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.

5While the FAA’s current NextGen initiatives will enhance the overall NAS, the direct and indi-rect benefits to most small commercial service and GA airports are likely to be focused on improving access during its initial implementation. For these airports, much of the focus has been on lowering approach minimums and improving airfield capacity during inclement weather conditions; particularly through the implementation of satellite-based augmentation system (SBAS) or WAAS instrument approaches where ground-based NAVAIDS are not available or practical to install. Although other NextGen technologies and operational improvements have been and will continue to be implemented at smaller airports, their effectiveness and/or applicability may be restricted due to a variety of factors. These factors include, but are not limited to, the types of aircraft serving the airport, aircraft equipage limitations, ATC training, funding constraints, low demand levels, or the in- ability to demonstrate a positive cost-benefit ratio. Nonetheless, many NextGen initiatives are scalable and therefore could be implemented at small airports with the use of alternative technologies and/ or procedures. Appendix C provides a summary of the various NextGen technologies and operational improvements and their potential application to different sizes of airports. This chapter identifies the various NextGen capabilities that could enhance operations at small airports and how these capabilities may influence planning and development initiatives at these airports. It differentiates between the NextGen initiatives that have global application at most small airports from those that have limited application under certain operating conditions and environs. It is important to understand that the success of NextGen at these airports is as much a function of the equipage of the fleet operating at the airport as it is of the size or type of service the airport has. Any given small airport may be used by aircraft with Nav/Com capabilities ranging from minimal (no electrical sys- tem) to superior (full flat screen avionics suite). So, simply characterizing the impact of NextGen by airport size or type of service is difficult. Despite the difficulty of characterizing NextGen capabilities in terms of airport size or classification, there are some general trends for smaller airports that are worth identifying. Definition of Small Airports The opportunities to enhance the NAS through the implementation of NextGen technologies and op- erational improvements can vary significantly among airports, regardless of an airport’s size, role, and classification. There are numerous factors that will influence the direct and indirect benefits associated with each of the various NextGen initiatives for any given airport or system of airports. Therefore, the application of NextGen technologies and operational improvements, and the resulting benefits, will be unique for each airport. However, the opportunities to realize the benefits of NextGen at small commercial service and GA airports can be differentiated from those for large and medium airports that have a significant compo- sition of air carrier and cargo aircraft, which is what this chapter is intended to illustrate. Applicability of NextGen to Small Airport Planning and Development | 73 Applicability of NextGen to Small Airport Planning and Development

74 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT The NPIAS categorizes public use airports by type of activities, including commercial service, primary, cargo service, reliever, and GA airports.1 For the purpose of this document, small airports generally include the following NPIAS Classifications: • Nonhub Primary Commercial Service (>10,000 annual passenger boardings, but less than 0.25 percent of total passenger boardings in the U.S.; 380,000 boardings in 2014). • Non-primary Commercial Service (no more than 10,000 annual passenger boardings). • GS/reliever airports. While private-use and military airports could benefit from NextGen technologies, their application is excluded from these discussions. Table 5-1 presents the overall NPIAS airport classifications, while highlighting those that are considered as small airports. As of September 2014, there were 3,283 airports contained in the NPIAS, and nearly 90 percent of these airports are classified as GA and/or reliever airports. GA airports either have no scheduled com- mercial service or less than 2,500 annual passenger boardings. Due to the unique physical constraints and demand characteristics, the operational complexities and aircraft fleet mix associated with these airports can vary significantly. Many GA airports within urban areas have a high concentration of cor- porate jet activity, some with performance characteristics and avionic platforms similar to, and some- times more advanced than, modern air carrier aircraft. Other municipal and rural airports may serve small piston and turboprop aircraft with varied, perhaps limited, avionics capabilities. In 2012, the FAA published a report titled General Aviation Airports: A National Asset. This report was the result of an extensive evaluation of the various roles of public use GA airports throughout the U.S. As a result, the FAA now classifies public use GA airports in the following manner: • National—Supports the national and state system by providing communities with access to na- tional and international markets in multiple states and throughout the U.S. • Regional—Supports regional economies by connecting communities to statewide and interstate markets. • Local—Supplements local communities by providing access primarily to intrastate and some inter- state markets. • Basic—Supports GA activities such as emergency services, charter or critical passenger services, cargo operations, flight training, and personal flying. • Unclassified—no clearly defined role. While these classifications are not intended to replace the NPIAS airport classifications for GA airports, they are intended to provide consistent evaluation criteria for prioritizing project funding commit- ments, including NextGen initiatives. Therefore, to better correlate the diverse range of GA airports with NextGen technologies, this guidebook further segregates GA airports in accordance with the four primary GA airport asset classifications. Table 5-2 summarizes the resulting subcategories of small airports as it relates to NextGen opportunities. 1 Federal Aviation Administration, National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_ capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/categories, accessed January 7, 2016.

