National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 8 Potential Contributions of the Airport to the Procedural Development
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 Lessons Learned and Best Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23574.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 Lessons Learned and Best Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23574.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 Lessons Learned and Best Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23574.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 Lessons Learned and Best Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23574.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 Lessons Learned and Best Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23574.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 Lessons Learned and Best Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23574.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 Lessons Learned and Best Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23574.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 Lessons Learned and Best Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23574.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 Lessons Learned and Best Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23574.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 Lessons Learned and Best Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23574.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 Lessons Learned and Best Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23574.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 Lessons Learned and Best Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23574.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 Lessons Learned and Best Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23574.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 9 Lessons Learned and Best Practices." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23574.
×
Page 62

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.

Lessons Learned and Best Practices | 47 Lessons Learned and Best Practices9 Case studies of PBN implementation projects for six selected airports and metroplexes were con-ducted in order to identify lessons learned and best practices for airport operators to work with the FAA, their surrounding communities, and other stakeholders in all phases of flight proce- dure design and implementation. The case study airports were selected based on a number of factors including airport size, unique applications of PBN, and specific challenges related to implementation. The airports and the PBN implementations projects are listed below. • Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL)—PBN departure implementation. • Denver International Airport (DEN)—PBN arrival, approach, and departure implementation. • Henderson Executive Airport (HND)—PBN Arrival, approach, and departure implementation. • Houston Metroplex—PBN arrival, approach, and departure implementation. • Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP)—PBN arrival, approach, and departure implementation. • Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA)—Greener Skies PBN arrival and approach implementation. This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section summarizes the common factors and unique characteristics of the case study airports and implementations. The second section summarizes the les- sons learned and best practices identified from the case studies. Summary of Case Studies The projects selected for case study analysis spanned a range of characteristics relevant to the develop- ment and implementation of PBN procedures. The characteristics included: • Land use surrounding the airport, • Project initiators, • Levels of airport involvement, • Types of PBN development processes used, • Development of new flight procedure design criteria, • Environmental impact assessments and assessment preparers, • Levels of community input and public outreach, and • Challenges encountered. A successful outcome is defined as a project in which the designed flight procedures were implement- ed and consistently utilized, without significant and consistent opposition from the community. Table 9-1 provides a summary of the common characteristics associated with each case study.

