National Academies Press: OpenBook

Evaluating Airfield Capacity (2012)

Chapter: Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background

« Previous: Contents
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluating Airfield Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22674.
×
Page 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluating Airfield Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22674.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluating Airfield Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22674.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluating Airfield Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22674.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluating Airfield Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22674.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluating Airfield Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22674.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluating Airfield Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22674.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluating Airfield Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22674.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluating Airfield Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22674.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluating Airfield Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22674.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluating Airfield Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22674.
×
Page 13

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.

1Introduction and Background ACRP Report 79: Evaluating Airfield Capacity is the end product of ACRP Project 03-17 of the same name, which was undertaken in 2009 with the primary objective of developing a guidebook to assist airport planners with airfield and airspace capacity evaluation at all types of airports. Specific objectives were established for the guidebook, as follows: • Assess relevant methods and modeling techniques for evaluating existing and future capacity for airports beyond those outlined in the current FAA’s Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay (hereinafter referred to as the AC) or the Airfield Capacity Model (hereinafter referred to as the ACM) • Identify the limitations of the existing techniques and develop specifications for new models, tools, or enhancements • Present capacity modeling guidelines that would improve the decision-making process for determining the appropriate level of modeling sophistication for a given planning study • Present a functional prototype of one or more modeling tools This introductory chapter provides general background information, addresses specific factors that shaped the development of the guidebook, and outlines its organization. Introduction The AC is dated September 1983 and was updated twice through 1995 (see Figure 1-1). FAA has been considering a third update to the AC; however, the publication date for this update was unknown at the time this report was prepared. ACRP Report 79 is not intended to describe how to use specific airfield capacity models. Moreover, it does not address the capacity of any airport component other than the airfield, which is defined as runways, taxiways, aprons, holding bays, and close-in terminal airspace. For the purposes of this guidebook, airfield capacity is limited to the runway system and supporting airspace and taxiways that influence runway capacity (i.e., runway exit taxiways, departure hold pads, and parallel taxiways). Aircraft delay and its relationship to airfield capacity are mentioned only briefly in ACRP Report 79; this topic is being addressed in ACRP Project 03-20, “Defining and Measuring Aircraft Delay and Airport Capacity Thresholds,” currently under way. The guidebook provides a review of current FAA guidance on airfield capacity and highlights other methodologies and tools currently available in the public and private domain relative to the topic. In addition, prototypes of new airfield capacity spreadsheet tools were developed that provide additional mechanisms for calculating airfield capacities. The guidebook also provides C h a p t e r 1

2 evaluating airfield Capacity decision-support tools that can be used in selecting the appropriate level of modeling sophistica- tion for a given application and set of circumstances. Intended Audience The guidebook’s intended audience includes a wide range of potential users, such as air- port operators, regional planning agencies, state aviation agencies, airport consultants, avia- tion researchers, FAA planners, and other public and private aviation organizations. It has been assumed that users of this guidebook will have a general understanding of an airport’s facilities and operations, particularly with regard to the airport for which a capacity analysis is being considered. Members of the intended audience will (1) know how an airfield is typically oper- ated in terms of aircraft taking off and landing, (2) be able to obtain at least minimal data on the airfield and air traffic to be analyzed, and (3) be able to use the recommended criteria for selecting an appropriate evaluation technique given the specific characteristics of the airport or airfield under consideration. The guidebook provides information useful to both novice and experienced airport planners seeking to do the following: • Understand basic airfield elements and operations • Understand the definition of airfield capacity • Review the tools currently available to estimate airfield capacity, including new tools made available as a result of this research project • Select the appropriate tool or level of modeling sophistication for the airport and the purpose of the airfield capacity analysis • Compile the data necessary to conduct the capacity analysis • Apply the selected tool to obtain the desired estimate of hourly or annual airfield capacity. Source: Federal Avia�on Administra�on. Figure 1-1. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay.

