificated transpon- ders in each vehicle to be tracked. The transponders are not required to be permanently installed and can be moved between vehicles. However, programming changes may be required by the vendor. The

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 39 location and identifying features of a vehicle may be transmitted to ATC, airport operations, aircraft cockpits, lap tops, tablets, and cell phones in real time. The systems can be integrated to other on- airport GIS-based systems and can be used to coordinate rescue efforts, lead aircraft in low visibility, and manage ground vehicle fleets: snow removal, mowing, construction, and pavement maintenance. However, FAA-certificated transponders are expensive and are limited to tracking only on the move- ment area. Non-FAA systems are available that use GPS to track airport vehicles, although they do not provide position information to ATC. EFFECTS ON AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Ground vehicle tracking airfield may affect the following elements of airport planning and develop- ment programs: Demand/Capacity Ground vehicle tracking technology will not increase demand or capacity at an airport. It may how- ever, increase the efficiency and safety of operations on the airfield and assist in multiple functions of day-to-day activities. Facility Requirements Ground vehicle tracking systems will require additional hardware, software, and transponder equip- ment to be installed at the airport. The requirements of the system will vary from airport to airport based on the needs, the desired functionality, and the number of vehicles to be tracked. Individual transponders can cost $5,000 to $7,000 each and require expensive annual maintenance contracts. Alternatives Multiple alternatives exist for implementation of this technology to solve operational issues such as the management of construction, the movement of aircraft in low visibility, gate operations, emergency response, and maintenance. Alternatives should consider the need for the technology, desired func- tionality, benefits, and costs. Timing and Implementation Ground vehicle tracking systems have been implemented at multiple airports in the NAS and are available today. Early implementation of these systems used GPS technologies as the basis for position information. New technology incorporates ADS-B and multilateration technology to achieve higher resolution of position information. Traffic Display and Analysis Systems (Non-FAA ATC Automation) There are multiple non-FAA ATC automation systems capable of displaying air traffic information in- cluding marine based radar systems, Internet-based systems, and custom systems. The FAA established a low-cost ground surveillance program in 2007 as an initiative to reduce runway incursions. Several firms were involved in research activities using multiple types of technology as the basis for low cost airport surveillance. In 2013, the FAA cancelled the program after determining it was not viable/cost- effective for sustainment. Marine radar has been used to validate research, track tall ships near approach runway ends, and as the basis for bird tracking. The most common marine systems are based on the use of S and X radar bands. These systems were originally designed to track large slow moving targets. However, the technology is improving. FAA allows marine-based radar technology for the tracking of birds. These

40 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT systems are called Airport Avian Radar Systems. Advisory Circular 150/5220-25, Airport Avian Radar Systems, provides guidance on the implementation of these technologies. There are multiple Internet-based software applications to track aircraft and provide arrival and depar- ture time information. These applications utilize FAA traffic flow management data and other interna- tional data streams to display aircraft, flight, and schedule information to a user. Several companies offer surface movement analysis systems that incorporate ASDE-X radar data into high-resolution GIS-based mapping coverages for surface operations analysis and management purposes. These systems have been implemented at multiple large airports in the NAS and have been useful in assisting in operational efficiency and safety case analysis. Surveillance research is ongoing at universities and throughout industry. It is important to note, FAA is the governing authority of systems used for ATC separation or advisory services. FAA certification is re- quired for any system to be used for this purpose. Airports that purchase non-FAA certified surveillance systems with the intent to provide aircraft advisory information to pilots do so at their own expense and risk. Furthermore, the use of these systems may be limited by FAA. EFFECTS ON AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Traffic display and analysis systems are operational in nature and serve to disseminate information to assist airport operations and provide information to the traveling public. Output from these systems may serve to assist in wildlife management, safety case analysis, providing timely information to the traveling public. Improved Landing Systems Non-NextGen improved landing system technology includes synthetic vision systems (SVSs) and LED technology applied to approach lighting and PAPI systems. Synthetic Vision System, Enhanced Vision Systems, and Heads-Up Display Synthetic vision was developed by NASA and the U.S. Air Force in the late 1970s and 1980s in sup- port of advanced cockpit research, and in 1990s as part of the Aviation Safety Program. An SVS is a computer-mediated reality system for aircraft to provide pilots with clear and intuitive means of un- derstanding their flying environment. Synthetic vision provides situational awareness to pilots by using terrain, obstacle, geo-political, hydrological, and other databases. A typical SVS application uses a set of databases stored on board the aircraft, an image generator computer, and a display. The navigation solution is obtained through the use of GPS-guided flight management systems, and inertial reference systems. SVSs may depict position, altitude, airframe orientation, terrain, obstacles, airport infrastruc- ture, and other traffic in a 3D perspective eliminating metrological conditions, which reduce visibility. Enhanced vision systems (EVSs) use actual cameras and other sensors such as forward looking infrared (FLIR) and millimeter wave RADAR to sense the environment outside the aircraft. EVS can look through the weather and allow an aircraft to land in the visual segment of an instrument approach. HUD systems are common in many commercial aircraft today. These systems depict the runway en- vironment, including approach lighting systems and PAPIs at airports, and allow for lower approach minimums. EFFECTS ON AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Synthetic vision may affect the following elements of airport planning and development programs:

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 41 Demand/Capacity SVS may improve access in low-visibility conditions as the runway environment is visible to the pilots. FAA currently allows lower visibility on approach for aircraft equipped with HUD systems depicting airport lighting infrastructure. Facility Requirements Implementation of LED technology would need to consider the use of these systems at airports. Some of the SVS, EVS, and HUD avionics have problems detecting LED lighting. FAA is examining the use of infrared lighting to solve these problems. Timing and Implementation Avionics manufacturers offer SVSs and EVSs for multiple types of aircraft today. HUD systems are widely used by new commercial aircraft in the fleet. Ultimately, equipage will be a decision made by the aircraft operator. LED Precision Approach Path Indicator and Approach Lighting Over the past several years, the FAA has conducted research into replacing the multi-light PAPI system or array, with a PAPI LED system that uses a single light on each unit to orient a pilot vertically on ap- proach. The new configuration still uses a four-light box array to provide guidance to pilots and the same metrics (i.e., red and white lights) are used to signal pilots if they are too low (red) or too high (white) above the glide path. LED systems enhance light output performance, eliminate warm-up times especially in cold climates, and lower energy costs. The instant light-up of the LED can reduce delay in cold climates and allow a system to be switched on or off in an efficient manner, or they can be operated in standby mode, something not offered by conventional lamp PAPI systems. Additionally, the LEDs increase the life- cycles of the system and reduce maintenance costs since LEDs do not burn out or need to be changed as frequently as traditional lamp-based systems. Approach light systems (ALSs) provide the basic means to transition from instrument flight to visual flight for landing. The FAA has been researching application of LED technology into current ALS applications. LED threshold lamps have been developed that produce similar light intensities and colors to incandes- cent lamps used in a medium intensity ALS with runway alignment indicator lights (MALSR). Testing has occurred in FAA labs, independent labs, and at pilot program airports for temperature, vibration, icing, photometric chromaticity, and electrical characteristics with positive results. FAA is also working to develop a feasibility study to determine if the LED technology can replicate a MALSR flasher and is looking to implement infrared technology to enable SVS, EVS, and HUD systems to see the lights. EFFECTS ON AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LED PAPI and approach lighting may affect the following major elements of airport planning and de- velopment programs: Demand/Capacity LED technology will enable systems to be available on a more frequent basis as the lamps have a much longer useful life as compared to incandescent lighting. When airports plan the acquisition of ap- proach lighting through the FAA non-federal program, they should consider LED technology as way