48 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION T ab le 9 -1 . S um m ar y of c as e st ud y fa ct or s. H A R TS FI EL D - JA C K SO N A TL A N TA IN TE R N A TI O N A L A IR PO R T (A TL ) D EN V ER IN TE R N A TI O N A L A IR PO R T (D EN ) H EN D ER SO N EX EC U TI V E A IR PO R T (H N D ) H O U ST O N M ET R O PL EX M IN N EA PO LI S/ ST . PA U L IN TE R N A TI O N A L A IR PO R T (M SP ) SE A TT LE -T A C O M A IN TE R N A TI O N A L A IR PO R T (S EA ) A irp or t Si ze La rg e H ub La rg e H ub Sm al l R el ie ve r M ul tip le H ub s La rg e H ub La rg e H ub La nd U se Su rr ou nd in g A irp or t In du st ria l, an d lo w - an d m id dl e- in co m e re si de nt ia l Ru ra l a nd m id dl e- in co m e re si de nt ia l M as te r pl an ne d m id dl e- t o up pe r- in co m e re si de nt ia l, un de ve lo pe d la nd pa rc el s In du st ria l a nd lo w er -in co m e re si de nt ia l U pp er - an d m id dl e- in co m e re si de nt ia l In du st ria l a nd m id dl e- in co m e re si de nt ia l Pr oj ec t In iti at or A tla nt a AT C D en ve r AT C a nd in du st ry Lo ca l a irc ra ft op er at or s FA A M et ro pl ex M et ro po lit an A irp or t C om m is si on w ith M in ne ap ol is AT C a nd in du st ry Se at tle A TC a nd in du st ry A irp or t I nv ol ve m en t D es ig n ye s, ou tr ea ch y es D es ig n ye s, ou tr ea ch s om ew ha t D es ig n so m ew ha t, ou tr ea ch n o N o D es ig n so m ew ha t, ou tr ea ch s om ew ha t D es ig n ye s, ou tr ea ch s om ew ha t Pr oc es se s U se d Lo ca l f ea si bi lit y/ FA A 1 8- st ep p ro ce ss Lo ca l f ea si bi lit y/ FA A 18 -s te p pr oc es s FA A 1 8- st ep p ro ce ss M et ro pl ex p ro ce ss Lo ca l f ea si bi lit y of 2 de pa rt ur es /F A A 18 -s te p pr oc es s Lo ca l F ea si bi lit y/ FA A 1 8- st ep pr oc es s Fl ig ht P ro ce du re s Im pl em en te d Eq ui va le nt la te ra l sp ac in g op er at io n (E LS O ) RN AV S ID s RN AV S TA Rs , R N AV SI D s, R N P A R SI A Ps , Es ta bl is he d on R N P (E oR ) SI A Ps RN AV S ID s, R N AV ST A Rs , R N AV S IA Ps RN AV S ID s, R N AV ST A Rs , R N P A R SI A Ps RN AV S ID s, R N AV ST A Rs , R N P A R SI A Ps RN AV S ID s, R N AV ST A Rs , R N P A R SI A Ps , E oR S IA Ps N ew C rit er ia EL SO Eo R RN AV C at eg or y C M is se d A pp ro ac h N o N o RN AV /R N P Pa ra lle l Si m ul ta ne ou s O pe ra tio ns , E oR En vi ro nm en ta l Pr ep ar er C ity o f A tla nt a D ep ar tm en t of Av ia tio n FA A FA A FA A M et ro po lit an A irp or ts C om m is si on FA A C om m un ity In pu t Ye s Ye s N o N o La te in de ve lo pm en t pr oc es s La te in de ve lo pm en t pr oc es s Pu bl ic O ut re ac h Pr oj ec t te am m ee tin gs w ith co m m un ity th ro ug ho ut p ro ce ss FA A e nv iro nm en ta l co nt ra ct or m ee tin gs w ith lo ca l g ov er nm en t th ro ug ho ut p ro ce ss N o Li m ite d br ie fin gs t o co m m un ity b y FA A Ti m e- lim ite d ai rp or t ca m pa ig n to c om m un ity , FA A b rie fin g to co m m un ity o n fin al de si gn FA A b rie fin g to co m m un ity o n fin al d es ig n, a irp or t su pp or tin g C ha lle ng es C rit er ia fo r EL SO re du ce d la te ra l sp ac in g, n oi se se ns iti vi tie s of co m m un iti es Sa tis fy in g in te r- go ve rn m en ta l ag re em en t fo r no is e M is se d ap pr oa ch cr ite ria , p ro xi m ity to L as V eg as M cC ar ra n ai rp or t M in im al fl ig ht p at h ch an ge s be lo w 10 ,0 00 fe et Pu bl ic o pp os iti on to d ev el op ed pr oc ed ur es C rit er ia fo r Eo R, pu bl ic o pp os iti on to d ev el op ed pr oc ed ur es O ut co m e D ev el op ed a nd ap pl ie d ne w EL SO c rit er ia ; in cr ea se d de pa rt ur e th ro ug hp ut ; sa tis fie d co m m un ity no is e se ns iti vi tie s A pp lie d Eo R cr ite ria ; r ed uc ed fli gh t di st an ce , f ue l bu rn a nd e m is si on s; en ha nc ed a irp or t ar riv al t hr ou gh pu t; m et s tr in ge nt no is e ex po su re re qu ire m en ts O ve rc am e te rr ai n an d pr ox im at e ai rp or t tr af fic ch al le ng es ; im pr ov ed a cc es s to ai rp or t Re du ce d fli gh t di st an ce , f ue l b ur n an d em is si on s; ad eq ua te ly in fo rm ed co m m un ity In ad eq ua te pu bl ic o ut re ac h, co m m un ity h al te d im pl em en ta tio n of pr oc ed ur es D ev el op ed a nd ap pl ie d Eo R cr ite ria ; o ve rc am e in iti al c om m un ity op po si tio n; re du ce d fli gh t di st an ce , f ue l b ur n an d em is si on s