Applicability of NextGen to Small Airport Planning and Development | 75 FAA NextGen Technologies and Initiatives Applicable to Small Airports The deployment of FAA’s NextGen initiatives and supporting technologies has been, and will continue to be, limited at small airports. While a few of the FAA’s NextGen initiatives have global application at most airports, the deployment of many of these initiatives at small airports may be inhibited due to 1Medium and Large Airports generally include the following NPIAS Classifications: • Medium Hub Primary Commercial Service (at least 0.25% but less than 1% of annual passenger boardings). • Large Hub Primary Commercial Service (1% or more of annual passenger boardings). Small Airports generally include the following NPIAS Classifications: • Nonhub Primary Commercial Service (>10,000 annual passenger boardings, but less than 0.25% of total passenger boardings in the United States). • Non-primary Commercial Service (no more than 10,000 annual passenger boardings). • General aviation/reliever airports. Source: NPIAS, Federal Aviation Administration. Table 5-1. FAA airport classifications.

76 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT a variety of factors. This section provides an overview of the applicability of the FAA’s NextGen initia- tives and support technologies at small airports and describes the factors that may inhibit or preclude their deployment. It also describes direct and indirect effects on planning and development at small airports. Improved Landing Systems With the exception of RNP approaches and GBAS, each of the various improved landing systems has global application at small airports. GBAS is currently being programmed for large- and medium-hub airports with no planned implementation at small airports. Due to the limited use of RNP by smaller regional airlines and some GA aircraft, coupled with the airfield lighting, obstruction clearance and development requirements, the deployment of low minimum RNP approaches at small airports is typically cost prohibitive. Therefore, the establishment of RNP approaches at small airports will likely be limited to the rare occasion in which an airport has a very high volume of RNP-equipped aircraft, particularly (1) those airports that are part of a congested airspace system (Metroplex) that includes other medium- or large-hub air carrier airports and (2) those airports surrounded by mountainous terrain where conventional instrument approaches or radar coverage cannot be implemented. (See Table 5-3.) Table 5-2. Subcategorization of small airports for NextGen opportunities. SUBCATEGORY NPIAS CRITERIA TYPICAL AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX COMPOSITION Limited Commercial Service Nonhub Primary Commercial Service 10,000 Annual Passenger Boardings—<0.25% of Total U.S. Passenger Boardings Air Carrier and Business Jets. Non-primary Commercial Service 2,500–10,000 Annual Passenger Boardings Limited Air Carrier and Business Jets. GA National No Scheduled Service or <2,500 Annual Passenger Boardings Very High Levels of Activity with Many Jets and Multiengine Propeller Aircraft; Averaging About 200 Based Aircraft, Including 30 Jets. Regional No Scheduled Service or <2,500 Annual Passenger Boardings High Levels of Activity with Some Jets and Multiengine Propeller Aircraft; Averaging About 90 Based Aircraft, Including Three Jets. Local No Scheduled Service or <2,500 Annual Passenger Boardings Moderate Levels of Activity with Some Multiengine Propeller Aircraft; Averaging About 33 Based Propeller-Driven Aircraft and No Jets. Basic No Scheduled Service or <2,500 Annual Passenger Boardings Moderate to Low Levels of Activity; Averaging About 10 Propeller-Driven Based Aircraft and No Jets. Sources: NPIAS, Federal Aviation Administration; General Aviation Airports: A National Asset, Federal Aviation Administration, May 2012.

