Graduate Research Award Program on Public-Sector Aviation Issues Update: 2008–2013 (2013)

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.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration January 2014 Responsible Senior Program Officer: Lawrence D. Goldstein INTRODUCTION An original FAA-sponsored, TRB- administered Graduate Research Award Program on Public-Sector Aviation Issues began during the 1986–1987 academic year and continued through 1995–1996. At that time, funds were discontinued and the program was allowed to end. In mid- 2007, the program was reintroduced within ACRP beginning with the 2008–2009 aca- demic year, and ACRP funds were allo- cated to accommodate up to ten annual, individual awards of $10,000 each.1 The program emphasized that research should be problem-solving and practical, applica- ble to airports, and useful to airport opera- 1FAA has elected to fund more than ten awards in some years. GRADUATE RESEARCH AWARD PROGRAM ON PUBLIC-SECTOR AVIATION ISSUES UPDATE: 2008–2013 This digest summarizes the results of the Graduate Research Award Program on Public-Sector Aviation Issues (ACRP Project 11-04). This program, spon- sored by the FAA and administered by the ACRP, is designed to encourage applied research on airport-related aviation system issues and to foster the next generation of aviation community leaders. Under the program, up to ten awards of $10,000 each are made to full-time graduate students for suc- cessful completion of a research paper on public-sector airport-related avia- tion issues during the academic year. Candidates must be full-time students enrolled in a graduate degree program at a North American accredited insti- tution of higher learning during the academic year. Successful papers are pre- sented at the TRB Annual Meeting following completion of the program, and exceptional papers have been published in subsequent volumes of the Trans- portation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. This digest provides initial information for the 2013–2014 academic year, includes abstracts for student papers from the 2012–2013 and 2011–2012 academic years, and lists papers from prior academic years beginning in 2008–2009. Abstracts for the earlier papers are available in ACRP RRD 14, which may be accessed online at www.trb.org. Research Results Digest 19 C O N T E N T S Introduction, 1 Academic Year 2013–2014, 3 Academic Year 2012–2013, 4 Papers Scheduled for Publication, 2012–2013, 5 Academic Year 2011–2012, 9 Published Papers 2011–2012, 10 Academic Year 2010–2011, 14 Academic Year 2009–2010, 15 Academic Year 2008–2009, 16 Appendix: Program Participants, 17 tors and other airport and aviation industry participants. Since 2008, to help implement and manage the reinstituted program, a panel of ten experts has included individuals representing the academic world, airport operators, research specialists, private airport/aviation consultants, aircraft man- ufacturers, FAA liaisons, and state avia- tion experts. The composition of the panel may change as individuals rotate and new members join as replacements. Because panel members’ expertise cannot be all- encompassing, it was recognized from the outset that additional assistance might be necessary to cover review of topic areas outside of the particular experience of the panel members. Thus, each year, in addi- tion to selection of proposals, the panel

2identifies and recruits mentors to assist oversee- ing the students’ research. Mentor participation has proved to be an important asset of the program. From the beginning, a broad approach to air- port and aviation research was incorporated into the program design to meet the objective of stimulating future participation by graduate students in the field. Areas of interest were identified to guide the initial selection of candidates and continue to frame the program. In general, research completed under the program is expected to • attract the interest of U.S. airport managers and operators; • address problems that are shared by airport operating agencies but are not adequately addressed by current research efforts, with applied research including problems that air- port operators experience but cannot easily solve on their own; • address broad analytical areas, such as airport development, capital investment, demand fore- casting, safety planning, environmental issues, airline/airport interaction, operational and insti- tutional issues and analyses to help inform pol- icy and decision making; • address airport/airspace system issues, with an emphasis on improving system performance, safety, and security; and • build on existing research, such as previously completed ACRP research reports that raise additional issues not funded by the completed research efforts. Via an open call for proposals, students enrolled in a full-time graduate program leading to a degree in a subject related to airports and aviation are invited to submit applications. Students are encouraged to select a research topic that will contribute to com- pletion of their degree requirements. A detailed application form is offered through the TRB web- site. Submission requirements include details about the student’s background; long-term career goals; writing samples; past academic achievements; and, of major importance, recommendations from academic advisors and others familiar with the student’s work. In 2008, solicitation of applications began during the spring, with the first group of students selected early that summer. Subsequent program solicitations have begun early each calendar year, with submis- sions due in late spring. Selections are made dur- ing the summer, in time for program initiation with the beginning of each new academic year. Student participants are invited to attend the TRB Annual Meeting. In the years since the program reemerged, 61 students have participated representing 38 differ- ent universities (Table 1). Table 1 Universities represented in the Graduate Research Award Program since 2008. 1. Arizona State University 2. Carnegie Mellon University 3. Cranfield University–Bedfordshire, United Kingdom 4. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 5. George Mason University 6. Georgia Institute of Technology 7. Harvard University 8. Johns Hopkins University 9. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 10. Mississippi State University 11. Missouri University of Science and Technology 12. Northcentral University 13. Oregon State University 14. Purdue University 15. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale 16. Stanford University 17. Texas A&M University 18. Texas State University, San Marcos 19. The George Washington University 20. The University of Oklahoma 21. University of Arkansas 22. University of California, Berkeley 23. University of California, Irvine 24. University of California, San Diego 25. University of Connecticut 26. University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign 27. University of Maryland, College Park 28. University of North Dakota 29. University of Pennsylvania 30. University of South Florida 31. University of Tennessee, Knoxville 32. University of Texas at Austin 33. University of Toledo 34. Utah State University 35. Vanderbilt University 36. Villanova University 37. Wake Forest University School of Law 38. Washington University in St. Louis