Lessons Learned and Best Practices | 49 T ab le 9 -1 . S um m ar y of c as e st ud y fa ct or s. H A R TS FI EL D - JA C K SO N A TL A N TA IN TE R N A TI O N A L A IR PO R T (A TL ) D EN V ER IN TE R N A TI O N A L A IR PO R T (D EN ) H EN D ER SO N EX EC U TI V E A IR PO R T (H N D ) H O U ST O N M ET R O PL EX M IN N EA PO LI S/ ST . PA U L IN TE R N A TI O N A L A IR PO R T (M SP ) SE A TT LE -T A C O M A IN TE R N A TI O N A L A IR PO R T (S EA ) A irp or t Si ze La rg e H ub La rg e H ub Sm al l R el ie ve r M ul tip le H ub s La rg e H ub La rg e H ub La nd U se Su rr ou nd in g A irp or t In du st ria l, an d lo w - an d m id dl e- in co m e re si de nt ia l Ru ra l a nd m id dl e- in co m e re si de nt ia l M as te r pl an ne d m id dl e- t o up pe r- in co m e re si de nt ia l, un de ve lo pe d la nd pa rc el s In du st ria l a nd lo w er -in co m e re si de nt ia l U pp er - an d m id dl e- in co m e re si de nt ia l In du st ria l a nd m id dl e- in co m e re si de nt ia l Pr oj ec t In iti at or A tla nt a AT C D en ve r AT C a nd in du st ry Lo ca l a irc ra ft op er at or s FA A M et ro pl ex M et ro po lit an A irp or t C om m is si on w ith M in ne ap ol is AT C a nd in du st ry Se at tle A TC a nd in du st ry A irp or t I nv ol ve m en t D es ig n ye s, ou tr ea ch y es D es ig n ye s, ou tr ea ch s om ew ha t D es ig n so m ew ha t, ou tr ea ch n o N o D es ig n so m ew ha t, ou tr ea ch s om ew ha t D es ig n ye s, ou tr ea ch s om ew ha t Pr oc es se s U se d Lo ca l f ea si bi lit y/ FA A 1 8- st ep p ro ce ss Lo ca l f ea si bi lit y/ FA A 18 -s te p pr oc es s FA A 1 8- st ep p ro ce ss M et ro pl ex p ro ce ss Lo ca l f ea si bi lit y of 2 de pa rt ur es /F A A 18 -s te p pr oc es s Lo ca l F ea si bi lit y/ FA A 1 8- st ep pr oc es s Fl ig ht P ro ce du re s Im pl em en te d Eq ui va le nt la te ra l sp ac in g op er at io n (E LS O ) RN AV S ID s RN AV S TA Rs , R N AV SI D s, R N P A R SI A Ps , Es ta bl is he d on R N P (E oR ) SI A Ps RN AV S ID s, R N AV ST A Rs , R N AV S IA Ps RN AV S ID s, R N AV ST A Rs , R N P A R SI A Ps RN AV S ID s, R N AV ST A Rs , R N P A R SI A Ps RN AV S ID s, R N AV ST A Rs , R N P A R SI A Ps , E oR S IA Ps N ew C rit er ia EL SO Eo R RN AV C at eg or y C M is se d A pp ro ac h N o N o RN AV /R N P Pa ra lle l Si m ul ta ne ou s O pe ra tio ns , E oR En vi ro nm en ta l Pr ep ar er C ity o f A tla nt a D ep ar tm en t of Av ia tio n FA A FA A FA A M et ro po lit an A irp or ts C om m is si on FA A C om m un ity In pu t Ye s Ye s N o N o La te in de ve lo pm en t pr oc es s La te in de ve lo pm en t pr oc es s Pu bl ic O ut re ac h Pr oj ec t te am m ee tin gs w ith co m m un ity th ro ug ho ut p ro ce ss FA A e nv iro nm en ta l co nt ra ct or m ee tin gs w ith lo ca l g ov er nm en t th ro ug ho ut p ro ce ss N o Li m ite d br ie fin gs t o co m m un ity b y FA A Ti m e- lim ite d ai rp or t ca m pa ig n to c om m un ity , FA A b rie fin g to co m m un ity o n fin al de si gn FA A b rie fin g to co m m un ity o n fin al d es ig n, a irp or t su pp or tin g C ha lle ng es C rit er ia fo r EL SO re du ce d la te ra l sp ac in g, n oi se se ns iti vi tie s of co m m un iti es Sa tis fy in g in te r- go ve rn m en ta l ag re em en t fo r no is e M is se d ap pr oa ch cr ite ria , p ro xi m ity to L as V eg as M cC ar ra n ai rp or t M in im al fl ig ht p at h ch an ge s be lo w 10 ,0 00 fe et Pu bl ic o pp os iti on to d ev el op ed pr oc ed ur es C rit er ia fo r Eo R, pu bl ic o pp os iti on to d ev el op ed pr oc ed ur es O ut co m e D ev el op ed a nd ap pl ie d ne w EL SO c rit er ia ; in cr ea se d de pa rt ur e th ro ug hp ut ; sa tis fie d co m m un ity no is e se ns iti vi tie s A pp lie d Eo R cr ite ria ; r ed uc ed fli gh t di st an ce , f ue l bu rn a nd e m is si on s; en ha nc ed a irp or t ar riv al t hr ou gh pu t; m et s tr in ge nt no is e ex po su re re qu ire m en ts O ve rc am e te rr ai n an d pr ox im at e ai rp or t tr af fic ch al le ng es ; im pr ov ed a cc es s to ai rp or t Re du ce d fli gh t di st an ce , f ue l b ur n an d em is si on s; ad eq ua te ly in fo rm ed co m m un ity In ad eq ua te pu bl ic o ut re ac h, co m m un ity h al te d im pl em en ta tio n of pr oc ed ur es D ev el op ed a nd ap pl ie d Eo R cr ite ria ; o ve rc am e in iti al c om m un ity op po si tio n; re du ce d fli gh t di st an ce , f ue l b ur n an d em is si on s

50 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION For the six case study airports, the research team found that the PBN implementations had positive outcomes and some challenges for the airport, aircraft operators, and communities. The reasons why a project had positive or a negative outcome varies for each airport. For example, the ATL and DEN proj- ects were successful due to the level of coordination and participation of the airport and community. HND and Houston were successful with airport participation but had little community input. At MSP, success was hindered due to the community becoming involved late in the process. SEA was successful with airport involvement, but lacked significant community involvement. The case studies confirm that successful implementation is dependent on both the characteristics and the involvement of the airport and its surrounding community. Lessons Learned and Best Practices A number of lessons learned and best practices synthesized from the case studies can enhance the likelihood of a successful implementation of flight procedures. While the circumstances, operational environment, and local issues associated with each case study are very different, it is possible to de- velop guidance for future PBN implementation projects. The findings are summarized below accord- ing to elements common to all PBN projects, including initiation, personnel, process, environmental, outreach, post-implementation assessment, and outcomes. Best practices or lesson learned, along with specific examples from each case study, are listed for each common element. Initiation This section provides guidelines concerning the initiation of flight procedure development projects. The lessons learned and best practices concerning initiation of procedures include: • Procedure development projects are undertaken for a range of reasons and objectives, such as reducing fuel burn and emissions, improving airspace design, reducing community noise exposure, and/or increasing airport throughput. • Procedure development projects may be initiated by local or federal FAA, aircraft operators, mem- bers of industry, or the airport authorities. • Procedure development projects originating locally may be taken over as federal initiatives. The remainder of this section describes each of these in greater detail and references specific examples from individual case studies. Procedure Development Projects Are Undertaken for a Range of Reasons and Objectives PBN initiatives may be undertaken for a variety of objectives, including reducing fuel burn and emis- sions of aircraft arriving to or departing from the airport, reducing time exposure in the airspace, increasing airport throughput, reducing community noise exposure, or reducing controller workload. For example: • The project at SEA was undertaken to reduce fuel burn and emissions and to demonstrate the navi- gation capabilities of current-day aircraft. • Projects at MSP were initiated to reduce community noise exposure and reduce fuel burn and emis- sions of arrival aircraft.