Applicability of NextGen to Small Airport Planning and Development | 77 Table 5-3. Improved landing systems application to small airports. DESCRIPTION LIMITED (NONHUB) COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORTS1 NATIONAL/REGIONAL GA AIRPORTS LOCAL/BASIC GA AIRPORTS LPV Approach X X X LP Approach X X X LNAV/VNAV Approach X X X LED PAPI2 X X X LED ALS2 X X X RNP Approach Limited Benefits to Small Airports Within a Constrained Airspace System GBAS Not Generally Applicable to Small Airports Notes: 1Per the NPIAS, limited commercial service airports consist of nonhub airports with less than 0.25% share of the annual passenger board- ing at U.S. airports (approximately 380,000 enplanements in FY 2014). 2Pending final approval by the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA has been implementing the LP, LPV, and LNAV/VNAV approaches to enhance operations dur- ing inclement weather where ground-based navigational facilities are not available. These procedures have also been established at airports that are served with ground-based navigation facilities to supple- ment existing instrument approaches and/or provide redundancy. While some older aircraft may not have the avionics to support LP, LPV, and LNAV/VNAV approaches, the FAA has implemented them at most public use airports throughout the country. However, these less equipped aircraft are often less likely to operate during IMC. It is also anticipated that small GA aircraft will opt to upgrade their avion- ics packages as they install ADS-B Out equipment prior to 2020, as mandated by the FAA. The FAA has determined that the replacement of incandescent lights of PAPI and MALSR systems with LED lamps would have a return on investment of approximately two years. The FAA is currently con- ducting a feasibility study for LED replacement. The feasibility study will also determine their ability to support enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) operations. While not all small airports are equipped with MALSR systems, the FAA has made considerable investment to install PAPIs at commercial service and most GA airports. Effects of Improved Landing Systems on Planning and Development at Small Airports The establishment of PBN (LPV, LP, LNAV/VNAV, and RNP) approaches will not only improve the ability to operate during inclement weather, but also reduce aircraft emissions and aircraft noise exposure by reducing the number of aircraft diversions to nearby airports. By providing a more precise approach path and descent profile, some PBN approaches could also enhance the capacity of the airspace, thereby potentially increasing the capacity of an airfield that is impaired by the capacity of surround- ing airspace due either to other airports or surrounding terrain. Since PBN approaches do not require additional infrastructure at an airfield, they have no impact to an airport’s capital expenditures, unless the procedure lowers minimums enough to trigger additional obstacle clearance requirements. (See Table 5-4.)

78 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Table 5-4. Improved landing systems application—small airport planning considerations. DESCRIPTION AIRFIELD/AIRSPACE CAPACITY/ACCESS ENHANCEMENTS OBSTACLE EVALUATION/ OBSTRUCTION MITIGATION PROGRAMS ENVIRONMENTAL (NOISE & AIR QUALITY) AIRPORT CAPITAL PLANNING LPV Approach X X X LP Approach X X X LNAV/VNAV Approach X X X RNP Approaches X X LED Approach Lighting Systems X X X LED PAPI X GBAS Not Applicable to Small Airports When establishing LPV, LP, and LNAV approaches to an airport, the scope of obstacle evaluation and obstruction mitigation programs for the airport may increase. As with traditional ground-based instru- ment approaches, the establishment of LPV, LP, and LNAV/VNAV approaches requires an evaluation of obstacles to ensure adequate obstacle clearance for aircraft utilizing these procedures. FAA Order 8260.3C, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), and FAA Order 8260.5, United States Standard for Performance-Based Navigation Procedure Design, establish the minimum obstacle clearance criteria for the development of instrument approach procedures at airports. Due to the unique accuracy characteristics associated with the LPV, LP, and LNAV/VNAV procedures, the obstacle clearance requirements prescribed in TERPS can be much different from those associated with instrument approaches served with traditional ground-based NAVAIDS. For LNAV/VNAV approaches, the lateral extent of the obstacle clearance surfaces (OCS) can be greater than those associated with existing approach capabilities. In addition, the slope of the final approach surface associated with OCS for LPV approaches can be more restrictive than existing approach procedures designated at the airport. Therefore, evaluations of obstructions are required, regardless of the presence of existing ground-based procedures, even if existing ground-based procedures have lower minimums. Airport operators with existing LPV, LP, and LNAV/VNAV approaches may also consider obstruction removal programs to allow the lowering of approach minimums at the airport, thereby further enhancing the capacity of and access to their airfields. In addition to the direct and indirect airfield capacity and access benefits associated with improved landing systems, the potential approval of LED PAPI and ALS could reduce an airport’s operating bud- get. If implemented, LED ALS may provide a cost-effective means for a small airport to install an ap- proach lighting system that it otherwise could not afford. In these instances, lower landing minimums could be achieved, thereby improving the ability to land during inclement weather. By reducing the number of aircraft diversions to nearby airports, aircraft emissions and aircraft noise exposure could also be reduced with the installation of a new LED ALS. Airspace Routing with Performance-Based Navigation PBN may provide the ability to enhance the operational throughput at small airports that are con- strained by the capacity of its surrounding terminal airspace. With the increased precision provided by RNP, coupled with the benefits associated with area navigation (RNAV), dedicated arrival and