3ACADEMIC YEAR 2013–2014 Applications for the academic year 2013–2014 were due in May 2013. Thirty-seven submissions were received from students representing 28 differ- ent universities. The applicant pool included 30 PhD candidates and 7 master’s degree candidates. The selection panel met in Washington, D.C., for 2 days in August to evaluate the submittals. Ten applicants were selected, each of whom will receive a stipend of $10,000 for successful completion of a research paper on the subject chosen by the applicant (Table 2). At publication of this Research Results Digest, students were preparing the initial scopes of work to guide their research throughout the academic year. Following submission, completed papers will once again be considered for presentation at the TRB Annual Meeting and outstanding papers will be con- sidered for publication in an upcoming volume of the Transportation Research Record. The program has recently initiated a process to sur- vey past student participants, panelists, mentors, and student advisors to determine how many students have continued in the field of aviation, where they are work- ing, and what positions they currently hold. The first step in that process was completed in late 2012/early 2013 and resulted in a summary of current positions and status of more than 40 past student participants. At that time, status ranged from continuing to com- plete graduate degrees to serving as assistant profes- sors, working in airport operation, serving in the legal profession, and other broad disciplines. In the future, this outreach effort will also include steps to expand knowledge of the program at universities that sponsor graduate research in aviation and related fields. Table 2 Research papers selected for academic year 2013–2014. Student Degree Research Topic University Sarah-Blythe Ballard PhD Air shows in the U.S.: Airport safety and crash epidemiology, 1993–2012 Johns Hopkins University Sophine Clachar PhD Identifying and Analyzing Atypical Flights Using Supervised and Unsupervised Approaches University of North Dakota Tara Conkling PhD Factors Affecting Wildlife Non-Identification Rates in Aviation Strike Reporting Mississippi State University Jeffrey J. Eloff PhD Airport Infrastructure Investment: Strategic Interaction or Strategic Allocation? University of Toledo Makarand Gawade PhD Airport Users’ Perception Towards “Remote and Virtual” Control Towers at Small Airports University of South Florida Maria Chiara Guercio PhD Quantifying the Performance of Energy- Conscious Materials in Flexible Airfield Pavements Villanova Jaime A. Hernandez-Urrea PhD Airfield Pavement Response Due to Heavy- Aircraft Takeoff: Advanced Modeling for Gear Interaction Consideration University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Evan D. Humphries Master’s An Evaluation of Pavement Preservation and Maintenance Activities at Small- and Medium-Sized Airports in Texas: Current Practices, Perceived Effectiveness, Costs, and Planning Texas State University, San Marcos Paulos Ashebir Lakew PhD Airport Traffic and Metropolitan Economies: Determinants of Passenger and Cargo Traffic University of California, Irvine Richard Penn Master’s A Comparison of Airlines’ Real- Time Flight Delay and Cancellation Notifications Georgia Institute of Technology

4ACADEMIC YEAR 2012–2013 Applications for the academic year 2012–2013 were due in May 2012. Thirty-eight submissions were received from students representing 28 dif- ferent universities. The applicant pool included 29 PhD candidates and 9 master’s degree candi- dates. The selection panel met in Washington, D.C., for 2 days in the summer to evaluate the submittals. Ten applicants were selected, each of whom would receive a stipend of $10,000 for successful comple- tion of a research paper on the subject chosen by the applicant (Table 3). Table 3 Research papers selected for academic year 2012–2013. Student Degree Research Topic University Derek Doran PhD An Analytic Model of Airport Security Checkpoint Screening Times University of Connecticut Benjamin Jeffry Goodheart PhD Identification of Causal Paths and Prediction of Runway Incursion Risk Using Bayesian Belief Networks Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Susan L. Hotle PhD The Role of Competitor Pricing on Multi-Airport Choice Georgia Institute of Technology Alexandre Jacquillat PhD Congestion Mitigation at JFK: The Potential of Schedule Coordination Massachusetts Institute of Technology James C. Jones Jr. PhD Methods for Curbing the Exemption Bias in Ground Delay Programs Through Speed Control University of Maryland, College Park Yi-Hsin Lin Master’s Prediction of Terminal-Area Weather Penetration Based on Operational Factors Massachusetts Institute of Technology Yi Liu PhD Ground Delay Program Performance Evaluation University of California, Berkeley Parth Vaishnav PhD Low-Hanging Fruit? The Costs and Benefits of Reducing Fuel Burn and Emissions from Taxiing Aircraft Carnegie Mellon University Thomas A. Wall PhD Exploring the Use of Egocentric Online Social Network Data to Characterize Individual Air Travel Behavior Georgia Institute of Technology Amber Woodburn PhD Airport Capacity Enhancement and Flight Predictability University of Pennsylvania (current); University of Tennessee, Knoxville (former)

5PAPERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLICATION 2012–2013 At publication of this Research Results Digest, final versions of papers submitted in September 2012 have been reviewed and accepted for publication in the Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2400. Papers are now undergoing final edits and will be published in early 2014. The following copy presents abstracts for the candidate papers. For each paper, the names that follow the lead (student) author represent the student’s academic advisers and others who made specific contributions to the paper. 1. An Analytic Model of Airport Security Checkpoint Screening Times Derek Doran, Swapna Gokhale, and Nicholas Lownes Abstract. Security checkpoints at airports across the United States are essential to prevent passen- gers from boarding airplanes with dangerous weap- ons, explosives, and other threats, but the multiple screening technologies and different speeds of pas- sengers lead to unpredictable and sometimes long waiting times. Security agencies and airport man- agers must thus find ways to minimize checkpoint screening times without compromising the security of aviation transportation. This paper introduces an analytic model that derives the distribution of comple- tion times for passengers through a security checkpoint given its architecture, passenger profiles, and expected service times at different checkpoint components. By varying the model’s parameters and checkpoint archi- tecture, security agencies and airport managers can quickly understand how the end-to-end completion times of passengers are affected by policy changes and checkpoint reconfigurations. The model can also be used to forecast the performance of future checkpoint architectures utilizing new components and policies. The utility of the model is demonstrated by analyzing a prototypical security checkpoint. 2. Identification of Causal Paths and Prediction of Runway Incursion Risk Using Bayesian Belief Networks Benjamin Jeffry Goodheart Abstract. In the United States and worldwide, run- way incursions are acknowledged as a critical con- cern for aviation safety. Nonetheless, the rate at which these events occur in the United States has steadily risen. Analyses of runway incursion causation have been made, but these are frequently limited to discrete events and do not address the dynamic interactions that lead to breaches of runway safety. This paper emphasizes the need for cross-domain methods of causation analysis applied to runway incursions in the United States. A holistic modeling technique using Bayesian belief networks to inter- pret causation in the presence of sparse data is out- lined, with intended application at the systems level. Further, the importance of investigating runway incursions probabilistically and incorporating infor- mation from human factors and technological and organizational perspectives is supported. A method for structuring Bayesian networks using quantita- tive and qualitative event analysis in conjunction with structured expert probability estimation is outlined and results are presented for propagation of evidence through the model as well as causal analysis. The model provides a dynamic, inferen- tial platform for future evaluation of runway incur- sion causation. The results in part confirm what is known about runway incursion causation, but more importantly they shed light on multifaceted causal interactions in a modeling space that allows causal inference and evaluation of changes to the system in a dynamic setting. Suggestions for future research are discussed, most prominent of which is that this model allows for robust and flexible assessment of mitigation strategies within a holistic model of run- way safety. 3. The Role of Competitor Pricing on Multi-Airport Choice Susan L. Hotle and Laurie A. Garrow Abstract. This paper investigates how competitors’ low fare offerings in multi-airport regions influence customers’ online search behavior at a major car- rier’s website. Clickstream data from a major U.S. airline is combined with detailed information about competitors’ low fare offerings for 10 directional markets. A truncated negative binomial model was used to predict the number of searches on the carri- er’s website as a function of low fare offerings in the same airport pair, as well as competing airport pairs in the region. The number of searches was found to decrease as the difference between the carrier’s lowest fare and competitors’ lowest fare increases.