Introduction and Background 3 Overview of Airfield Capacity The research for this project focused specifically on the capacity of runways and close-in ter- minal airspace. The term airfield generally refers to close-in terminal airspace, runways, taxiways, apron areas, and holding bays. However, airfield capacity should be in balance with the capacities of the terminal building and landside capacities. Airfield capacity estimates are used to address airport planning issues by a wide range of per- sons and organizations (e.g., airport operators, regional planning agencies, state aviation agen- cies, airport consultants, and FAA planners, among others). Airfield capacity estimates are used for various purposes and can be obtained using different methods that reflect the level of detail needed. Some airport planning analyses are conducted with an emphasis on airfield capacity, while others may only reference capacity without requiring detailed evaluations. Definitions of airfield capacity vary depending on the source or audience. The AC defines capacity in terms of an airport’s throughput capacity; that is, as a measure of “the maximum number of aircraft operations which can be accommodated on the airport or airport component in an hour.”1 In the original research that led to the development of AC 150/5060-5, considerable effort was expended on reaching a single concept of capacity. In practice, however, at least two definitions of capacity remain widely used: (1) a measure of maximum sustainable throughput similar to the definition in the AC, and (2) a measure of practical capacity defined as the number of aircraft operations that results in a specified maximum average delay. Both of these definitions have validity and are intended to answer different questions. • Maximum sustainable throughput answers the question, “How many aircraft operations can an airfield reasonably accommodate in a given period of time when there is a continuous demand for service during that period?” • Practical capacity (or service volume) answers the question, “How many aircraft operations can an airfield accommodate at a specified level of service?” Level of service typically is defined in terms of a threshold level of average annual aircraft delay (e.g., 7 minutes per aircraft operation). FAA also has defined capacity in terms of specific time intervals. The two most commonly used time intervals are hourly and annual. Hourly airfield capacities can be calculated using the AC for different runway configurations and weather conditions in terms of cloud ceilings and visibilities at the airport. Annual airfield capacity—referred to in the AC as annual service vol- ume (ASV)—is an estimate of how many aircraft operations an airport can accommodate in a year, and can also be calculated using the methods in the AC. ACRP Report 79 focuses on the maximum sustainable throughput definition of capacity. The word sustainable was added to the definition in the AC to reflect the fact that actual flow rates at congested airports often exceed estimated capacities over very short time intervals, but such actual rates usually are not sustainable for an entire hour. This definition is more consistent with the current FAA practice of estimating airfield capac- ity, in particular as set forth in FAA’s recent airport capacity benchmark reports. At publication of ACRP Report 79, the most recent such report available to the public was the Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2004 (see Figure 1-2). FAA plans to release the next updated report in 2012. The airport capacity benchmarks reported in the foregoing FAA reports are presented using capacity curves (also called Pareto frontiers). In Figure 1-3, a capacity curve is shown as a solid 1FAA AC 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay, available at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/ Advisory_Circular/150_5060_5.pdf (accessed 8-24-12).

4 evaluating airfield Capacity line. In this figure, the point where the solid line intercepts the vertical axis is the arrivals-only capacity; the point where the solid line intercepts the horizontal axis is the departures-only capac- ity; and any point along the curve represents the maximum sustainable throughput for that combi- nation of arrivals and departures. Further information about developing and interpreting capacity curves is presented in later chapters of this guidebook. Defining airfield capacity in terms of maximum sustainable throughput also is more consis- tent with airport arrival rates (AARs) and airport departure rates (ADRs) as defined by FAA’s Air Source: Federal Aviation Administration. Figure 1-2. FAA Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2004. Source: Federal Aviation Administration. Figure 1-3. Capacity curve from FAA Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2004.