Applicability of NextGen to Small Airport Planning and Development | 79 departure routes to and from small airports could be established, thereby allowing small aircraft to be segregated from heavy aircraft that are destined to or originating from other nearby airports. This may allow both airports to optimize the throughput of their airfields. (See Table 5-5.) Table 5-5. PBN application to small airports. DESCRIPTION LIMITED (NONHUB) COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORTS1 NATIONAL/REGIONAL GA AIRPORTS LOCAL/BASIC GA AIRPORTS RNAV X X X RNP Limited Benefits to Small Airports Within a Constrained Airspace System Notes: 1Per the NPIAS, limited commercial service airports consist of nonhub airports with less than 0.25 percent share of the annual passenger boarding at U.S. airports (approximately 380,000 enplanements in FY 2014). Similar to RNP instrument approach procedures, the ability to utilize RNP in the terminal airspace by smaller regional airlines and GA aircraft is typically cost prohibitive. However, the growing prevalence of GPS systems in regional/commuter and GA aircraft has made it feasible to establish dedicated STARs and SIDs to small airports. Through the use of RNAV, the ability to modify SIDs and STARs without the capital investment necessary to establish ground-based NAVAIDS is enhanced significantly. Ultimately, the FAA intends to replace all ground-based navigation with RNAV procedures. Effects of PBN on Planning and Development at Small Airports NextGen allows better sequencing for aircraft and the ability to route traffic in narrower corridors. High precision GPS technologies also reduce cancellations and diversions. Airports could experience reduced delays from the traffic that would otherwise be diverted. As with enhanced landing systems, PBN could allow some small airports to optimize the capacity of their airfields, thereby reducing delays and deferring capital development costs for new runways. With the improved reliability of aircraft movements, controllers will be able to reduce delay across the entire system and at the local level. (See Table 5-6.) The NextGen systems will allow aircraft to be continuously monitored and tracked via new flight man- agement technologies, therefore increasing situational awareness for both pilots and controllers alike. Aircraft operators may experience a reduction in fuel cost, diversions, aircraft emissions, and aircraft operating expenses as a result of increased efficiency (direct routing) across the NAS. Weather rerout- Table 5-6. PBN application—small airport planning considerations. DESCRIPTION AIRFIELD/ AIRSPACE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENTS OBSTACLE EVALUATION/ OBSTRUCTION MITIGATION PROGRAMS ENVIRONMENTAL (NOISE & AIR QUALITY) AIRPORT CAPITAL PLANNING RNAV Primary Benefits to Small Airports Within a Constrained Airspace System or Obstacle Rich Environment RNP Approaches Limited Benefits to Small Airports Within a Constrained Airspace System

80 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ing will also be improved, air traffic controllers having the ability to open and close departure and arrival routes in real time. Multilateration MLAT is utilized by ASDE-X and WAM systems that enhance aircraft tracking in mountainous terrain and improve coverage and separations services within terminal airspace environs. Although ASDE-X equipment has only been installed at the nation’s busiest airports, MLAT could ultimately support virtual ATCTs, which are currently being evaluated by the FAA and have been adopted in Europe, and virtual ramp control. Therefore, MLAT would benefit certain small airports through the establishment of WAM or the potential development of virtual ATCTs, should they be approved for use in the U.S. by the FAA. The leveraging of MLAT for WAM would be particularly beneficial at airports with airspace that will not require ADS-B Out equipped aircraft. WAM could also support the tracking of aircraft noise events through the use of an ANOMS, where other traditional radar tracking is not available. The use of ASDE-X and virtual ramp control is not applicable at small airports because of cost consider- ations. (See Table 5-7.) WAM has been beneficial to small airports in remote mountainous regions where radar coverage is limited due to the surrounding terrain. Although the installation costs associated with the remote sensors is cheaper than a full radar installation, the establishment of WAM to improve operations in mountainous regions would likely need to benefit multiple airports to be cost effective, which was the case in the case study of the WAM application in the state of Colorado. Each situation would need to be evaluated individually. WAM has also been employed overseas to enhance the tracking of aircraft on independent approaches on closely spaced parallel runways and could be adopted for this type of use in the U.S. Virtual ATCTs have been employed at airports in Europe, and the FAA has recently initiated pilot programs to assess their applicability to airports in the U.S. Should the technology be adopted by the FAA, virtual ATCTs could be employed at airports that currently do not have an ATCT, or to replace other towers at low volume facilities that currently have a contract ATCT. The virtual ATCTs consist of a suite of cameras and remote sensors that includes HD video cameras, a pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) camera, signal light gun, and microphones. Table 5-7. Multilateration application to small airports. DESCRIPTION LIMITED (NONHUB) COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORTS1 NATIONAL/REGIONAL GA AIRPORTS LOCAL/BASIC GA AIRPORTS WAM Potential Benefits to Small Airports in Mountainous Regions or Within the Terminal Airspace of Small Airports Virtual ATCTs FAA May Consider Virtual ATC Towers in the Near Future (Potential Benefit to All Small Airports) ANOMS X X N/A Virtual Ramp Control Not Applicable to Small Airports Surface Movement (ASDE-X) Not Applicable to Small Airports Note: 1Per the NPIAS, limited commercial service airports consist of nonhub airports with less than 0.25 percent share of the annual passenger boarding at U.S. airports (approximately 380,000 enplanements in FY 2014).