6Trip characteristics, however, were found to have a larger impact on search behavior than the fare vari- ables. Overall searches on the carrier’s website were limited, with less than 5% of customers searching for fares across multiple airports. The findings pro- vide insights into the role of competitor pricing on multi-airport choice, as it relates to customers’ online search behaviors. 4. Congestion Mitigation at JFK: The Potential of Schedule Coordination Alexandre Jacquillat and Amedeo R. Odoni Abstract. With the large growth in air traffic expe- rienced over past decades, airport capacity has become an increasingly costly constraint. Flight delays reached record-high levels in 2007, with a nationwide impact estimated at over $30 billion for that calendar year. At airports where capacity expan- sion and improvements in operational efficiency are not feasible, congestion could be mitigated in the short- and medium-term through the implementa- tion of schedule coordination mechanisms. Such measures essentially reduce peak-hour scheduling levels. On the other hand, they have also been criti- cized for the constraints they might create on airline scheduling. This paper presents a schedule coordi- nation model that reduces flight delays while mini- mizing interference with airlines’ scheduling, then applies the model to one of the most congested U.S. airports, John F. Kennedy (JFK) International Air- port. The analysis suggests that it may be possible to reduce peak arrival and departure delays by over 30% and 50%, respectively, without eliminating any flights, any aircraft connections, and any passenger connections, and without modifying the scheduled time of any flight by more than 30 minutes. This underscores the potential of schedule coordination as a means of achieving substantial congestion cost savings at the busiest U.S. airports. The paper dis- cusses the opportunities and challenges associated with the implementation of such a mechanism. 5. Methods for Curbing the Exemption Bias in Ground Delay Programs Through Speed Control James C. Jones and David J. Lovell Abstract. Ground delay programs allow flights originating beyond a specified distance to become exempt from any delay imposed by the program. This exemption leads to a biased allocation that favors longer flights over shorter flights and alters an otherwise fair allocation. This paper presents two algorithms to reduce the exemption bias through speed control. The first algorithm attempts to assign the maximum possible delay achievable through speed control to the exempt flights. The second algo- rithm begins by prescribing the maximum possible delay to exempt flights but works to improve on this allocation by acting to fill holes in the schedule with speed controlled exempt flights whenever possible. Both algorithms demonstrated considerable delay transfer relative to distance-based ration-by-schedule; however, the second algorithm also revealed some ability to improve throughput. 6. Prediction of Terminal-Area Weather Penetration Based on Operational Factors Yi-Hsin Lin and Hamsa Balakrishnan Abstract. Convective weather is known to reduce airspace capacity, but the extent of the impact is not well understood. Understanding how weather impacts terminal area capacity is essential for quanti- fying the uncertainty in weather forecasts, determin- ing how accurately the weather needs to be forecast for developing an optimal mitigation strategy. Prior research has focused on the overlap between con- vective weather cells and air routes, but has not sufficiently analyzed the differences that arise due to factors such as aircraft types and pilot behavior. This paper examines the interactions between con- vective weather and aircraft trajectories in the arrival airspace surrounding Chicago O’Hare International Airport. Case studies based on operational data are used to determine potentially relevant operational factors, and a predictive model is built using these factors to forecast if a flight will pass through hazard- ous weather. The results of the analysis suggest that these operational factors are secondary compared to the weather itself in determining whether a pilot will deviate from or penetrate hazardous weather. 7. Ground Delay Program Performance Evaluation Yi Liu and Mark Hansen Abstract. GDPs are frequently used to keep the U.S. air transportation system safe and efficient. Most previous research on GDPs has focused

7on optimal design and implementation but retro- spective performance evaluation has garnered little attention. This research fills this gap by identify- ing GDP performance criteria, developing associ- ated performance metrics, and evaluating the GDP performance metrics across airports and over time. GDP performance criteria are established and asso- ciated performance metrics are specified for five performance goals: capacity utilization, efficiency, predictability, equity and flexibility. By defining multiple performance metrics, this research enables FAA traffic managers and flight operators to review GDP performance after the fact in a comprehensive way and uncover GDP performance trends across airports and over time. Using ADL and ASPM data, historical GDP performance is assessed for SFO and EWR for 2006 and 2011. For both air- ports, capacity utilization and efficiency scores are high, on average, reflecting the importance that the FAA and flight operator community attach to mak- ing effective use of available capacity and keeping air transport efficient and safe. In contrast, predict- ability performance is weaker and more variable. Lack of consensus on how predictability should be measured or valued could have diminished the importance of predictability in GDP decision mak- ing. On average, SFO GDPs have higher capacity utilization and predictability, whereas EWR GDPs are more efficient, equitable, and flexible. Compar- ing results for 2006 and 2011, GDPs were found to be more predictable, but capacity was less effec- tively utilized in the later year. 8. Low-Hanging Fruit? The Costs and Benefits of Reducing Fuel Burn and Emissions from Taxiing Aircraft Parth Vaishnav Abstract. Aircraft are powered by their main engines while taxiing. This paper estimates the cost and emissions reductions that could be achieved by using tugs, or an electric motor embedded in the landing gear, to propel the aircraft on the ground. The use of tugs would result in a savings of $20 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions avoided, if the measure were adopted for all domestic flights. Estimates of average net savings for airlines vary from $100 per flight at JFK to a loss of $160 per flight at Honolulu. Electric taxi would save between $30 and $240 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions avoided. Either approach could reduce carbon dioxide emissions from domestic flights in the United States by about 1.5 million tonnes each year, or about 1.1% of the total emissions in 2006. If the switch were limited to large narrowbody aircraft on domestic service at the busiest airports in the United States, the total reduction in emissions would be 0.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, accompanied by a sav- ings of $100 per tonne. Air quality benefits associated with lower main engine use were monetized using the Air Pollution Emission Experiments and Policy (APEEP) model, and ranged from over $500 per flight in the New York area to just over $20 per flight in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The analysis also demon- strates that emissions reductions from different inter- ventions (e.g., single-engine taxi and the use of tugs) are often not independent of each other, and therefore cannot be combined in a simple way. 9. Exploring the Use of Egocentric Online Social Network Data to Characterize Individual Air Travel Behavior Thomas A. Wall, Gregory S. Macfarlane, and Kari Edison Watkins Abstract. The rapid growth of online social network- ing over the past decade has generated tremendous amounts of data about individuals and their social relationships. Recent research studies investigating social relationships and travel behavior have sought connections between individuals’ social networks and social-related travel; however, the authors’ review of the literature revealed none that has pur- sued the use of online social networking data to do so. This paper explores the use of online social net- work data in characterizing individuals’ air travel behavior. Data were collected using a web-based survey that gathered information about individuals’ air travel history and online social network informa- tion, specifically participants’ Facebook networks. The data were then analyzed to address a series of hypotheses about the association between online social network characteristics (specifically Face- book) and air travel behavior; in particular, travel distance, leisure-related travel, and trip generation. This study found a positive relationship between the size and distribution of individuals’ Facebook social networks and their engagement in air travel, and also the odds that their air travel would be leisure-related or include a leisure component.