Introduction and Background 5 Traffic Organization (ATO) for purposes of its air traffic management initiatives. FAA defines AAR and ADR as follows: • AAR: The number of arriving aircraft which an airport or airspace can accept from the ARTCC [Air Route Traffic Control Center] per hour. • ADR: The number of aircraft which can depart an airport and which the airspace can accept per hour.2 The maximum sustainable throughput definition of capacity is most useful for comparing demand and capacity and as input to analytical models for estimating aircraft delay. This defini- tion of capacity is most relevant to the objectives of this guidebook, for two reasons. 1. Capacity, by itself, is not a very useful measure unless it is compared with some measure of demand. 2. The most useful demand-capacity comparisons are the ones that provide decision makers addi- tional performance metrics, such as aircraft delay, the ability of the airfield to accommodate existing and projected airline schedules, and, in extreme cases, cancellations and diversions. As a result, ACRP Report 79 includes guidance on defining and estimating airfield capacity on an hourly basis for use in making appropriate demand-capacity comparisons and for input to currently available analytical models used to estimate aircraft delay. The treatment of delay and its relationship to capacity is being addressed in ACRP Project 03-20, “Defining and Measuring Aircraft Delay and Airport Capacity Thresholds.” Existing FAA Guidance In 1983, FAA published the AC to replace advisory circulars that had been published in 1968 and 1969 and to provide a significant update to previous guidance on airport and airfield capac- ity calculations. Subsequently, two changes were published to update sections of the AC, includ- ing an entire rewrite of the chapter on computer programs for calculating airfield capacity and aircraft delay that was published in 1995. Computer programs noted in the AC include: • Airport and Airspace Simulation Model (SIMMOD) • The Airport Machine • Airfield Delay Simulation Model (ADSIM) • The ACM The AC and the models developed by FAA are the primary resources used by aviation planners to calculate capacity for all types of airports, large and small. While FAA and others often use more sophisticated methods for evaluating airfield capacity, the AC is the only formal guidance on this topic, and it was last updated in 1995. Existing Analytical and Computer Simulation Models Models used to analyze capacity typically can be categorized as either analytical models or computer simulation models. Analytical models use a series of equations to calculate results and do not explicitly use random variables or Monte Carlo sampling techniques.3 2Sources: “Pilot/Controller Glossary,” which is an addendum to the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual; Order JO 7110.10, Flight Services; Order JO 7110.65, Air Traffic Control; accessed on February 16, 2012, at: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pcg/ 3Monte Carlo sampling is a problem-solving technique used to approximate the probability of certain outcomes by running multiple trials using random variables.

6 evaluating airfield Capacity Simulation models generally are fast-time models that emulate the movement of aircraft using statistical sampling techniques, including random variables or Monte Carlo sampling techniques. As measured in a simulation model, time may be faster than real time, match real time, or be slower than real time, depending on the complexity of the simulation. With a fast- time model, the time required to run the simulation is less than real time (i.e., 1 minute of simu- lation time generally equals more than 1 minute of real time). The term non-real time has been adopted recently to allow for large-scale simulation models that take longer to run than real time. Most simulation models used to analyze airfield capacity are fast-time models. Numerous analytical and computer simulation models have been developed to evaluate air- field capacity. The 1995 update of the AC identifies four models that were available at the time the AC was published to evaluate airfield capacity. Since that time, numerous other models have been developed. These models require a variety of inputs and levels of detail, mostly providing some greater level of sophistication in the analysis results than the models referenced in the AC. A partial list of the models evaluated as part of ACRP Project 03-17 is provided in Table 1-1. In general, these models differ in several aspects, including methods to address or include the following variables: • Airfield layout geometry (e.g., runways, taxiways, aprons, holding bays, and gates) • Aircraft mix and airline scheduling factors (e.g., demand pattern and wake-turbulence categories) • Aircraft performance (e.g., final approach speeds and runway occupancy times) • Runway use and air traffic control (ATC) procedures (e.g., runway use restrictions and aircraft separation requirements) • Weather conditions (e.g., ceiling, visibility, wind speed, and wind direction) • Human factors (e.g., aircraft delivery accuracy and variability in response times) • Airspace (e.g., number of runway headings and length of common final approach paths) The differences in the models and their applications are discussed in Chapter 3 of this guidebook. Need to Update Airfield Capacity Evaluation Methods and Guidance The need to update airfield capacity evaluation methods results from (1) shortcomings in the existing methods, and (2) developments in technology since most of the evaluation methods were developed. In particular, the following factors in the AC have been identified as requiring an update based on changes that have occurred since publication of the AC: Analy�cal Models Simula�on Models FAA Airfield Capacity Model (the ACM) Jeppesen-Boeing Total Airspace and Airport Modeler (TAAM) Logis�cs Management Ins�tute (LMI) Runway Capacity Model FAA Airport and Airspace Simula�on Model (SIMMOD) Flight Transporta�on Associates (FTA) Runway Capacity Model (RUNCAP) FAA Airfield Delay Simula�on Model (ADSIM) Boeing Co. Airport Capacity Constraints Model MITRE Corpora�on runwaySimulator Table 1-1. Examples of analytical and simulation models (partial list).