Applicability of NextGen to Small Airport Planning and Development | 81 Effects of Multilateration on Planning and Development at Small Airports While MLAT applications in remote areas with mountainous terrain have proved effective for enhanc- ing operational safety, they have also been proven to increase capacity at small airports where the installation of a traditional radar system cannot supply adequate coverage in mountainous terrain. It can also improve the operational safety and capacity of the terminal airspace environs, particularly at airports with closely spaced parallel runways. The capacity benefits would primarily be achieved during periods of low visibility and/or inclement weather. While the remote sensors may not necessarily be installed on the associated airport, there would still be a cost for installation and maintenance. In ad- dition to enhanced operational safety, the primary benefit would be to reduce aircraft diversions. The use of MLAT could also enhance the ability for ANOMS to correlate aircraft noise exposure with actual aircraft operations. (See Table 5-8.) Table 5-8. Multilateration application—small airport planning considerations. DESCRIPTION AIRFIELD/AIRSPACE CAPACITY & SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS ENVIRONMENTAL (NOISE & AIR QUALITY) AIRPORT CAPITAL PLANNING WAM X X Virtual ATCTs X X ANOMS X X Virtual Ramp Control Not Applicable to Small Airports Surface Movement (ASDE-X) Not Applicable to Small Airports The potential implementation of virtual ATCTs could have a marginal benefit on the overall capacity of the airfield. However, operating and capital costs for FAA could be reduced, while also enhancing the development opportunities on the associated airport. The infrastructure associated with virtual ATCTs in Europe typically consists of HD video cameras, a PTZ camera, a signal light gun, and microphones. In addition to eliminating the need to preserve airport property to accommodate a fully functional ATCT, controller line-of-sight impacts could be mitigated, thereby providing greater flexibility to develop other structures on the airfield. However, the siting of cameras and/or remote sensors on the airfield would need to be assessed and identified on the ALP drawings. Surface Operations and Data Sharing Of the various surface operations and data sharing applications, small airports could benefit from LED lighting technologies, ground vehicle tracking, traffic display and analysis systems, and SWIM. Other surface operations and data sharing applications, such as CDM, intelligent routing and guidance sys- tems, and automated docking systems are not applicable at lower-activity airports due to high imple- mentation costs and limited operational benefits. (See Table 5-9.)

82 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Table 5-9. Surface operations and data sharing application to small airports. DESCRIPTION LIMITED (NONHUB) COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORTS1 NATIONAL/REGIONAL GA AIRPORTS LOCAL/BASIC GA AIRPORTS LED Lighting Technology X X X Ground Vehicle Tracking X X X Traffic Display and Analysis Systems X X X SWIM X X X CDM Not Applicable to Small Airports Intelligent Routing and Guidance Systems Not Applicable to Small Airports Automated Docking Systems Not Applicable to Small Airports Notes: 1Per the NPIAS, limited commercial service airports consist of nonhub airports with less than 0.25 percent share of the annual passenger boarding at U.S. airports (approximately 380,000 enplanements in FY 2014). Airports of all sizes have benefitted from the installation of LED lighting technologies on the airfield, particularly for taxiway and runway lighting and signage. Such an installation includes elevated run- way and taxiway edge lights and flush-mounted taxiway centerline and hold bar lights. LED-lighted wind cones and obstruction lights are also viable options for small airports. As with LED PAPIs and ap- proach light systems, the LED lighting technologies may have a higher initial capital investment cost, but total life-cycle costs are lower due to the durability and lower power consumption and reoccurring maintenance costs than traditional lighting systems. The FAA has also approved solar LED technologies for airfield signage, wind cones, runway guard lights, and obstruction lights with wireless controls at small airports. While increased data sharing has enhanced CDM capabilities for movement of traffic on the airfields of large airports, small airports could benefit as well. Ground vehicle tracking systems, coupled with traffic display and analysis systems not only enhance operational safety on the airfield, but also offer airport management and other vehicle operators the ability to track vehicles and equipment on the airfield in real time. While the FAA-supported technology at larger airports having MLAT installations for ground vehicle tracking currently requires expensive certificated ADS-B transponders on each vehicle tracked, smaller airports can benefit from runway incursion warning systems (RIWS) described in AC 150/5210-25. Vehicles equipped with RIWS can be tracked on the airport surface and have the benefit of providing alerts for possible runway incursions. These systems also allow for the mining of historical data to support operational studies and opportunities to enhance operational safety and ef- ficiency on the airfield. If able to leverage the data sharing of surface operations, airport operators would need to be inte- grated with SWIM. This application will primarily consist of airport GIS systems, combined with PBN, ADS-B, Data Comm, and weather data that will serve to reduce system error and increase efficiencies in all domains.