810. Airport Capacity Enhancement and Flight Predictability Amber Woodburn and Megan Ryerson Abstract. Justifications for airport capacity enhance- ments are often framed in terms of delay reductions, but improvements to flight predictability also offer substantial benefit to the health of the aviation sys- tem. This paper defines predictability as block time adherence and measured as the difference between scheduled and actual block time. This research quantifies, using historical data, the impact of one airport’s infrastructure capacity enhancement on flight predictability. A case study utilizing statistical methodologies, including cluster analysis of NAS days and quantile regression of flights, was used to identify how deployment of the fifth runway at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport impacted arrival flight predictability. In four sce- narios, defined according to the level of national airspace strain and terminal airspace weather disrup- tion, inclusion of the fifth runway in the runway con- figuration was associated with either predictability improvement or predictability degradation. If broad gains are to be made in predictability improvements for the national airspace, then capacity enhance- ments may offer a limited contribution to what must be a multifaceted solution.

9ACADEMIC YEAR 2011–2012 Applications for the academic year 2011–2012 were due in May 2011. Thirty-one submissions were received from students representing 24 differ- ent universities. The applicant pool included 21 PhD candidates and 10 master’s degree candidates. The selection panel met in Washington, D.C., for 2 days in late July to evaluate the submittals. Eleven appli- cants were selected, each of whom would receive a stipend of $10,000 for successful completion of a research paper on the subject chosen by the appli- cant. For the first time, one stipend was shared by two students who were working together on one study. Completed papers were considered for presen- tation at the TRB Annual Meeting, and outstanding papers were selected for publication in the Transpor- tation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta- tion Research Board, No. 2325 (Table 4). Table 4 Research papers selected for academic year 2011–2012. Student Degree Research Paper University Sakib bin Salam Master’s Is There Still a Southwest Effect? Oregon State University Kristin Biondi Master’s Behavioral Traits and Airport Type Affecting Mammal Incidents with U.S. Civil Aircraft Mississippi State University Yi Cao PhD Benefit and Trade-Off Analysis of Continuous Descent Approach in Normal Traffic Conditions Purdue University Stephen Feinberg PhD Dispersion Modeling of Lead Emissions from Piston Engine Aircraft at General Aviation Facilities Washington University in St. Louis Donald Katz PhD Depeaking Schedules: Beneficial for Airports and Airlines? Georgia Institute of Technology Fabrice Kunzi PhD Reduction of Collisions Between Aircraft and Surface Vehicles: Conflict Alerting on Airport Surfaces Enabled by Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast Massachusetts Institute of Technology Stephen Remias and Alexander Hainen* PhD PhD Leveraging Probe Data to Assess Security Checkpoint Wait Times Purdue University Clayton Stambaugh Master’s Social Media and Primary Commercial Service Airports Southern Illinois University Prem Swaroop PhD Consensus-Building Mechanism for Setting Service Expectations in Air Traffic Flow Management University of Maryland Kleoniki Vlachou PhD Mechanisms for Equitable Resource Allocation When Airspace Capacity Is Reduced University of Maryland *Shared award

10 PUBLISHED PAPERS 2011–2012 Ten student papers from the 2011–2012 aca- demic year were published in the Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2325. The following copy presents abs tracts for the published papers. For each paper, the names that follow the lead (student) author represent the student’s academic advisors and others who made specific contributions to the paper 1. Is There Still a Southwest Effect? Sakib bin Salam and B. Starr McMullen Abstract. The U.S. airline industry is in a period of consolidation through mergers between lead- ing carriers. A number of recent mergers have been approved by the Antitrust Division of the Depart- ment of Justice (DOJ), in part because of the pres- ence of Southwest Airlines in the affected markets. In its approval of the mergers, DOJ makes a key assumption that Southwest is unresponsive in its pricing strategy to the reduced competition when its competitors merge. Numerous studies have vali- dated the so-called Southwest effect, through which potential or actual entry into a market by Southwest Airlines is associated with lower market fares. How- ever, considerably less work has examined South- west’s postentry pricing strategies. This study finds that Southwest raised fares more between 2005 and 2010 in markets affected by the Delta–Northwest and US Airways–America West mergers than in other markets. Southwest’s fares either decreased or rose by less when the company was facing direct or adjacent competition from a low-cost carrier (LCC). DOJ’s approval of Southwest’s merger with AirTran, its biggest LCC competitor and strongest deterrent to raising fares in merger-affected markets, raises questions about Southwest’s ability to continue as a suitable deterrent to postmerger fare hikes, particu- larly in the absence of other LCCs in those markets. 2. Behavioral Traits and Airport Type Affecting Mammal Incidents with U.S. Civil Aircraft Kristin M. Biondi Abstract. Wildlife incidents with aircraft are esti- mated to have cost the U.S. civil aviation industry more than $1.4 billion in damages and lost revenue from 1990 to 2009. Mammal incidents are five times as likely to cause damage as other wildlife incidents. The behavioral traits, the size of mammal species, and the differences in mammal management techniques may produce incident variation. The FAA National Wildlife Strike database (1990 to 2010) was used to characterize and analyze these incidents by airport type: Part 139 certified (certificated) and general avi- ation (GA). Relative hazard scores were generated for the species most frequently involved in incidents on the basis of damage and effect on flight. Incidents were found to be most frequent in October (n = 215) at certificated airports and in November (n = 111) at GA airports, but more incidents were reported in August (n = 310) at all airports. Most (63.2%) incidents at all airports (n = 1,523) occurred at night, but the great- est incident rate occurred at dusk (177.3 incidents per hour). Certificated airports had more than twice as many incidents as GA airports and other airports, but more incidents with damage (n = 1,594) occurred at GA airports (38.6%) than at certificated airports (19.0%) or other airports (n = 1.76%). Overall, the relative hazard score increased with increasing log body mass. From these findings, it is recommended that biologists evaluate mammal species on airport grounds on the basis of aircraft hazard information provided here and consider prioritizing management strategies that emphasize reducing the occurrence of species on airport property. 3. Benefit and Trade-Off Analysis of Continuous Descent Approach in Normal Traffic Conditions Yi Cao, Daniel DeLaurentis, and Dengfeng Sun Abstract. The continuous descent approach (CDA) has long been known as a fuel-efficient procedure because it eliminates level flights at low altitudes. However, many studies that examine fuel savings fail to consider the increased separation uncertainties that accompany CDA and that may cause extra fuel consumption for safe spacing. This study evaluates the fuel benefits of CDA at Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia and takes into account the delays that result from conflict resolutions. Fuel burn is estimated by using a corrected thrust-specific fuel consumption model that is designed specially for descent. The conflict-free CDAs are determined in such a way that total arrival delays are minimized in each look-ahead time window. Resultant delays