Introduction and Background 7 • ATC rules and procedures • Technologies associated with flight procedures, aircraft navigation, ATC surveillance, and pilot-controller communications • Aircraft type performance characteristics • Airport design standards • Availability of data on aircraft operations and performance For example, since the most recent update of the AC in 1995, ATC procedures have changed, new aircraft types have been introduced, and new navigation technologies have been imple- mented. These changes have not been addressed in new FAA guidance to date, although they are being considered in FAA’s plans to update the AC. Given the many current and evolving factors and limitations that influence airfield capacity at a given airport, there is a need to enhance capacity modeling tools and techniques to provide the airfield capacity estimates appropriate to make timely and cost-effective project funding decisions. Shortcomings of Existing Methods Existing methods of capacity evaluation were developed decades ago, and therefore do not reflect recent changes in airfield and ATC standards and procedures. In addition, they do not reflect the significant changes in computer technologies, software, and data availability that have occurred since their development. Treatment of Complex Airfields Over time, runways have been added to major airports to accommodate increasing traffic, which has resulted in much more complex airfield operations and increased airspace interactions between neighboring airports. The airfield capacity of these complex airfields has become more difficult to estimate using existing methods. Many large airports have runway layouts and use configurations that were not considered in the AC or other existing evaluation methods. In trying to use the current AC and the ACM, it is often difficult to choose nomographs or mod- els that can accurately estimate capacity for a complex airfield. Many of the more recent complex airfields are not represented in the current AC, and runways are often used differently from the way they are assumed to be used in the current AC. For example, different types of aircraft may use different runways, or site-specific runway dependencies or noise abatement constraints may exist. The operators of many larger airports with more complex airfields and capacity shortfalls have used various analytical and computer simulations either mentioned in the AC and enhanced since 1995, or developed since that time by consulting firms or other private entities. Additionally, the types of capacity questions that need to be addressed have become more airport-specific. Instead of evaluating the potential capacity gains associated with major infra- structure improvements, the capacity issues being addressed more frequently have become airport-specific and are often based on changes in airfield and ATC standards and procedures, such as airspace constraints, the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) improve- ments, departure-sequencing capabilities, or the effects of current or proposed noise abatement procedures. The complexity of airfields and the increasing specificity of capacity issues to be addressed have necessitated the more frequent use of simulation models to address airfield capacity issues. Certain situations and capacity issues require the fidelity of a simulation model; however, for certain other capacity issues that do not require this level of fidelity, there is currently no middle ground between existing AC analytical models and detailed airfield and airspace simulation modeling.