Applicability of NextGen to Small Airport Planning and Development | 83 Effects of Surface Operations and Data Sharing on Planning and Development at Small Airports To leverage the benefits of surface operations and data sharing applications, small airports would need to include the costs of the acquisition of these technologies into their airport capital, operating, and maintenance budgets. The conversion of LED lighting technology should be considered when airfield lighting systems are upgraded or new installations are developed. Ground vehicle tracking and the associated traffic display and analysis systems will also require investment into the associated technolo- gies, including GPS receivers/transmitters, graphics, and database systems. The technologies may also facilitate fleet and equipment planning and management activities by airport management and other vehicle operators. (See Table 5-10.) Surface operations and data sharing at small airports also provide opportunities to improve airport and airfield operational monitoring and vehicle operational data analyses. These data could facilitate facility planning studies, such as detailed traffic studies and defining vehicular staging and storage require- ments. EAs could also leverage the data to conduct air quality analyses and assessments of vehicular traffic noise impacts. As NextGen systems mature, more data will be available to smaller airports and/ or aircraft operators. Table 5-10. Surface operations and data sharing application—small airport planning considerations. DESCRIPTION VEHICULAR OPERATIONAL MONITORING AND DATA ANALYSIS FACILITY PLANNING (TRAFFIC STUDIES AND VEHICLE STORAGE) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (AIR QUALITY/ NOISE ASSESSMENT) AIRPORT CAPITAL, OPERATING, AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET PLANNING LED Lighting Technology X Ground Vehicle Tracking X X X X Traffic Display and Analysis Systems X X X X SWIM X X X Collaborative Decision Making Not Applicable to Small Airports Intelligent Routing and Guidance Systems Not Applicable to Small Airports Automated Docking Systems Not Applicable to Small Airports Wake Turbulence Recategorization—Single Runway Operations As previously described, the FAA’s Wake RECAT separation standards are being implemented in three phases. Prior to the implementation of Phase I in 2014, aircraft wake turbulence classifications were based strictly on aircraft weight. The FAA’s Wake RECAT efforts are now focused on actual wake tur- bulence characteristics generated by each specific aircraft type. Phase I included the classification of each aircraft type into one of six wake turbulence categories and adjusted the minimum separations between aircraft arrivals and/or departures accordingly. Phase II will ultimately establish wake turbu- lence separate criteria for individual aircraft-type pairs, in lieu of the six-category classification system established for Phase I.