11 are converted to speed advisory or air-holding com- mands executed in cruise phase to account for the impact of increased separations in CDAs. The fuel consumption of CDA is compared with that of real step-down trajectories extracted from radar track data. Results show that executing CDA to avoid con- flicts does not guarantee fuel savings for individual arriving flights, but overall fuel consumption at the airport is reduced. The estimated fuel savings is less than that observed in the terminal airspace only because deconfliction entails extra fuel consumption for delay absorption beyond the immediate terminal airspace. 4. Dispersion Modeling of Lead Emissions from Piston Engine Aircraft at General Aviation Facilities Stephen N. Feinberg and Jay R. Turner Abstract. In 2008, the national ambient air qual- ity standard (NAAQS) for lead was tightened by an order of magnitude. General aviation is now the largest source of lead emitted to the atmosphere. The accuracy of modeled lead impacts from general aviation airports is unclear because of uncertainties in both emissions estimation and dispersion mod- eling. Aviation industry and environmental policy makers must understand how well such modeling can perform when data on aircraft activities at an airport are limited. To estimate the lead impacts at an airport with lead monitoring, this study used aggregate activity information and simple assump- tions about the nature of activities; the goal was to evaluate the level of accuracy that could be achieved in the collection of data on lead emissions. Disper- sion modeling of general aviation lead emissions was performed for Centennial Airport, Englewood, Colorado, to estimate near-field impacts from air- port operations in 2011. Emissions were estimated with the use of FAA’s Air Traffic Activity System and Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System. The annual emission estimate for 2011 was 0.43 ton, much lower than the 0.73 ton estimated by the 2008 National Emissions Inventory. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying several emission param- eters. Modeled concentrations at the on-site lead sampler were quite sensitive to the amount of run- up emissions. Concentrations modeled with Auto- mated Surface Observing System meteorology have greater correlation with on-site measured values than those modeled with integrated surface hourly meteorology. Three-month average impacts mod- eled at the on-site lead-sampling location ranged from 10 to 20 ng/m3, well below the lead NAAQS of 150 ng/m3. 5. Depeaking Schedules: Beneficial for Airports and Airlines? Donald Katz and Laurie A. Garrow Abstract. After deregulation, many U.S. airlines created hubs with banked schedules. However, in the past decade, these same airlines began to exper- iment with depeaking their schedules to reduce costs and to improve operational performance. Little research has investigated revenue shifts associated with depeaked schedules, yet an understanding of the tradeoffs between revenue, costs, and operational performance at a network level is critical before air- lines will consider further depeaking and related strat- egies for managing congestion. This paper develops data-cleaning and data analysis methodologies that are based on publicly available data used to quantify airport- and network-level revenue changes associ- ated with schedule depeaking. These methodologies are applied to a case study of Delta’s depeaking at the airport in Atlanta, Georgia. Results show that this depeaking was associated with Delta’s revenue increasing slower than that for the rest of the network and the industry as a whole but that the depeaking could have been profitable if costs had been cut to a sufficient degree. The Atlanta airport likely benefits from the increase in connection time. The methodolo- gies developed in this paper can be extended to other depeaking cases to provide a comprehensive assess- ment of revenue shifts and to understand airport and network characteristics that are most conducive to schedule depeaking. 6. Reduction of Collisions Between Aircraft and Surface Vehicles: Conflict Alerting on Airport Surfaces Enabled by Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast Fabrice Kunzi Abstract. Automatic dependent surveillance– broadcast (ADS-B) will be the basis of future surveil- lance systems in the United States as well as in many