42 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT to reduce operating costs. FAA estimates a 2.5 times savings for an LED system versus a traditional system. Facility Requirements Many airports have aircraft using HUD technology. Implementation of LED approach lighting will need to consider aircraft types, which may drive the requirements of systems to include infrared technology so they can be seen on the HUD. Timing and Implementation The FAA has procured PAPI systems from equipment vendors and is in the initial phase of deploying test systems in the NAS. Airports may also purchase these PAPI systems from the vendor as part of the FAA non-federal program. Multilateration and ADS-B (Surveillance) Non-NextGen surveillance systems include virtual air traffic control systems and noise monitoring systems. VIRTUAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWERS AND RAMP CONTROL A virtual air traffic control tower system uses a camera and multi-sensing systems to transfer data to a control staff in a remote tower center (RTC) where a human controller provides direction to aircrews instead of an out-the-window view from a traditional controller. The system simulates an “out-the- window” view that a tower air traffic controller would have and may be configured for a single controller or a small group of controllers to monitor operations at multiple airports in a wide area or a single airport from a single center. Virtual ramp control functions similarly to a virtual tower in that points throughout the airfield can be monitored from a consolidated center, rather than having sectors of an airport monitored by an individual. The virtual ramp control system simulates an “out-the-window” view for various ramp areas, especially deicing areas, aircraft stands, and remote parking positions. ACRP Research Report 167: Guidebook for Developing Ramp Control Facilities discusses the use of virtual systems for tower and ramp control. Both systems provide video feeds from various optical sensors and thermal cameras to provide real- time position information and consolidate multiple cameras into a single view. Virtual systems can be woven into multilateration, ASDE-X, and A-SMGCS systems to increase safety and efficiency. Virtual ATC systems are an emerging technology with great potential for the future. Virtual systems are being deployed in Europe and the United Arab Emirates as a cost-effective means to provide ATC services to smaller airports. In the U.S., the Leesburg Executive Airport has partnered with industry to demonstrate and evaluate remote tower technologies. The program is designed to demonstrate and evaluate the remote tower system for use at non-towered airports. The Virginia Department of Aviation is an advisory partner for the project, and the FAA is providing ATC personnel for testing and the evaluation of human factors in advance of operational trials. Effects on Airport Planning and Development Virtual systems may affect the following elements of airport planning and development programs:

NextGen Technologies and Operational Improvements | 43 Demand/Capacity Virtual airport traffic control tower (ATCT) systems may increase capacity and safety at airports that are currently not towered. Virtual ramp control systems may assist in reducing controller workloads, free up space in the ATCT cab, provide a viable a backup system for an ATCT, and serve as a training facility for the airport. Facility Requirements Facility requirement consider activity levels, visibility, and line-of-sight issues for ATC operations. Imple- mentation of virtual systems may be required or desired to solve surface movement issues. Imple- mentation of the systems will need to consider the siting of multi-sensor arrays and infrastructure to support the intended functions. Timing and Implementation Virtual ATC systems are emerging in Europe today and are a technology listed in the SESAR program. FAA has not included virtual systems into the NextGen program as of the writing of this document, as the concept is still undergoing testing and has a maturing concept of operation. Challenges exist in the U.S. due to the higher volume of GA traffic as compared to Europe. Current development activi- ties are focusing in on this issue as well. It is envisioned that this technology will be embraced in the future. NOISE MONITORING SYSTEMS Noise monitoring systems utilize noise monitoring terminals (NTZ) to collect noise data emitted by aircraft and weather data. Noise monitoring systems can also collect radar or flight track data to pair with noise data to evaluate noise and causes across an airport system. Aircraft noise is not limited to flight-based aircraft operations; these systems can also monitor ground-based aircraft noise emitted by taxiing and parked aircraft. Noise monitoring systems are used to determine noise exposure at a community level and estimate the impact across a community which can influence legislation such as curfews and other regulations. Effects on Airport Planning and Development Noise monitoring may affect the following elements of airport planning and development programs: Demand/Capacity Noise monitoring systems are primarily used for operational and environmental compliance purposes. They do not drive demand or capacity, but the data can be used for multiple planning purposes. Facility Requirements Facility requirements may include a noise monitoring system for environmental monitoring, land com- patibility, community relations, and operational purposes. Alternatives Multiple alternatives exist for the configuration of the system and the method in which it may be hosted. Alternatives will be based on the individual airport requirements for data analysis and commu- nity communication. Data sources may include historic FAA radar data (delayed 1 to 3 hours), SWIM, and ADS-B.

44 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Timing and Implementation Noise monitoring systems have been deployed at airports since the 1990s. These systems continue to evolve from large-server single-user–based to Internet-based applications, incorporating new surveil- lance capabilities including multilateration and other trajectory and time-based system technologies.