Lessons Learned and Best Practices | 51 • The project at ATL was undertaken to increase departure throughput of the airport. • The project at DEN sought to reduce controller workload, improve predictability of flight paths, and reduce fuel burn and emissions, based on the specific objectives of each of the participants. The airport’s primary desire was to increase its ability to efficiently handle arriving traffic and to minimize the environmental impacts of traffic growth. The FAA wanted to improve safety and ef- ficiency and lessen controller and pilot workload. The airlines wanted to reduce the miles flown in the terminal area. • The project at HND was undertaken to improve access to and increase utilization of the airport. • The project at the Houston Metroplex was initiated to improve the flight efficiency of arrivals and departures and to increase arrival throughput. Procedure Development Projects May Be Initiated by Local or Federal FAA, Aircraft Operators, Members of Industry, or the Airport Authorities. PBN initiatives may originate from different organizations on the local and federal level. Projects originating locally have been initiated by the local FAA ATO, such as TRACON managers; by airport authorities; and by aircraft operators, air carriers, and other members of industry. FAA headquarters has initiated other projects, typically through the metroplex and other initiatives. For example: • Projects at SEA and MSP were initiated by local airport authorities. • Projects ATL and DEN were initiated by managers at local FAA facilities. • One project at HND was led by the airport authority and by managers at local FAA facilities, while another was led by NetJets, a user of the airport and international fractional ownership operator. • At DEN, Jeppesen led the development of PBN approach procedures. • The project at the Houston Metroplex was undertaken by the FAA through its program. Procedure Development Projects Originating Locally May Be Taken Over as Federal Initiatives. Some projects that originated locally have remained as local initiatives. Others have transitioned to the FAA headquarters level, while still involving the airport to varying degrees. For example: • Projects at MSP and SEA transitioned to the federal FAA ATO; however, the airports remained aware of and involved in the development process. • Projects at ATL, DEN and HND remained as local efforts supported by FAA headquarters. Personnel This section concerns the personnel who may be involved in flight procedure development projects and provides guidance for airport operators to successfully engage. The lessons learned and best prac- tices concerning personnel include the following: • Airport personnel may be deeply involved in procedure development projects. • Projects include local and federal FAA personnel, local aircraft operators and other industry repre- sentatives, and may include local departments of transportation. • Airport representatives should be knowledgeable of PBN and the local airspace and have relation- ships with local community and government.

52 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION • Locally led initiatives require knowledgeable leadership and a cohesive team. • Airports can be involved in FAA-led initiatives. The remainder of this section describes each of these in greater detail and references specific examples from individual case studies. Airport Personnel May Be Deeply Involved in Procedure Development Projects In the majority of successful PBN implementation projects, the airport operator was involved in the design, advising the design team on noise sensitive areas of the community and other local concerns. Airport representatives may be from airport noise and environmental offices, particularly if noise abate- ment factors heavily in the design of the flight procedures. For example: • At SEA and ATL, airport authorities supported designing the routes, including specifying the loca- tions of routes and waypoints. Airport authorities also supported community outreach to explain the design and impacts on the community. • At DEN, a representative from the noise abatement office collaborated on the design of the proce- dures to ensure their compatibility with stringent noise requirements. Projects Include Local and Federal FAA Personnel, Local Aircraft Operators and Other Industry Representatives, and Local Departments of Transportation Projects typically include FAA personnel from the local TRACON, ATCT, adjoining Air Route Traffic Con- trol Centers (ARTCCs), the appropriate FAA operations support group (OSG), and FAA headquarters. Personnel will also include a lead aircraft operator at the airport and other industry representatives, and may include as well representatives from the local department of transportation. For example: • At ATL and DEN, personnel from the local ATCT, TRACON and ARTCC facilities were deeply in- volved in the procedure design, and the City of Atlanta Department of Aviation (ADOA) was a key stakeholder and led the EA. • At HND, procedure development involved the collaboration of the local TRACON, ARTCC, and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), and the Clark County Department of Aviation (CCDOA), which led the development of approach procedures. • At MSP, Delta Air Lines supported procedure design and community outreach. • At DEN, United Airlines and Southwest Airlines supported procedure design. • At SEA, Boeing supported procedure design and criteria development, and Alaska Airlines and Hori- zon Air supported flight simulation evaluation. Airport Representatives Should Be Knowledgeable of the PBN and the Local Airspace and Have Relationships with Local Community and Government Airport and local representatives involved in the PBN process should possess a comprehensive under- standing of the local airspace structure and flight procedures. They should have thorough knowledge of the community, particularly as it relates to the local environment and noise considerations, and have established relationships with the local community and its political leadership. Throughout the process, these personnel can provide important local and environmental information which may supplement the procedure design, identify procedure design considerations, conduct community outreach, and coordinate between the airport, FAA, aircraft operators, community and action groups. Such knowledge and relationships ensure the airport and local representatives can meaningfully