84 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Since wake turbulence hazards are greater with heavy aircraft, the recategorization of wake turbu- lence separation standards are much more beneficial at large airports than small airports. In fact, the direct benefits associated with Phase I Wake RECAT at small airports have mostly been limited to those airports that also serve significant volumes of Heavy jet and B757 aircraft that produce signifi- cant wake turbulence hazards. Due to the complexities associated with the planned establishment of aircraft wake turbulence separations by individual aircraft types, it is anticipated that Phase II would be adopted at more congested airports that need to optimize the capacity of the airfield and/or airspace. In addition to some of the limited (nonhub) commercial service airport airports, Wake RECAT Phase II could benefit some GA airports with a high concentration of large corporate jet aircraft operations. Smaller GA and utility airports are not anticipated to benefit directly from wake turbulence recategori- zation. (See Table 5-11.) Table 5-11. Wake RECAT application to small airports. DESCRIPTION LIMITED (NONHUB) COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORTS1 NATIONAL/REGIONAL GA AIRPORTS LOCAL/BASIC GA AIRPORTS RECAT Phase I Limited to Non- Hub Airports That Serve Heavy Aircraft Operations or Part of a System of Airports with a Significant Share of Heavy Aircraft Operations in the Terminal Airspace Potential Benefit to General Aviation Airports That Are Part of a System of Airports with a Significant Share of Heavy Aircraft Operations in the Terminal Airspace RECAT Phase II Potential Benefit to Small Airports That Are Congested or Part of a System of Airports with Congested Terminal Airspace Notes: 1Per the NPIAS, limited commercial service airports consist of nonhub airports with less than 0.25 percent share of the annual passenger boarding at U.S. airports (approximately 380,000 enplanements in FY 2014). Effects of Wake RECAT on Planning and Development at Small Airports For small airports that may benefit from Wake RECAT, the capacity of the airfield could be enhanced, thereby reducing aircraft operational delays and potentially deferring the need for other capital im- provements necessary to enhance the capacity of the airfield. Given the relatively low risks associated with the wake turbulence generated by GA and small regional passenger aircraft, the overall benefits of Wake RECAT are likely to be marginal at small airports and difficult to quantify or factor into airport planning analyses. Another factor that can limit the achievable benefits of Wake RECAT is the presence of departure airspace restrictions that limit the number of departure headings possible at an airport. These departure airspace restrictions could be due either to noise abatement procedures or surround- ing obstacles or terrain. (See Table 5-12.) Table 5-12. Wake RECAT application—small airport planning considerations. DESCRIPTION AIRFIELD/AIRSPACE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL (NOISE & AIR QUALITY) AIRPORT CAPITAL PLANNING RECAT Phase I Marginal Benefits and Difficult to Quantify RECAT Phase II Marginal Benefits and Difficult to Quantify

Applicability of NextGen to Small Airport Planning and Development | 85 Dependent Runway Operations NextGen offers the ability to enhance the airfield capacity of airports with multiple runways through wake turbulence avoidance and/or potential changes in the minimum separation standards for aircraft landing on parallel runways during IMC. Wake turbulence avoidance procedures could benefit small airports with either intersecting or closely spaced parallel runways (<2,500 feet of lateral separation). As with single runway operations, however, the application of wake turbulence avoidance procedures would be extremely limited for small airports, primarily benefiting only those airports that may serve Heavy jet and B757 aircraft operations. (See Table 5-13.) Although NextGen provides additional opportunities to enhance instrument operations on closely spaced parallel runways, their application at small airports is also limited. This is primarily due to the limited number of small airports configured with parallel runways served by instrument approach pro- cedures, the additional technological requirements such as high-resolution color monitoring displays necessary to support reduced aircraft separation, and the controller staffing and training requirements. The financial feasibility of enhancing instrument operations on closely spaced parallel runways at small airports with low occurrences of IMC would also be difficult to demonstrate. Table 5-13. Dependent runway application to small airports. DESCRIPTION LIMITED (NONHUB) COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORTS1 NATIONAL/REGIONAL GA AIRPORTS LOCAL/BASIC GA AIRPORTS Wake Turbulence Avoidance Procedures Parallel Runways (<2,500’ Spacing) Limited to Small Airports That May Serve Heavy Aircraft Operations N/A Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Departures (Upwind Runways) Limited to Small Airports That May Serve Heavy Aircraft Operations N/A Enhanced Instrument Operations—CSPO Dual Independent Parallel Operations (>3,600’ Spacing) Limited to Small Airports with Closely Spaced Parallel Runways Served by Precision Instrument Approach Procedures N/A Dual Dependent Parallel Operations (2,500’–3,600’) Limited to Small Airports with Closely Spaced Parallel Runways Served by Precision Instrument Approach Procedures N/A Triple Dependent Parallel Operations (>3,900’ Spacing) N/A to Small Airports Dual Independent Parallel Operations with Offset (>3,000’ Spacing) N/A to Small Airports Dependent Parallel Operations (>4,300’ Spacing) N/A to Small Airports RPAT N/A to Small Airports Notes: 1Per the NPIAS, limited commercial service airports consist of nonhub airports with less than 0.25 percent share of the annual passenger boarding at U.S. airports (approximately 380,000 enplanements in FY 2014).

