a0-a092 peat marwick mitchell and co san ...irunway a 100 26 b 75 25 c 100 d 100! i exit utilization...

A0-A092 455 PEAT MARWICK MITCHELL AND CO SAN FRANCISCO CALIF F/S 1/5TASK FORCE DELAY STUDY. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD ATLANTA INTERNATI--ETC(U)JUN 80 DOT-FA77WA-3961

UNCLASSIFIED NL

3

IIII.'

I'll".l

_____________________________ ('j~) Technical '.eport Documentation Page

I ReotN.2. Go *-ni~n Dkcces,, o .Rc~n Catalog No.

Soo' ~ n AgNc Home

-n A A 94

4. itl Prgam Manaeme n Stff ATFrt-atT ashingone D.C.y 20591Jue98

~ feWilliam B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Aipr. Theorin OraniayisCd

was oduted byteAlat ipotIpoemn okigGop hc a

the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ S ailnseevngAlntadthfeerlAiainAminstriationRpr o

caseofmn delniay Naned thes poenia delay redutio benfit ofrcommndeAta i rpr mprovements hfot Wsprtin Gofuhpipr mroeetPorm

FAA e io nal Plnnn Staffto StateIme nt rato rn o

East Point, Docuent320 1availabe o othdero publicAiSpnringelCcy throug the NatonarTchncaAirraf Deayen InformationrServicF ,experimal Desain Srigfildsirgniai216Ai Poriel Siagmulato Model T- 4 'rgAenyCd

omT F r 700.7 contain Repprtcion docmetiod for thee i led anaysi

DATA PACKAGE NO. IAIRPORT IMPROVEMENT

TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIES

................. I ... .liii..... ....... .. .

... .. ..... ........ ~p ep re for........

DEPARTMENT.. OF TRANPORTTIO.. E..RA. AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

.............. under contract......... ....... .A ...A .3961

Peat MarickMitcell Co. ~ ~ ~ ~ PI 1978..........

PEAT MA RICK. MITCHELL & CO.P. 0. BOX 8007

*SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

SAN FRANCISCO, CAVFORNIA 94128

gTelephone: (415) 347-9521

April 14, 1978!

Mr. Ray Fowler, AEM-100Federal Aviation Administration800 Independence Avenue, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20591

Re: Input Data for Atlanta Simulation Model Calibrationand Annual Delay Baseline Experiment

Dear Ray:

Enclosed are some data materials for use during the secondTask Force meeting on April 20, 1978:

0 • Attachment A contains the preliminarycalibration data package. Additionaldata are required from NAFEC and theTask Force to complete this package.

0 Attachment B contains the preliminaryannual delay baseline data package.

These attachments contain information that should be reviewed,revised, and approved by the Atlanta Task Force prior to usein model runs.

Sincerely,

Stephen-L. M. HockadayManager S- n

Accessionfl'orSLMH/nbe -NT'IS &i

tTIC T.Enclosure U,1annotr-cc d

Jucc: Mr. J. R. Dupree (ALG-312)

Mr. B. Drotts (ASO-4) (w/encl)

Di ,t r ~u1t I cr!01

I Iu

- -II -P 'VI

Attachment A

PRELIMINARY CALIBRATION DATA PACKAGE

i

i

WILLIAM B HARTSFIELD

ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

I

Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies

III4Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.j San Francisco, California

April 14, 1978

INPUT DATA

A. LOGISTICS

1. Title: Atlanta International Airport AirfieldSimulation model Calibration Run

2. Random Number Seeds: 2017, 3069, 4235, 5873, 6981,7137, 8099, 9355, 0123, 1985.

3. Start and Finish Times: 1430 to 1700.

4. Print Options: Detailed run for one random number seed.I Summary run for ten random number seeds.

5. Airline Names: Name Code

Air Freight AFAir Taxi ATBraniff BDelta DLEastern EANorthwest NWPiedmont PISouthern soTrans World TW

United UA

6. Processing Options: First run to check model input.Other runs in COMPUTE mode.

7. Truncation Limits: + 3 standard deviations.

B. Time Switch: Not applicable.

B. AIRFIELD PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

9. Airfield Network: See Figure 1.

10. Number of Runways: 3.

11. Runway Identification: 26, 27L and 27R.

12. Departure Runway End Links: 180, 238.

13. Runway Crossing Links: 191, 187, 202, 230, 353, 185,354, 313, 347.

14. Exit Taxiway Location: To be based on existing airfieldconfiguration and only those exitsused during field data collectionfor calibration.