Lessons Learned and Best Practices | 53 engage with the FAA throughout the design process and ensure the PBN procedures meet the objec- tives and constraints of FAA air traffic operations, aircraft operators, and surrounding communities. For example: • At MSP, the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) is the ultimate authority on flight procedures and airport noise, and is the primary interface for community concerns regarding aircraft noise and traf- fic. The NOC comprises six community and six industry representatives, including representation from the airlines. • At SEA, airport personnel who were knowledgeable of PBN and involved in the design of the procedures worked with the FAA to recommend the placement of procedure waypoints to avoid noise-sensitive areas of the surrounding communities. The airport representatives also communi- cated with members of surrounding communities in discussion forums regarding the proposed pro- cedures and their impact. • At DEN, the Noise Abatement Office representatives were intimately familiar with defined contours and grid points defining noise-sensitive areas. They also understood the design of the current ar- rival procedures and air traffic considerations associated with them. • At ATL, project personnel met with city officials and representatives of surrounding communities to describe the project history, the nature of the project, the justification for the design, and design considerations and trade-offs. Locally Led Initiatives Require Knowledgeable Leadership and a Cohesive Team Locally initiated PBN implementation projects may have a greater chance of success when directed by someone who is technically knowledgeable regarding PBN, flight procedures criteria and flight standards, and is familiar with the FAA lines of business relevant to implementation of PBN flight procedures. There is a greater chance of success when all members of the PBN Team remain engaged throughout the development process rather than individuals working independently throughout dif- ferent project phases. For example: • At DEN, FAA and airline personnel on the design team helped move the project forward when seri- ous roadblocks were encountered throughout the development and implementation process. Flight procedure development was conducted with considerable collaboration between the DEN Noise Abatement Office and other project team members. • At ATL, procedure development was guided by an Atlanta TRACON manager with extensive knowledge of PBN and criteria. He was instrumental in securing support and coordination from the appropriate FAA divisions for the certification and implementation of the procedures. In this case, the project leader was able to partition the development among individual team members. Airports Can Be Involved in FAA-Led Initiatives In initiatives initiated or overtaken by the FAA, airports may remain deeply involved in the design, or can expect to be briefed by the FAA. In the latter case, the briefings may be at the beginning of the project and concern the intended scope and goals of the project; briefings may be at the end of the design phase and concern the proposed design of the PBN procedures; or briefings may be at multiple points throughout the process. Airports may want to reach out to the FAA project representative to request briefings and track project progress. For example: • At SEA, the FAA met with the airport representatives, controllers, and airlines to decide on the placement waypoints for each procedure.

54 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION • At MSP, the FAA engaged with airlines, NATCA, and others in the development of the procedures, and MSP staff were invited to attend all meetings and engaged in and monitored the design process. • At the Houston Metroplex, the FAA’s design team briefed representatives of the Houston Airport System (HAS) and the community regarding the objectives of the project at the outset and on the final design of the procedures at the end. Process This section covers processes and considerations for developing PBN flight procedures. The lessons learned and best practices concerning the process include: • Primary procedure design guidance includes the FAA 5-phase PBN Implementation Process (FAA Order 7100.41) and the FAA metroplex study and design process. • Procedure design is unique to each airport and surrounding airspace, which requires balancing multiple, sometimes competing objectives of the FAA ATO, aircraft operators, airport operators, and surrounding community. • Air traffic management methods may be a component of the procedure to meet design objectives. • New criteria for flight procedures have been developed in previous PBN initiatives. The remainder of this section describes each of these in greater detail and references specific examples from individual case studies. Primary Procedure Design Guidance Includes the FAA 5-Phase PBN Implementation Process (FAA Order 7100.41) and the FAA Metroplex Study and Design Process The FAA 5-phase (previously 18-step) process was used across the majority of the airspace projects surveyed. The current FAA metroplex process includes a study team and design and implementation (D&I) team. The study team is composed of trained metroplex representatives, airspace subject mat- ter experts, ATC area representatives, and the lead operator. The team examines the current airspace structure, traffic flows, and other operational considerations. The three to six month process results in airspace and procedure design recommendations that are submitted to the design and implementa- tion team. The D&I team, also trained for the project, analyzes the study results and develops the specific procedures and airspace changes to accommodate them. The environmental process is also included throughout, along with regular outreach to industry. Extensive human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulations are conducted that permit controllers to manage traffic with the proposed procedures. The process takes up to two years to complete. Metroplex does not have a formal process for commu- nity outreach. For example: • Projects at SEA, HND, DEN and ATL all cited the FAA 18-step process as the basis for their PBN projects. • At the Houston metroplex, the FAA metroplex process was used but with some modifications to the environmental and outreach components that were deemed acceptable prior to initiating the project.

