PROJECT FINAL REPORTDSES-6620 Spring 2002

Airport Approach Simulation

Scott Munro

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

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)

Non-Precision Approach Description

Non-Precision Approach VOR Rwy 2

Course via VOR Radial

Range via DME

Limits

- Visibility: 1 mile

- Minimum Descent Alt: 380 ft

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

Simulation Methodology

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. 

The following elements must be considered…

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

Weather

Wind Speed vs Run Hour

0

5

10

15

20

25

Jan-01 Feb-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01

Time

Win

d S

pee

d (

kt)

Out of Limits

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

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

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

Approach Model

Approach Model

Weather Data Playback via UpdateWeather()

IFR Separation via Single Capacity Queue Segments

Fuel via FuelRemaining Entity Attribute

Transit Time via Triangular Distribution

Results

Parameter VOR ILS Change % Change

Landings 148353 151375 3022 2.0%Divert to Alternate Airport 12342 9320 -3022 -24.5%Missed Approached 387 332 -55 -14.2%

Approach Type

Table 1 – Total Airport Approach Performance

Parameter (per hour) VOR ILS Change % Change

Landings 13.85 14.13 0.28 2.0%Divert to Alternate Airport 1.15 0.87 -0.28 -24.5%Missed Approached 0.036 0.031 -0.005 -14.2%

Approach Type

Table 2 – Airport Approach Performance Per Hour

Average Non-Precision Approach Delay : 4.43 minutes

Average Precision Approach Delay : 3.55 minutes