115. Holding Areas: Holding for (a) EA at north end of Runway 15,and (b) DL on taxiways P and R as appropriate.

I 16. Airline Gates: See Figure 2.

17. General Aviation Basing Areas: Two areas, one to west ofterminal area and one toeast of terminal area.

IC. ATC PROCEDURES

18. Aircraft Separations: These values are based on capacitymodel data--may be revised as a

1 result of reduced field data.Arrival-Arrival Separation (n.m.) - All cases except

1. VFRas noted.

Trail Aircraft ClassIA B C D

Lead A 1.1 1.3 2.3 2.59Aircraft B 1.1 1.3 2.3 2.5

Class C 2.9 3.7 3.1 3.1

2.IRD 4.1 5.1 4.7 4.1

Trail Aircraft ClassA B C D

Lead A 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.5Aircraft B 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.5

Class C 4.5 4.5 3.3 3.3D 6.5 6.5 5.5 4.5

4

22. Vectoring Delays:

* This input allocates delays among vectoring and holding.Model input values will be used that hold arrival air-craft if delays to arrival aircraft exceed 10 minutes.

23. Departure Runway Queue Control:

Aircraft are assigned departure runways to precludeI airspace crossovers, not to balance departure queues.

g24. Gate Hold Control:Aircraft are held at gates when departure queue atrunway is 10 or more, except when gate holds would

I cause gate congestion.

25. Departure Airspace Constraints:

Aircraft are not held at gates due to departure airspaceconstraints.

I26. Inter-Arrival Gap:With this runway use, arrival aircraft are delayed inI the arrival airspace when departure delays exceed10 minutes.

I27. Runway Crossing Delay Control:Arrival and departure runway operations are only inter-rupted for a taxiing aircraft to cross an active runway

* when the taxiing aircraft is delayed by 10 minutes ormore.

D. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

28. Exit Taxiway Utilization:

Exit Utilization (percent)A/C

Class GG F C

IRunway A 10026 B 75 25

C 100D 100

!

IExit Utilization (percent)

9 A/CClass Y X W U

Runway A 10026L B 100

C 65 35

D 20 80

29. Arrival Runway Occupancy Times:

Runway Occupancy Time (seconds)A/C

Class GG F C

Runway A 4826 B 41 50

C 60D 60

A/CClass Y X W U

Runway A 3726L B 48

c 45 65D 45 65

I 30. Touch & Go Occupancy Times:

Aircraft Runway Occupancy Time (seconds)Class Mean Standard Deviation

A 22 3I B 23 3

C 27 4D 27 4

I 31. Departure Runway Occupancy Times:


A 23 3B 26 3C 37 4D 37 4

f32. Taxi Speeds: To be based on reduced field data.

I

Departure-Departure Separations (seconds)

1. WE R

Trail Aircraft ClassIA B C D

Lead A 25 30 40 50Aircraft B 30 40 45 50

Class C 45 45 60 60D 120 120 120 90

12. FTrail Aircraft Class

A B C D

Lead A 60 60 60 60Aircraft B 60 60 60 60

Class C 60 60 60 60D 120 120 120 90

19. Route Data: See Figure 3.

j20. Two-Way Path Data:Two-way taxiways are located as follows:

I1. Taxiway A.

2. Taxiway B between Taxiways V and P.

3. Taxiway F.

21. Common Approach Paths:

Arrival Aircraft Length of CommongRunway Class Approach Path_

26 A 3.0B 3.0IC. 5.0D 5.0

27L A 3.0B 3.0C 5.0

eD 5.0

33. Approach Speeds:

Aircraft Approach Speed (knots)Class Mean Standard Deviation

I A 95 10B 120 10C 130 10D 140 10

34. Gate Service Times: To be supplied by Task Force.

35. Airspace Travel Times: To be based on reduced fielddata.

36. Runway Crossing Times: To be based on reduced fielddata.

37. Lateness Distribution: To be supplied by Task Force.

38. Demand: To be based on reduced field data.

II

IIeII

OUTPUT DATA

A. FLOW RATES: To be based on reduced field data.

B. DELAYS: To be based on reduced field data.

C. TRAVEL TIMES: To be based on reduced field data.

t

I

I

!

lw_ 0

AIR:FIELD NET-WOR;K

WILLIAIV M. H^FARTFIELD ATrLANTA INTrE-F

,,, N

0>

- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

- --- - - - - - - - - - - r*-.