Lessons Learned and Best Practices | 55 Design Is Unique to Each Airport and Requires Balancing Multiple, Sometimes Competing Objectives of the FAA ATO, Aircraft Operators, Airport Operators, and Surrounding Community Procedure design requirements are specific to each airport and the surrounding airspace. PBN pro- cedures may be developed to meet community noise constraints, airspace confines, and obstacles. However, meeting the community needs may result in a less efficient flight procedure, such as adding miles to avoid noise-sensitive areas, thereby increasing fuel usage and emissions. A reasonable balance between meeting the needs of the community, the airport, aircraft operators, air traffic control, and other stakeholders must be achieved. PBN does have limitations and may not always be a method to avoid sensitive areas surrounding an airport. In addition, the requirements of air traffic control and aircraft automation tools, such as ground support tools used by controllers to manage air traffic and the FMS of aircraft should be considered early in the design and evaluation of flight procedures. Com- patibility issues of the designed procedures with various automation systems may be resolved through successive design iterations and/or criteria changes. For example: • At ATL, the initial leg of one departure procedure was extended to avoid exposing a school in the local community to noise. Another departure procedure was rerouted slightly north to avoid an- other segment of the community. These changes were made while still retaining additional routes enabled by RNAV. • At DEN, procedures were designed to raise the vertical profile for improved efficiency and de- creased exposure to low-level turbulence and to provide a less restrictive lateral route to the airport. They also met stringent noise contour requirements and grid point noise limits. However, the com- plexities of the procedures created operational issues for pilots and controllers. • At MSP, the majority of the land use is residential, and the surrounding communities pay close at- tention to the operations of the airport, so design to minimize noise exposure can be challenging. • At the Houston Metroplex, the majority of the land use surrounding the airport is industrial; there- fore, design challenges to avoid noise-sensitive areas are not necessarily significant. Air Traffic Management Methods May Be a Component of the Procedure to Meet Design Objectives Air traffic controllers may develop traffic management methods to enable or enhance implementa- tion and utilization of PBN flight procedures. For instance, vector to RNAV procedures are useful for dispersing noise where land use otherwise precludes tight corridors (i.e., communities). Otherwise, RNAV permits routing flights over areas compatible with air traffic noise, such as industrial and other less sensitive areas. For example: • At MSP, vector to RNAV departure procedures require controllers to direct aircraft along different departure headings, thereby fanning departures to avoid concentrating noise to a particular seg- ment of the community. • At DEN, TRACON controllers may assign equipped and non-equipped aircraft to different runways and approach procedures, thereby enabling PBN flight procedure use and improving runway utilization. • At the Houston Metroplex, ATCT, and TRACON controllers are segregating traffic by equipage.

56 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION New Criteria for Flight Procedures Have Been Developed in Previous PBN Initiatives New flight procedure design criteria can be developed and implemented to support operations as part of a PBN initiative. For locally sponsored design initiatives, the design team may seek outside consultation to conduct a credible safety case for the new criteria. This supports FAA Flight Standards in evaluating the procedures and criteria, and may increase the chance of FAA approval. Two instances are established on required navigation performance (RNP) (EoR) approach procedures and equivalent lateral separation operations (ELSO) departure procedures. EoR approach procedures permit reduced approach path length and separation between aircraft on independent and dependent approaches to parallel runways. ELSO departure procedures permit reduced lateral separation of a ten degree diver- gence between departures from parallel runways with centerlines separated by 2,500 feet and succes- sive departures from the same runway. For example: • At SEA, the acquisition management system engineering and safety risk management processes are used for developing new flight procedure design criteria. Boeing successfully supported the FAA in evaluations to reduce the separation standards for EoR approach procedures. These procedures have been implemented and are in use at SEA and DEN. • At ATL, the design team solicited the support of the MITRE Corporation to investigate the safety case for new criteria for ELSO departure procedures. These procedures have been implemented to include an additional departure route while maintaining the same overall airspace used by depar- ture traffic. EA This section concerns the EA as part of the development and implementation of flight procedures. The lessons learned and best practices concerning environmental include: • EA can depend on the altitude regime where changes are being made. • EA depends on the particular PBN implementation initiative. • Airports can conduct their own EAs. The remainder of this section describes each of these in greater detail and references specific examples from individual case studies. EA can Depend on the Altitude Regime Where Changes Are Being Made The depth of the assessment may vary according to how the flight procedures are altered, the design of the Class B airspace, and the resulting impact on the airport and community. Regarding procedure changes and their impact on the airport and community, changes 18,000 feet AGL have the least im- pact; changes between 18,000 and 10,000 feet AGL can have more impact; changes 10,000 feet AGL and below can have the greatest impact. Airspace actions below 3,000 feet require more complex EAs. Operations below 3,000 feet can result in significant public opposition, so consideration of community concerns should be a part of the process, as with any PBN project. For example: • At the Houston Metropelx, the majority of the procedure design changes were above 10,000 feet, and thus warranted less complex EA regarding the impact on the airport and its local airspace.

