PROJECT FINAL REPORT DSES-6620 Spring 2002 Airport Approach Simulation Scott Munro

1. PROJECT FINAL REPORT DSES-6620 Spring 2002 Airport Approach Simulation Scott Munro

2. Precision vs. Non-Precision Approach • Overview • Simulation of IFR Approach at Small Commercial Airport • Object: Assess the Benefit of Non-Precision vs. Precision Approach • Metrics of Interest: • - Number of Landings • - Number of Diverts • - Average Delay

3. Precision vs. Non-Precision Approach • Instrument Approach • Allows Aircraft to Land in Weather which Precludes VFR Flight • Operates based on RF equipment which provide: • - Course (VOR, ILS Localizer) • - Range (DME) • Glide slope (ILS) • Position (Marker Beacon)

4. Non-Precision ApproachDescription • Non-Precision Approach • VOR Rwy 2 • Course via VOR Radial • Range via DME • Limits • - Visibility: 1 mile • - Minimum Descent Alt: 380 ft

5. Precision Approach Description • Precision Approach • ILS Rwy 2 • Course via ILS Localizer • Range via DME • Glide Slope • Limits • - Visibility: 3/4 mile • - Minimum Descent Alt: 257 ft

6. Element Impact Approach Procedure Time and weather required to successfully execute the approach. Time required to execute the missed approach procedure. Air Traffic Control Minimum separation between aircraft, and aircraft arrival rate. Federal Aviation Regulations Fuel on board for each aircraft on an instrument flight plan. Weather Current ceilings, visibility, and winds at any given time during the simulation. Aircraft Performance Approach speeds, landing distances and maximum crosswind limits for landing. Simulation Methodology The following elements must be considered…

7. Weather • US National Climatic Data Center Surface Weather Observations • Over 10000 hours of Weather Observations Used • Application “weather.exe” Created to Decode SWO’s and Build Weather Database • Model Weather Database • - Visibility • Ceilings • Wind Speed and Direction

8. Weather Out of Limits

9. Aircraft Performance • Piper PA-28 • Single Engine Fixed Gear • Landing Performance • - w/ Head Wind • - w/ Tail Wind • Maximum Crosswinds • Speed • - 70 KIAS Approach • - 63 KIAS Final • - 90 KIAS Missed Approach

10. Air Traffic Control and FAR • Air Traffic Control • Maintain IFR Separation Between Aircraft • 3 nm or 2.0 minutes at 90 knots Federal Aviation Regulations – Fuel Requirements • Fly to the Destination Airport, then… • Fly to the Alternate Airport, then… • Fly 45 minutes longer

11. Air Traffic Control and FAR • Air Traffic Control • Maintain IFR Separation Between Aircraft • 3 nm or 2.0 minutes at 90 knots Federal Aviation Regulations – Fuel Requirements • Fly to the Destination Airport, then… • Fly to the Alternate Airport, then… • Fly 45 minutes longer

12. Approach Model

13. Approach Model • Weather Data Playback via UpdateWeather() • IFR Separation via Single Capacity Queue Segments • Fuel via FuelRemaining Entity Attribute • Transit Time via Triangular Distribution

14. Table 1 – Total Airport Approach Performance Table 2 – Airport Approach Performance Per Hour Results • Average Non-Precision Approach Delay : 4.43 minutes • Average Precision Approach Delay : 3.55 minutes