12 other countries. The more frequent and more accurate information available with ADS-B could improve the performance of conflict-alerting systems for vehicles operating on airport surfaces. Ten years of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) airport surface accident reports were reviewed, and four encounter scenarios representing the most commonly observed interactions between aircraft and airport surface vehicles were created. A concept of operation was then defined for how an ADS-B–based alerting system could take advantage of ADS-B–specific information to generate alerts in each of those four encounter scenarios. Through the use of historical ADS-B data from the Boston, Massachusetts; Phil- adelphia, Pennsylvania; and Louisville, Kentucky, airports, proof of concept was established. The con- cepts show promise in reducing the uncertainty in alerting systems that is present because of lack of knowledge of the intent of the operator. Instead of guessing at future states by propagating trajecto- ries, an alerting system would compare expected behavior to actual behavior and alert personnel if a deviation were observed. 7. Leveraging Probe Data to Assess Security Checkpoint Wait Times Stephen M. Remias, Alexander M. Hainen, and Darcy M. Bullock Abstract. The process of traveling to an airport, passing through various processes, and ultimately departing the airport involves many activities. This paper focuses on the use of probe data obtained from phones with discoverable Bluetooth devices to sample the time needed for passengers to travel from the nonsterile to the sterile side of an airport facility. To collect these data, the Kenton County Airport Board partnered with Purdue University to conduct a study at the Cincinnati–Northern Ken- tucky International Airport, Hebron, over a 4-week period during the 2011 Thanksgiving holiday. Blue- tooth monitoring stations (BMSs) were used to col- lect unique identifiers from approximately 46,000 devices and to compute more than 1.5 million travel times between 17 BMSs. With a Pareto distribution approach, hourly security wait times were ordered, and a methodology was developed to identify periods for which opportunities might exist to reduce wait times (relative to a specified maximum wait time) by opening more security lanes, as well as peri- ods for which opportunities might exist to reduce the number of lanes operating. With this method- ology, it was determined that only 5 hours during the study period had median wait times of greater than 20 minutes during November 2011. The paper concludes by discussing how this technique can be used to perform longitudinal comparisons between airports as additional airports begin automating the collection of checkpoint wait times. 8. Social Media and Primary Commercial Service Airports Clayton Lee Stambaugh Abstract. Throughout the past decade, the avia- tion industry in the United States has continually encountered significant socioeconomic burdens. Most notably, the tragic events of September 11, 2001, left the industry highly susceptible to economic turmoil, such as the global recession accentuated by record-high fuel prices, as well as sociological events like the world pandemic in the form of severe acute respiratory syndrome. The nation’s airports, the infrastructure supporting this industry, are no excep- tion. In conjunction with these onerous events, con- tinuing cuts in intergovernmental funding sources, as well as weakened revenue streams, have forced airports to use contemporary tools, strategies, and techniques to reinforce traditional management functions. The use of social media platforms, such as blogs, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Four- square, is a growing trend throughout various pub- lic and private industries to increase effectiveness, efficiency, and overall yield in relation to market- ing and communication strategies. Consistent with new public management techniques and the rein- vention of government in the 1980s, conducive to cost efficiency and customer-centric approaches, airports use social media to increase self-sufficiency by reducing expenditures associated with traditional marketing and communication modes. In addition, social media technologies enable airports to target, engage, and foster two-way communication more effectively with a multitude of audiences. This study provides an overview of these popular social media services and empirically examines, both quantita- tively and qualitatively, the current usage of social media throughout primary commercial service air- ports. Statistics on airport usage and best practices

13 are provided to support preliminary guidance on the use of social media at airports. 9. Consensus-Building Mechanism for Setting Service Expectations in Air Traffic Flow Management Prem Swaroop and Michael O. Ball Abstract. A significant challenge of effective air traffic flow management (ATFM) is to allow vari- ous competing airlines to collaborate with an air navigation service provider (ANSP) in determining flow management initiatives. Over the past 15 years, this challenge has led to the development of a broad approach to ATFM known as collaborative deci- sion making (CDM). A set of CDM principles has evolved to guide the development of specific tools that support ATFM resource allocation. However, these principles have not been extended to cover the problem of providing strategic advice to an ANSP in the initial planning stages of traffic management initiatives. This paper describes a mechanism in which competing airlines provide consensus advice to an ANSP by means of a voting mechanism. The mechanism is based on the recently developed majority judgment voting procedure. The result of the procedure is a consensus real-valued vec- tor that must satisfy a set of constraints imposed by the weather and traffic conditions of the day in question. Although this problem was developed and modeled on the basis of specific ATFM fea- tures, it appears to be highly generic and amenable to a much broader set of applications. Analysis of this problem involved several interesting subprob- lems, including a type of column generation pro- cess that created candidate vectors for input to the voting process. 10. Mechanisms for Equitable Resource Allocation When Airspace Capacity Is Reduced Kleoniki Vlachou and David J. Lovell Abstract. During bad weather and under other capacity-reducing restrictions, FAA uses various initiatives to manage air traffic flow to alleviate problems associated with imbalanced demand and capacity. A recently introduced alternative concept to airspace flow programs is the collaborative tra- jectory options program, in which aircraft operators are allowed to submit sets of alternative trajectory options for their flights, with accompanying cost estimates. It is not clear that these sets of alterna- tive trajectory options can be generated or evaluated quickly enough to respond to flow programs that arise unexpectedly or that the program is intended to be folded into a formal resource allocation mecha- nism. This research proposes (a) a meaningful, yet simple, way for carriers to express some preference structure for their flights that are specifically affected by flow programs and (b) a resource allocation mechanism that will improve system efficiency and simultaneously take these airline preferences into account. The results are compared with the events that could occur if an airspace flow program were run by using a ration-by-schedule approach, with or without the opportunity for carriers to engage in swaps among their own flights.

14 ACADEMIC YEAR 2010–2011 For the academic year 2010–2011, the panel received 31 submissions from students representing 25 different universities. The applicant pool included 23 PhD candidates and 8 master’s degree candidates. Ten applicants were selected, each of whom would receive a stipend of $10,000 for successful comple- tion of a research paper on the subject chosen by the applicant. Of the ten students selected, seven were PhD students and three were master’s degree stu- dents. All ten student papers from the 2010–2011 academic year were published in the Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2266. In the list that follows, the name of the student author appears first, followed by the degree earned (in parentheses), the names of academic advisors or others who made specific contributions to the paper, the name of the university, and the title of the final paper as published in the Transportation Research Record. Abstracts of these papers are available in ACRP Research Results Digest 14, which can be accessed online at www.trb.org by searching on “ACRP RRD 14.” 1. Regina R. L. Clewlow (PhD), Joseph M. Sussman, and Hamsa Balakrishnan, Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology: Inter- action of High-Speed Rail and Aviation: Exploring Air–Rail Connectivity. 2. Francisco Evangelista, Jr. (PhD), Jeffrey R. Roesler, and C. Armando Duarte, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign: Prediction of Potential Cracking Failure Modes in Three- Dimensional Airfield Rigid Pavements with Existing Cracks and Flaws. 3. Josephine D. Kressner (PhD) and Laurie A. Garrow, Georgia Institute of Technology: Lifestyle Segmentation Variables as Predic- tors of Home-Based Trips for Atlanta, Geor- gia, Airport. 4. Sameer Kulkarni (Master’s), Rajesh Ganesan, and Lance Sherry, George Mason University: Dynamic Airspace Configuration Using Approximate Dynamic Programming: Intelligence-Based Paradigm. 5. James K. D. Morrison (Master’s), Brian Yutko, and R. John Hansman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Transitioning the U.S. Air Transportation System to Higher Fuel Costs. 6. Quentin Noreiga (PhD) and Mark McDonald, Vanderbilt University: Parsimonious Mod- eling and Uncertainty Quantification for Transportation Systems Planning Applied to California High-Speed Rail. 7. Jeffrey J. Stempihar (PhD), Mena I. Souliman, and Kamil E. Kaloush, Arizona State Univer- sity: Fiber-Reinforced Asphalt Concrete as a Sustainable Paving Material for Airfields. 8. Vikrant Vaze (PhD) and Cynthia Barnhart, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Air- line Frequency Competition in Airport Con- gestion Pricing. 9. Jinfeng Wang (PhD) and Edwin E. Herricks, University of Illinois, Urbana– Champaign: Risk Assessment of Bird–Aircraft Strikes at Commercial Airports: Submodel Development. 10. Kai Yin (Master’s), Chunyu Tian, Bruce X. Wang, and Luca Quadrifoglio, Texas A&M University: Analysis of Taxiway Aircraft Traffic at George Bush Intercontinental Air- port, Houston, Texas.