Lessons Learned and Best Practices | 57 EA Depends on the Particular PBN Implementation Initiative The FAA leads the EA effort for its own initiatives. However, the airport authority or the local depart- ment of transportation has led the EA in local initiatives. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 allows for a categorical exclusion (CatEx) for new PBN procedures that routinely route aircraft over noise sensitive areas below 3,000 feet. As per FAA Order 1051.1F, this is provided that an appro- priate noise screening and extraordinary circumstances analysis has been performed. In most cases, the FAA conducted an EA including noise analysis and public outreach as part of the NEPA process. In other cases, it conducted an environmental worksheet and obtained a CatEx for the procedures. In some cases, previous EAs led by federal or local authorities for previous projects were sufficiently broad to cover changes resulting from new procedures. For example: • At SEA, DEN, and the Houston Metroplex, the FAA conducted its own EA, including analysis of noise, with the assistance of private consulting firms. • At ATL, the ADOA led the environmental effort. • At MSP, the FAA prepared an environmental worksheet and issued a non-published CatEx for the proposed procedures, and did not conduct an EA or EIS. • At HND, the EA conducted for a previous project was sufficient to obtain a CatEx for the new SIDs and STARs. Airports Can Conduct Their Own EAs Airports can support developing PBN flight procedures, interpreting noise contours, and providing insight into the noise impacts of proposed procedures. The FAA may conduct noise analysis as part of the NEPA process, however the airport may conduct its own noise analysis to supplement that of the FAA in order to assess adherence of the proposed procedures to local noise constraints. Noise analysis should compare the noise contours and other metrics of the PBN procedures against the legacy proce- dures. Noise metrics which have been used in assessments include day-night average noise level (DNL) and equivalent continuous level (LEQ). For example: • At MSP, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) conducted its own noise analysis comparing the legacy procedures to the proposed procedures to determine that the changes would have no significant impact with community noise exposure. • At DEN, the airport’s noise abatement office conducted extensive analysis of the proposed flight procedures to ensure adherence to stringent noise contour and grid point limits. Outreach This section concerns outreach to the community to garner understanding of flight procedures. The lessons learned and best practices concerning outreach include: • Early outreach to the community and other stakeholders is critical to the success of PBN initiatives. • Sufficient resources need to be allocated to outreach. • The impacts of the proposed procedures must be described in terms understandable to the community. • The FAA may undertake its own outreach in procedure development initiatives it leads. The remainder of this section describes each of these in greater detail and references specific examples from individual case studies.

58 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION Early Outreach to The Community and Other Stakeholders Is Critical to the Success of PBN Initiatives Prior to the development of PBN, outreach and coordination with communities and other stakehold- ers is crucial to understanding noise and environmental concerns, in addition to garnering commu- nity support. Waiting until procedures are complete, or nearly complete, before briefing interested stakeholders may be met with resistance and could lead to the need to redesign procedures and delay projects. Community outreach, with full explanation and disclosure, engenders community under- standing. The FAA 5-phase process does not have explicit provisions for community outreach during the design process. Local action groups have been able to place pressure on the FAA, leading to the cancellation of certain procedures. For example: • At MSP, the public was not briefed about the procedures during the project. Instead, the pub- lic was briefed only after the design was complete and was not given sufficient time to consider and respond to the proposed designs. Public opposition to proposed procedures halted their implementation. • At SEA, the public was not briefed until after the EA of the designed procedures, and the outreach finally conducted was inadequate. This resulted in resistance from segments of the surrounding communities. • At MSP, DEN and SEA, the airports are bordered on all sides by residential areas. The local govern- ments are very knowledgeable of the impact of airport operations on the community and conduct extensive community outreach. • At DEN, the design team met with state and national park representatives early in the process to ensure compliance with noise restrictions. Sufficient Resources Need to be Allocated to Outreach Sufficient time must be allocated to outreach for a particular initiative. The community must have sufficient time to review and understand the proposed changes, provide feedback, and engage in a discussion with the airport authority. The duration required will vary with location and procedures. An adequate public outreach campaign may include a web site, briefings to city council and other local government representatives, open houses, news channel presentations, newspaper articles, periodic (e.g., quarterly) meetings with the public, and distribution packets with all relevant project informa- tion. For example: • At DEN, a level of outreach similar to that described above was proposed, and was successful in educating local government officials and the community and garnering their support. • At MSP, a level of outreach similar to that described above was proposed, however, the time frame was limited to 60 days. This proved to be insufficient time to brief the communities and allow them to understand the proposed airspace redesign, and to earn their approval. • At the Houston metroplex, the FAA Metroplex team met with the HAS three times during the design process and attended noise round table public meetings held by the HAS. Other meetings were held by HAS to brief the public and respond to their questions. The Impacts of The Proposed Procedures Must Be Described in Terms Understandable to the Community The impacts of PBN that are of interest to the community include reduced exposure to aircraft noise, reduced local greenhouse gas emissions, increased air transportation system efficiency, increased