LO NETWORK

"LANTA^ INTrERNATrIO:NAL AkIRPOCRT Figure 1

-- ,

COO

-7

I-.3

'0'

<---7

4) C-,C"

o Airlne7at0

C4e-7C4-

(-4

-4f -4

CO-

C.Figure 2

Figure: 2A

L

I..

b0 0

1 04

SL

9 CLtFigure 3a

Arrivals 26

Source: NAFEC

- I-Z

o -;

.- e(

eitr 3bDea0ue 26,

Sotlrc: NAri

V.12.4 .-Z)S.

44

-4

E-4

iCi

II

Figure 3c

Arrivals 27L

Source: NAFEC

Si0

04C4

E-4

0 0

ee

Al

Figure 3d

I Departures 27R

g Source: NAFEC

Attachment B

PRELIMINARY ANNUAL DELAY BASELINEDATA PACKAGE

WILLIAM B HARTSFIELD

I ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

I


IIII

Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.I San Francisco, California

i April 14, 1978

I- .-. ,-.-.

1. Annual Demand: 516,558 (1977)

2. Group Specification:

3 day groups : High, Average, Low12 week groups 12 months, January through December3 weather groups: VFR, IFRI, IFR2

2 runway uses : Arrivals DeparturesRunway Runway

1. 8, 9R 8, 9L

2. 26, 27L 26, 27R

3. Weekly Traffic:

Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

% of annualin one week 1.83 1.86 1.88 1.90 1.90 1.91 1.90 1.98 1.95 1.95 1.96 1.98

4. Number of Weeks in Each Group:

Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number ofweeks 4.43 4.00 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43

5. Daily Traffic:

Day Group 1 2 3

% of weeklyin one day 15.0 14.0 13.5

6. Number of Days in Each Group:

Day Group 1 2 3

Number of Days 3 2 2

7. Weather Group Demand Factors:

VFR: 1.00IFRi: 1.00IFR2: 0.90

S. Weather Occurrences:

Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

VFR 82 97 84 93 93 100 93 87 84 92 72 86IFRI 15 3 16 7 7 0 7 13 16 8 22 11IFR2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3

9. Hourly Runway Capacity:

Hourly CapacityRunway Use VFR IFRI IFR2

1 139 114 682 138 114 -

10. Runway Use Occurrences*:

Percent OccurrenceRunway Use VFR IFRI IFR2

1 30.2 8.0 0.82 57.8 3.0 0.2

1i. Hourly Traffic:

% daily % daily % daily % dailya Hour traffic Hour traffic Hour traffic Hour traffic

00-01 2.8 06-07 2.4 12-13 6.0 18-19 6.401-02 2.3 07-08 1.4 13-14 4.5 19-20 7.002-03 0.4 08-09 2.4 14-15 4.9 20-21 5.003-04 0.5 09-10 5.1 15-16 7.3 21-22 5.204-05 1.0 10-11 6.0 16-17 6.5 22-23 3.405-06 2.0 11-12 6.6 17-18 6.3 23-24 4.6

12. Demand Profile Factor: 30%

13. Runway Use Demand Factor:

All runway uses accommodate air carrier and generalaviation demand (Demand factor = 1.0).

14. Aircraft Mix: 1% Class A13% Class B73% Class C13% Class D

* PMM&Co. estimates based on 1977 PMS records.

15. Percent Arrivals:

Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals

00-01 49 06-07 10 12-13 38 18-19 4101-02 15 07-08 29 13-14 59 19-20 6102-03 36 08-09 61 14-15 70 20-21 4403-04 42 09-10 69 15-16 55 21-22 4404-05 66 10-11 44 16-17 46 22-23 4905-06 73 11-12 58 17-18 60 23-24 67

16. User-Specified Title: ATL ANNUAL BASELINE

I

I

I

II

I

I

DATA PACKAGE NO. 2AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT


................................