15 ACADEMIC YEAR 2009–2010 Applications for the academic year 2009–2010 were due in May 2009. Forty-three submissions were received from students representing 28 differ- ent universities. The applicant pool included 27 PhD candidates, 15 master’s degree candidates, and 1 law degree candidate. Of the 11 students selected, 7 were PhD candidates, 3 were master’s degree candidates, and 1 was a law school candidate. As in the first year, each applicant selected would receive a stipend of $10,000 for successful completion of a research paper on the subject chosen by the applicant. FAA pro- vided an additional grant to cover the 11th student so that a research subject of particular interest could be included in the program. As was true for the first year, the completed papers were considered for presenta- tion at the TRB Annual Meeting following submis- sion. All 11 papers were selected for publication in the Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2206. In the list that follows, the name of the student author appears first, followed by the degree earned (in parentheses), the names of academic advisors or others who made specific contributions to the paper, the name of the university, and the title of the final paper as published in the Transportation Research Record. Abstracts of these papers are available in ACRP Research Results Digest 14, which can be accessed online at www.trb.org by searching on “ACRP RRD 14.” 1. Gabriela K. DeFrancisci (PhD), Zhi M. Chen, and Hyonny Kim, University of California, San Diego: Low-Velocity, High-Mass, Wide- Area Blunt Impact on Composite Panels. 2. Douglas Fearing (PhD) and Cynthia Barnhart, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Eval- uating Air Traffic Flow Management in a Col- laborative Decision-Making Environment. 3. Ben H. Lee (PhD), Ezra C. Wood, Richard C. Miake-Lye, Scott C. Herndon, J. William Munger, and Steven C. Wofsy, Harvard University: Reactive Chemistry in Aircraft Exhaust: Implications for Air Quality. 4. Brittany L. Luken (PhD) and Laurie A. Garrow, Georgia Institute of Technology: Multiairport Choice Models for the New York Metropolitan Area: Application Based on Ticketing Data. 5. Matthew Manley (PhD), Yong Seog Kim, Keith Christensen, and Anthony Chen, Utah State University: Modeling Emergency Evac- uation of Individuals with Disabilities in a Densely Populated Airport. 6. Boo Hyun Nam (PhD), University of Texas at Austin: Transition of the Rolling Dynamic Deflectometer Device from a Screening Tool to an Evaluation Tool for Rigid Airfield Pavement Projects. 7. Nagesh Nayak (Master’s degree) and Yu Zhang, University of South Florida: Estima- tion and Comparison of Impact of Single Air- port Delay on National Airspace System with Multivariate Simultaneous Models. 8. Dominique M. Pittenger (Master’s), Univer- sity of Oklahoma: Evaluating Sustainability of Selected Airport Pavement Treatments with Life-Cycle Cost, Raw Material Con- sumption, and Greenroads Standards. 9. Nikolas Pyrgiotis (PhD), Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology: Public Policy Model of Delays in a Large Network of Major Airports. 10. Maulik Vaishnav (Master’s), University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign: Opportunities and Obstacles in Obtaining Air Connectivity for Residents of Federally Designated Essen- tial Air Service Communities. 11. Timothy R. Wyatt (JD), Wake Forest Uni- versity School of Law: Balancing Airport Capacity Requirements with Environmen- tal Concerns: Legal Challenges to Airport Expansion.

16 ACADEMIC YEAR 2008–2009 During the first year of the program, the appli- cation deadline was in June 2008. Twenty-five submissions were received from students repre- senting 18 different universities. The panel met in Washington, D.C. for 2 days in late July to evalu- ate the submittals. Ten applicants were selected, each of whom would receive a stipend of $10,000 for successful completion of a research paper on the subject chosen by the applicant. Completed papers were considered for presentation at the TRB Annual Meeting, and six outstanding papers were selected for publication in the Transporta- tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2184. In the list that follows, the name of the student author appears first, followed by the degree earned (in parentheses), the names of academic advisors or others who made specific contributions to the paper, the name of the university, and the title of the final paper as published in the Transportation Research Record. Abstracts of these papers are available in ACRP Research Results Digest 14, which can be accessed online at www.trb.org by searching on “ACRP RRD 14.” 1. Stacey Mumbower (PhD) and Laurie A. Garrow, Georgia Institute of Technology: Using Online Data to Explore Competitive Airline Pricing Policies—A Case Study Approach. 2. Haomiao Huang (PhD) and Claire J. Tomlin, Stanford University: Hybrid System Model of Air Traffic Controller Cognition. 3. Ioannis Simaiakis (PhD) and Hamsa Balakris, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Impact of Congestion on Taxi Times, Fuel Burn, and Emissions at Major Airports. 4. Christian M. Salmon (DSc), Vahid Mote- valli, John Harrald, and Johan René van Dorp, The George Washington University: Quantifying Metrics of External Airport Risk Exposure in Vicinity of Public Use, Nontowered Airports. 5. Daniel Favarulo (MS), George Mason Uni- versity: Understanding Nonfiscal Barriers to Airport Development and Exploring Federal Policy Solutions. 6. Dan Boedigheimer (PhD), Northcentral Uni- versity: Exploring the Pilot Reliability Cer- tification Program and Changing Attitudes on Reducing Pilot Errors: Pilots Covered by Federal Aviation Regulations 91 and 135. The papers of three additional award recipients were published elsewhere: 1. Elizabeth Black (PhD), Missouri University of Science and Technology: Lung Deposition of Jet Engine Exhaust Particulate Matter. 2. Hernando Jimenez (PhD), Georgia Institute of Technology: Strategic Development of Airport Systems for Capacity Enhancement and Environmental Impact Reduction. 3. Adrian Lee (PhD), University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign: An Optimal, Closed- Loop Passenger Screening Strategy for Enhancing Aviation Security.