Lessons Learned and Best Practices | 59 safety, locations where flight paths are changing, locations where noise levels would change, the basis for noise estimates, and how and why the noise changes would or would not impact the community. The impacts of the procedure changes need to be explained in terms understandable to the commu- nity. For example: • At MSP and SEA, the impacts mentioned above were the particular impacts that were identified to be of greatest interest to community members. • At SEA, detailed technical descriptions of the impacts of the proposed procedures, such as incre- mental changes in the decibel level of the DNL, were confusing to the community members. The FAA Will Undertake Its Own Outreach in Procedure Development Initiatives It Leads The FAA will typically undertake its own outreach initiative to satisfy the NEPA process. The FAA may delegate outreach to a contractor it hires to conduct the EA or EIS. However, local FAA airport repre- sentation, working with airport authorities, can be a more effective approach to outreach than repre- sentatives of FAA headquarters working alone; the FAA can incorporate the support of the local airport and that airport’s local knowledge, relationships, and tools. The extent of the FAA’s outreach efforts can vary. It can be as extensive as initial scoping or meetings, meetings for mid-term review of the semi-final design with community and local government groups, or in some cases, after all work has been completed and submitted. For example: • At SEA and MSP, the FAA conducted its own community outreach in open forums toward the end of the development process. • At DEN, a contractor to the FAA conducted three stages of public and agency meetings including initial scoping, mid-term review, and draft EA meetings. • At MSP, airport representatives have collaborated with local FAA representatives to conduct public outreach campaigns. Post-Implementation Assessment This section addresses post-implementation analysis conducted by airports. The lessons learned and best practices related to post-implementation assessment includes thatrequirements for post-imple- mentation assessment vary according to local needs. The type and rigor of post-implementation assessment of procedures conducted by the airport varies according to the local needs. Post-implementation assessment has included monitoring aircraft noise and assessing operational benefits. Noise assessment has included aggregate analysis of air traffic to estimate noise contours, as well as observation of individual flight tracks to investigate reported viola- tions. Operational benefits assessments have included airport throughput and frequency of arrival flight execution of optimized profile descents (OPDs). Larger airports have worked with vendors and the FAA to develop specialized analysis capabilities. For example: • MSP is developing tools to estimate if an arrival aircraft conducted an OPD and to conduct aggre- gate analysis of OPD flights. • DEN is evaluating conformance to stringent noise constraints, monitoring operational throughput and aircraft flight distance, including fuel burn. • ATL is primarily concerned with departure throughput, and only evaluates noise compliance in response to complaints.

60 | UNDERSTANDING THE AIRPORT’S ROLE IN PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION • SEA is monitoring fuel burn and emissions of aircraft. • Houston is monitoring flight distance, fuel burn and emissions of aircraft, and controller workload. • The FAA is monitoring usage levels of the PBN procedures at individual airports in each metroplex. Outcomes This section concerns potential outcomes of flight procedures after they have been deployed and uti- lized. The lessons learned and best practices concerning outcomes include that PBN flight procedures can yield positive impacts for airports, aircraft operators, and the surrounding community.The out- comes of implementing PBN flight procedures can vary depending upon numerous factors, including the implementation objectives, the procedure design, the local airspace, as well as airport character- istics, equipage types and levels among aircraft. The following outcomes have been identified in the case studies: • Improving access to airports. For example, at HND, the procedures have deconflicted HND traffic flows from those of Las Vegas airport, and the procedures have also improved access to HND as a reliever airport, making it attractive to GA and business aircraft operators. • Maximizing the use of existing airspace by effectively containing aircraft within a more confined space. For example, at ATL, additional equivalent lateral spacing operation (ELSO) departure routes enabled additional throughput. At SEA, established on required navigation performance (EoR) ap- proach procedures enabled greater utilization of parallel arrival runways. • Reducing aircraft emissions with more direct routes and more fuel efficient flight procedures. This has been demonstrated at multiple sites, including SEA, The Houston Metroplex, DEN and MSP. • Improving the airport’s adherence to noise abatement programs. For example, at DEN, PBN proce- dures improved adherence to stringent noise contour requirements and noise level thresholds. At MSP, PBN procedures were designed to route aircraft over less noise-sensitive areas. • Promoting more efficient use of the runways of an airport, with potential increases in airport throughput and surface traffic efficiency. For example, at DEN, PBN procedures have augmented runway balancing and utilization, thereby increasing throughput. • Increasing safety by reducing controller workload for managing traffic and improving flight track repeatability and predictability. At the Houston Metroplex, controllers are issuing few vectors to ar- rivals, improving safety and repeatability.

Next: Chapter 10 Metrics for Assessing the Impact of Procedures »
NextGen for Airports, Volume 1: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 150: NextGen for Airports, Volume I: Understanding the Airport’s Role in Performance-Based Navigation: Resource Guide, the first report in this series, provides comprehensive information to practitioners concerning all aspects of Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) and how implementation affects overall airport operations. This Resource Guide encompasses background information, description of effects on short- and long-term airport development, impacts on safety and performance measures, and other critical factors affecting future airport operations. In addition to providing guidance to users on available resources for additional assistance, this volume also includes lessons learned and best practices based on findings from case studies that examined the airport operator’s role in PBN implementation.

The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) refers to the federal programs (predominately airspace, air traffic, or avionics related) that are designed to modernize the National Airspace System (NAS). ACRP’s NextGen initiative aims to inform airport operators about some of these programs and how the enabling practices, data, and technologies resulting from them will affect airports and change how they operate.

View the suite of materials related to ACRP Report 150: NextGen for Airports:

  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!