. , ......

.......................... 4.

..........1111111.

.. . ........... . . . . . . .

4.l.V ... .. . . . . .. .

prepared for

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

under contract

a. DOT FA77WA -3961

Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.JULY 1978

PEAT. MARWICK, MITCHELL & CO.P. o.BOX 8007

SAN PR&NCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

SAN P"NCISCO, CATIFORNIA 94128

Telephone: (415) 347-9521

July 7, 1978


Re: Atlanta Data Package No. 2

Dear Ray:

Enclosed are some data materials for use during the fourthTask Force meeting on July 12, 1978:

" Attachment A contains the results of theconstruction experiments. It should bepointed out to all concerned that theseresults are both preliminary, because theyhave not been reviewed or accepted by theAtlanta Task Force, and approximate,because they are derived from simplified"handbook type" analysis techniques andnot from airfield simulation model runs.

* Attachment B contains the results of thefour runway capacity experiments. Again,it should be pointed out that these re-sults are preliminary and approximate.

" Attachment C contains the input data for theremaining Stage 1 experiments. This infor-mation should be reviewed, revised, andapproved by the Atlanta Task Force beforeit is used in model runs.

Sincerely,

Stephen L. M. HcckadayManager

SLMH/nbeEnclosure

cc: Mr. J. R. Dupree (ALG-312)Mr. B. Drotts (ASO-4) (w/encl)

ATTACHMENT A

RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTION EXPERIMENTS

William B. HartsfieldAtlanta International Airport


Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.San Francisco, California

July 1978

RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTION EXPERIMENTS

A manual analysis was performed to estimate the effects ofthe 36-hour closure of Runway 8/26 planned for later in thesummer. The objectives of this analysis were to:

" Obtain order-of-magnitude estimatesof the severity of delays that canbe expected

* Identify the benefits of partialoperation of Runway 8/26 for generalaviation (propeller) aircraft

* Determine the best time of day tostart the 36-hour closure

Figure A-i shows the three alternative runway-use configurationsthat were considered. The left panel in Figure A-1 shows abaseline configuration with Runway 8/26 open. The middle panelshows two parallel runways plus propeller operations onRunway 8/26. In this case, propeller aircraft are assumed toland on one side of the construction area and to depart onthe other side. The right panel in Figure A-1 shows the useof two parallel runways only.

Also shown in Figure A-i are estimates of hourly runway capacitiesassuming 50 percent arrivals. Note that using Runway 8/26 forpropeller aircraft (middle panel) yields a capacity increaseof about 15 to 30 aircraft per hour.

The reason for the range of capacities associated with the"two parallels only" case is that, when both of these runwaysare used for arrivals, there are two alternative ATC procedures,shown as Procedures 1 and 2 in Figure A-2.

In Procedure 1, large (L) aircraft are flown on a courseparallel to, but slightly ahead of, heavy (H) aircraft on theadjacent approach path. In Procedure 2, however, this L-Hstagger is not allowed; instead, wake-vortex separations areprovided behind the heavy aircraft. In other words, Proce-dure 2 treats the situation as a single channel.

Capacity estimates associated with the alternative runway-useconfigurations for the construction closure period are givenin Table A-1 for various arrival percentages. It should beemphasized that these capacity estimates are only approximate,9 having been obtained using manual "handbook" methods.

A graphical comparison of these capacity figures as a functionof arrival percentage is presented in Figure A-3. CurvesC and D in Figure A-3 depict the capacity differences betweenATC Procedures 1 and 2; Curve B shows the benefits of usingthe stub ends of Runway 8/26 for propeller aircraft.

A comparison was also made of these capacities against totalhourly demand (arrivals and departures) by time of day.This comparison is shown in Figure A-4 where the various50-percent-arrival capacities were superimposed on the pro-file of hourly weekday demand.