17 APPENDIX: PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS The following individuals have served as panel members and mentors and provided oversight of the research program beginning with the 2008–2009 academic year. Their assistance has been invalu- able in attracting students, overseeing their research efforts, and preparing documents for presentation and publication. Panel Members Active Linda Howard, Director, Planning and Program- ming, Aviation Division, Texas Department of Transportation (Retired) (Chair) Monica S. Alcabin, Associate Technical Fellow, Boeing Company Dr. Eric Amel, Vice President, Compass Lexecon Randall D. Berg, Director of Airport Operations, Salt Lake City Department of Airports John W. Fischer, Specialist in Transportation Pol- icy Resources, Science and Industry Division, Congressional Research Service (Retired) Kitty P. Friedheim, Friedheim Consulting Richard Golaszewski, Principal, GRA Incorporated Robert Samis (FAA Liaison), Economist, Federal Aviation Administration Christine Gerencher (TRB Liaison), Senior Program Officer for Aviation, Transportation Research Board Retired Dr. Keith Mew (Chair), Aviation Program Director (Department of Technology), California State University, Los Angeles Michael T. Drollinger, Manager, Research and Data, Port of Seattle Aviation Planning, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport John Heimlich, Vice President and Chief Econo- mist, Airlines for America Dr. Annalisa L. Weigel, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Paul L. Friedman, ACRP Project Officer, Federal Aviation Administration Mentors Greg Albjerg, HNTB Debbie Alke, Aeronautics Division Administrator, Montana Department of Transportation Nick Atwell, Wildlife Manager, Aviation, Port of Portland Dr. Michael Ball, Associate Dean for Faculty and Research and Orkand Corporation Professor of Management Science, Department of Deci- sion, Operations and Information Technologies, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland Frank Berardino, President, GRA, Inc. Jenkintown, Pennsylvania Dr. Dipasis Bhadra, Senior Quantitative Economist, Statistics and Forecast Branch, FAA Dr. David Brill, FAA William Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport Michael Brennan, Chief Aviation Scientist, Metron Aviation Matt Coogan, New England Transportation Insti- tute, Vermont Patricia Coogan, Research Professor of Epidemiol- ogy, Boston University School of Public Health Robert David, President, RED & Associates Tony Diana, Manager, Information Systems, FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans Steven Domino, Senior Aviation Project Manager, Jacobs Consultants, Salt Lake City, Utah Jeremy Eckhause, LMI Bart Elias, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress Eric Ford, Vice President, Campbell-Hill Aviation Group Tom Freeman, Texas A&M University Igor Frolow, Vice President Operations Research/ Modeling, 21st Century Technologies Dr. Rajesh Ganesan, Professor at George Mason University Dr. Navneet Garg, Research Civil Engineer with the FAA at the William J. Hughes Technical Center Dr. Geoffrey Gosling, Principal, Aviation System Consulting, LLC, Berkeley, California David Gray, Surveillance and Broadcast Services, FAA Howard Hall, FAA Seattle Aircraft Certification Office Paul Hamilton, Orion International Technologies Belinda Hargrove, Managing Principal Airspace, Airfield, TransSolutions Robert Hazel, Partner, Oliver Wyman, Inc. Kevin P. Healy, Senior Vice President, Campbell- Hill Aviation Group Dr. Karla Hoffman, Professor at George Mason University

18 Dr. Robert Hoffman, Metron Aviation, Dulles, Virginia George Hunter, Senior Principal Engineer, Saab- Sensis Corporation Dr. Katharine Hunter-Zaworski, Director of the National Center for Accessible Transportation, Oregon State University Dr. Irena Ioachim, Supervisor, Operations Research, GRA Inc., currently on assignment with FAA Richard Jehlen, Director, Operational Concepts & Requirements, ATO, Mission Support Services, FAA Timothy Karaskiewicz, Milwaukee County Princi- pal Assistant Corporation Counsel Dr. V. Khanna, University of Oklahoma Mike Kenney, Vice President, KB Environmental Sciences, Inc. Ted Kitchens, Newport News International Airport Peter Kostiuk, President, Robust Analytics, Gambrills, Maryland Albert Larkin, FAA Airport Technology R&D Branch, William J. Hughes Technical Center Michael E. Levine, Distinguished Research Scholar and Senior Lecturer, New York University School of Law Dr. Katherine Andrea Lemos, Accident Investigation and Prevention Integrated Safety Team, FAA Arne Lewis, Associate Technical Fellow and 787 Structures Service Engineer, Boeing Mike Linnel, State Director APHIS/USDA, Salt Lake City, Utah Dou Long, LMI Research Institute James Luxhoj, Professor, Rutgers University Carl Ma, Engineer with FAA’s Office of Environ- ment and Energy Peter Mandle, Director, LeighFisher Dr. Avijit Mukherjee, Associate Research Scientist, University Affiliated Research Center, NASA Ames Research Center, California Dan Murphy, Operations Analysis Group Manager, Systems Operations Service, FAA Robert Nichols, En Route & Oceanic Service, Surveillance and Broadcast Services, FAA Roger Nicholson, Associate Technical Fellow, Aviation System Safety, Boeing Ed Oshinski, Aviation Division, Texas DOT Steve Osmek, Wildlife Program Manager, Port of Seattle–SEATAC Dr. Clinton Oster, Jr., Professor, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University Juliet Page, Wyle Laboratories, Arlington, Virginia David Peshkin, Principal and Vice President of Applied Pavement Technology Dominique Pittenger, University of Oklahoma Joseph Post, Manager, Modeling and Simulation at FAA Donna Prigmore, Customer Relations Manager, Port of Portland/Portland International Airport Frederick P. Roe, Vice President of Sales, Safegate Airport Systems, Inc. David Senzig, Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, Volpe National Transporta- tion Systems Center Tom Smith, Senior Director, Digital Communica- tions, ACI–NA Dr. William Spitz, Senior Economist, GRA Inc. Virginia Stouffer, Program Manager, LMI, McLean, VA Dr. Susan Tighe, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Pavement and Infra- structure Management, University of Water- loo, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Mike Tretheway, Chief Economist & Chief Strate- gic Officer, InterVISTAS Consulting Group Sandy Webb, Managing Director, Environmental Consulting Group, LLC Jeffrey Wharff, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, FAA Gregory Y. Won, Operations Research, FAA Dr. Arash Yousefi, Metron Aviation, Dulles, Virginia

Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 These digests are issued in order to increase awareness of research results emanating from projects in the Cooperative Research Programs (CRP). Persons wanting to pursue the project subject matter in greater depth should contact the CRP Staff, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. Subscriber Categories: Aviation • Education and Training ISBN 978-0-309-28377-9 9 780309 283779 9 0 0 0 0