8 evaluating airfield Capacity Treatment of Small Airports Airfield capacity issues for small airports are quite different from those for larger airports. Oftentimes, airfield capacity is not a known or recognized issue at a small airport, and detailed capacity analyses are not undertaken. Attributes of small airports that often must be accounted for include: • Presence or absence of an Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) • Presence or absence of commercial passenger service • Presence or absence of instrument approach procedures • Presence or absence of certain airfield infrastructure, such as a full-length parallel taxiway • Level of flight-training or touch-and-go operations As defined in the AC, capacity is calculated in terms of a maximum throughput rate, but this definition is not always used by the operators of small airports or their consultants in evaluating capacity. The term capacity can have implications as diverse as the airport industry itself. For the majority of small airports (e.g., as defined in terms of either activity level, airfield com- plexity, type of service, or lack of ATC/flight procedures), capacity defined as a throughput rate is adequate, and calculating aircraft delay is seldom a concern. The volume of aircraft activity at a small single- or two-runway airport does not ordinarily approach the airfield capacity limit that would be estimated using the AC methodology. Unfortunately, this being the case, the operators of most small airports or airports without a definitive capacity issue will simply view capacity analyses as a basic requirement of a master planning process that has few implications for them beyond providing a capacity estimate for their master plan. Moreover, staff and consultants at small airports often lack the resources, expertise, or need to use more sophisticated capacity evaluation methods, such as the ACM or available simulation models. However, these airports can still experience capacity constraints, which would not be mea- sured appropriately by available airfield capacity analysis techniques. For example, many airports experience capacity issues only in the peak hour. Local fleet mix considerations can have a dra- matic effect on the operational efficiency of an airport, as can the types of aircraft operations accommodated. Consideration of these specific factors, among many others, is the reason that planners typically rely more on local knowledge and professional judgment to gauge capacity at these types of airports than on the methodologies in the AC. Stated simply, the methodology in the AC, which is the current standard for assessing capacity at smaller and less complex air- ports, does an inadequate job of measuring potential intricacies and nuances. The challenge is to develop a methodology that is accessible and usable by small airport operators that gives them the flexibility to obtain a meaningful measure of airfield capacity. Recent Developments Affecting Airfield Capacity Evaluation Techniques Many developments have occurred since the majority of modeling tools, including the AC, were developed. In particular, the following three major developments have had a major effect: 1. Increased computing power and spreadsheet capabilities 2. Increased data availability 3. Introduction of NextGen and new ATC procedures Spreadsheet Models/Computing Power The availability of spreadsheet models and significantly increased computer processing capabil- ity have provided low-cost analysis techniques and new methods for explicitly considering capacity factors previously addressed implicitly or through post-processing. Existing computer models for

Introduction and Background 9 estimating airfield capacity were developed several decades ago, in an environment where mainframe computers could occupy an entire room. Desktop and laptop computers are now commonplace and have considerable processing power. The advances in computing power have led to the development of modeling tools that encompass widely used spreadsheet software and are able to calculate capacity within the model, rather than having to rely on post-processing to capture certain factors. Data Availability The greatly increased availability of data is an important recent development in measuring and modeling airfield capacity. New and improved databases of airport-related information have become available. Detailed information on airport hourly throughput rates is available from FAA’s Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) database for certain airports. Radar data are now available from FAA, and from a number of widely used Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) installations, in a form that is accessible and usable by certain air- port operators. Aircraft ground movements are now captured and displayed by Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X (ASDE-X) at airports that have this equipment in place. Hourly throughput and its influencing factors can now be measured precisely for a variety of weather conditions, time periods, and runway use configurations. The availability of these data has the potential to improve the fidelity of existing and proposed airfield capacity models by making them more data-driven. Primarily for larger airports, it is now possible to obtain more accurate estimates of factors that affect capacity (e.g., aircraft separations, runway occupancy times, fleet mixes, flight tracks, and so forth). However, there remains a challenge in that some of these data are unavailable, costly to acquire, or require significant and time-consuming post-processing efforts to yield useful metrics. NextGen/New ATC Procedures NextGen is a set of evolving ATC and aircraft navigation technologies designed to transform the U.S. ATC system from a ground-based system to a satellite-based system. The development of NextGen has resulted in the need to estimate the capacity benefits expected from the program. Many of the existing modeling tools are not flexible enough to model such changes to proce- dures, aside from the more sophisticated analytical and simulation models. There is a need to also be able to evaluate the capacity benefits of NextGen improvements, and to account for the expected changes associated with the new technologies and procedures using accessible ana- lytical models. Expected changes associated with NextGen are documented in FAA’s NextGen Implementation Plan, the latest version of which at the time of this writing is dated March 2012 (see Figure 1-4). Chapter 4 of this guidebook discusses how some of these NextGen changes are expected to affect the factors and assumptions used to analyze airfield capacity. Organization of the Guidebook ACRP Report 79 is organized to be a practical and user-friendly reference tool that can assist airport planners in understanding airfield capacity and determining the most appropriate level of modeling sophistication to use for a given planning analysis and set of circumstances. This guidebook consists of six chapters and two appendices. Figure 1-5 shows the various guidebook chapters and the questions they are intended to address. • Chapter 2, “Airfield Capacity Concepts,” describes the existing components of an airport that are relevant in an airfield capacity analysis. The specific factors that affect airfield capacity are also presented.