86 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Small airports with dual parallel runways and a lateral separation between 2,500 feet and 4,300 feet would have the best opportunity to improve arrival capacity during IMC. Through the use of high- resolution color monitoring displays with alert algorithms (i.e., FMA), the minimum lateral separation between dual parallel runways operating with simultaneous arrivals can be reduced from 4,300 feet to 3,600 feet with today’s surveillance radar. Although aircraft arrivals to parallel runways with a lateral separation between 2,500 feet and 3,600 feet would still be dependent, NextGen also offers the ability to enhance dependent parallel (staggered) instrument approach procedures by reducing the diagonal separation between arriving aircraft, thereby enhancing the arrival capacity of the airfield during IMC. Other instrument approach enhancements, such as triple dependent/independent parallel operations, dual independent operations with offset approaches, and RPAT, are not likely to be employed at small airports. Effects of Dependent Runway Operations on Planning and Development at Small Airports For small airports that may benefit from wake turbulence avoidance procedures or reduced aircraft and/or runway separation standards for instrument approaches to closely spaced parallel runways, the capacity of the airfield could be increased. Such procedures would reduce aircraft operational delays and potentially defer the timing and the need for other capital improvements necessary to enhance the capacity of the airfield. These enhancements could also reduce aircraft flight paths on arrival and aircraft hold times for departure. (See Table 5-14.) Given the relatively low risks associated with the wake turbulence generated by GA and small regional passenger aircraft, the overall benefits of wake turbulence avoidance procedures are likely to be mar- ginal at small airports and difficult to quantify or factor into airport planning analyses. However, the potential reduction in minimum separation between aircraft arrivals on closely spaced parallel runways during IMC may allow the implementation of closely spaced parallel runways and provide either more efficient independent or dependent parallel operations that could not otherwise have been provided within the available space. To be effective, however, the parallel runways would need to be served by precision instrument approach procedures with vertical guidance. This could include ILS approaches, RNAV/RNP approaches, or RNAV (GPS) approaches such as LPV approaches. As with large airports, the recent and potential changes in the rules for the minimum spacing between parallel runways required for dependent or independent approaches, and the types of instrument approach procedures that can use such parallel runways, could open up new opportunities at small 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 airport facilities between those runways and also how the new capabilities could affect noise exposure in the surrounding communities and operations at other nearby airports. ADS-B In Although a timetable has not yet been established for ADS-B In procedures, the FAA does have a time- table for replacing its current radar aircraft surveillance systems with satellite-based systems utilizing ADS-B Out technologies. While the FAA is requiring all aircraft operating within controlled airspace or within 30 miles of certain airports to be equipped with ADS-B Out by 2020, no mandate or deadline has been set for requiring the ADS-B In option, which would provide aircraft operators with access to traffic, weather, and other advisory information. The TIS-B primarily benefits GA aircraft, while the FIS- B benefits all aircraft types that are equipped with ADS-B In. Although there is no current mandate to equip aircraft with ADS-B In capabilities, ADS-B will be required for aircraft flying in Class A, B, and C

Applicability of NextGen to Small Airport Planning and Development | 87 airspace, around busy airports, and above 10,000 feet, which will open up opportunities for develop- ing improved procedures because of ADS-B’s much greater accuracy compared with today’s conven- tional radar surveillance systems. Effects of ADS-B In on Airport Planning and Development The primary benefit of ADS-B In is to enhance operational safety both in flight and on the ground. Air- craft equipped with ADS-B In equipment, and associated cockpit displays of traffic, weather, and other advisories, can maintain uniform separation from other aircraft, thus potentially increasing the capacity of the airfield at airports without radar surveillance systems. However, the capacity benefits would be marginal and difficult to quantify. Table 5-14. Dependent runway application—small airport planning considerations. DESCRIPTION AIRFIELD/ AIRSPACE CAPACITY ENHANCEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL (NOISE & AIR QUALITY) AIRPORT CAPITAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Wake Turbulence Avoidance Procedures Parallel Runways (<2,500’ Spacing) Limited to Small Airports that May Serve Heavy Aircraft Operations N/A Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Departures (Upwind Runways) Limited to Small Airports that May Serve Heavy Aircraft Operations N/A Enhanced Instrument Operations—CSPO Dual Independent Parallel Operations (>3,600’ Spacing) X X X X Dual Dependent Parallel Operations (2,500’–3,600’) X X X X Triple Dependent Parallel Operations (>3,900’ Spacing) N/A to Small Airports Dual Independent Parallel Operations with Offset (>3,000’ Spacing) N/A to Small Airports Dependent Parallel Operations (>4,300’ Spacing) N/A to Small Airports RPAT N/A to Small Airports