10 evaluating airfield Capacity Source: Federal Aviation Administration. Figure 1-4. FAA’s NextGen Implementation Plan, March 2012. Figure 1-5. Overview of ACRP Report 79, including questions each chapter is intended to address.

Introduction and Background 11 • Chapter 3, “Existing Airfield Capacity Evaluation Tools,” describes the five levels of mod- eling sophistication identified in this research project. For each level, the applications; data requirements; model assumptions, inputs, outputs, and limitations; time, cost, and training requirements; model availability; model limitations and gaps; and other factors are presented. • Chapter 4, “New Airfield Capacity Evaluation Tools and Guidance,” describes the new spreadsheet models developed for this research project, as well as other newly available tools. The chapter also includes a checklist that can be used in evaluating the various models and their applications. • Chapter 5, “How to Select the Appropriate Airfield Capacity Model,” provides a decision- support tool that can be used in evaluating an airport’s existing conditions relevant to selec- tion of an appropriate level of modeling sophistication. Guidance also is provided on specialty capacity evaluations. • Chapter 6, “Subsequent Uses of Airfield Capacity Estimates,” describes how the airfield capacity estimates can be used in estimating aircraft delay and references the ongoing ACRP 03-20 project, “Defining and Measuring Aircraft Delay and Airport Capacity Thresholds.” An Excel spreadsheet tool is provided on the attached CD-ROM, ACRP CD-124. The spread- sheet tool is described later in the guidebook, and a User’s Guide for the tool is provided in Appendix A.

Next: Chapter 2 - Airfield Capacity Concepts »
Evaluating Airfield Capacity Get This Book
×
 Evaluating Airfield Capacity
Buy Paperback | $87.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 79: Evaluating Airfield Capacity is designed to assist airport planners with airfield and airspace capacity evaluations at a wide range of airports.

The report describes available methods to evaluate existing and future airfield capacity; provides guidance on selecting an appropriate capacity analysis method; offers best practices in assessing airfield capacity and applying modeling techniques; and outlines specifications for new models, tools, and enhancements.

The print version of the report includes a CD-ROM with prototype capacity spreadsheet models designed as a preliminary planning tool (similar to the airfield capacity model but with more flexibility), that allows for changing input assumptions to represent site-specific conditions from the most simple to moderate airfield configurations.

The CD-ROM is also available for download from TRB’s website as an ISO image. Links to the ISO image and instructions for burning a CD-ROM from an ISO image are provided below.

Help on Burning an .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the .ISO CD-ROM Image

(Warning: This is a large file and may take some time to download using a high-speed connection.)

CD-ROM Disclaimer - This software is offered as is, without warranty or promise of support of any kind either expressed or implied. Under no circumstance will the National Academy of Sciences or the Transportation Research Board (collectively "TRB") be liable for any loss or damage caused by the installation or operation of this product. TRB makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including without limitation, the warranty of merchantability or the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and shall not in any case be liable for any consequential or special damages.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!