Figure A-4 was the basis for a deterministic queueing analysisof delays and queue lengths that can be expected during theconstruction period. This analysis was performed using acumulative plot of total hourly demand at Atlanta InternationalArport and superimposing on that graph two alternative hourlyrunway capacities: (1) the Procedure 2 hourly capacity of85 aircraft per hour, and (2) the minimum expected capacity of66 aircraft per hour. It was assumed that delays associatedwith higher capacites, e.g., 99 aircraft per hour, are rela-tively small and stochastically generated, and not very sensitiveto the start time of the closure period. From the resultingcomposite graph, one can measure (or compute):

0 Total delay in aircraft hours

* Maximum and average delay

0 maximum and average queue length

0 Length of congested period

0 Number of aircraft delayed

Results of the deterministic~ queueing analyses are summarizedin Table A-2 for various starting times of the 36-hour con-struction closure.

Deterministic queueing methods provide reasonable estimatesin cases where these are periods of significant length, sayseveral hours, during which the arrival rate is greater thanthe service rate. In such circumstances, the deterministicaspects of the queue formation overshadow the effects ofstochastic fluctuations that occur in the arrival and servicerates. On the basis of the foregoing considerations, it isthought that the deterministic queueing approach used hereinI is a reasonable one for obtaining estimates of the delay impactsof the Runway 8/26 closure and sensitivities to the startingtime.

From the queueing and delay estimates, and other graphicalsolutions, we constructed an approximate graphical relation-ship between peak hourly delays and hourly runway capacityfor Atlanta (see Figure A-5). This graph is probably mostaccurate for smaller values of capacity, say less than90 aircraft per hour. Again, these capacity/delay estimatesare only approximate; no high degree of precision is claimedfor them.

I

.jz0cc-j

.j

ca.

u

IL cca <> i o

4.. CL V- Z

O0 aUU 1 . z4 U U oa.l 0 D

"4 (.1w >- >00 z

o04 0) Zo M L

Z CC,< LU

2~ Au

0U U

0x1

Figure A-2

ALTERNATIVE ATC PROCEDURES

PROCEDURE 1

LL

A) LARGE AIRCRAFT

L L

H H

8) LARGE AND HEAVY

L L

PROCEDURE 2

L L

A) LARGE AIRCRAFT

L L

H

B) LARGE ANDHEAVY AIRCRAFT

I9 L

o0 0(0V

o 0VcoL

< 0 w L

-J-

> 0(

< 0Lt

C.,

z a

~E-4 CV0

ad 04

Z to04 0~ 0W

U) E-4 it

u0 0.M-(

0 E-4

4 E--

LL..

>*Z Z.0D(10 OC)

Z cn 0 0 -

co CL< L

Figure A-3

ATLANTA TASK FORCE DELAY STUDYCONSTRUCTION EXPERIMENTCAPACITY ESTIMATES

BASELINE

-- TWO PARALLELS PLUSPROPS ON 8/26

- - TWO PARALLELS ONLY

WITh PROCEDURE 1

.,_ -- = TWO PARALLELS ONLY150

WITH PROCEDURE 2

139010= MINIMUM CAPACITY

z

10"'130

a..-' . .

0 1140

0 10 20 3o 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

igure A-4 (1)

%ARRIVALS 24 3116 44 80 77 5 28 72 60 34 63 34 57 53 6348 50 31 61 27 63 32 71

190VARIATION OF HOURLY DEMAND

1O

170

160.

150WEEKDAY DAILY DEMAND - 1580 OPERATIONS

140

130

120

110 TOTAL DEMAND

100

z'U

2 802DEPARTURE DEMAND

c 70

50

40

30

20ARIVAL

10

0

0 1 2 34 5 6 7 a 1011 12 13 14 15 19 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24HOURS

200-

190. Figu*. A-4 (2)

COMPARISON OF DEMAND WITHCAPACITY DURING CONSTRUCTION

180,

170-

180

150,

140 -13

130-

1114

110"

t" go-"90

B.

UOR

-66-

60-

50.

40

30

20

10.

0

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 $ 10 11 12 13 14215 017 101920 2122 2324

HOURS

44 4-4

4.

I O'oO "0 M. 00

U~~41

Q) CU 0 0 L~r-n o

Clq~~ q)

00 C

>4 4) -4S

> - r-0 (Nu .)N -

'.0 - 4cI~ - 4U .A 0 j

4)4.

r 0 4 0

00 C.4). c

E-4 E-4 -4

U))'U ~ oU0

C

Figure A-5

ATLANTA CONSTRUCTION EXPERIMENTSVARIATION OF RUNWAY DELAYS WITH CAPACITY

S

5 •

4

SPEAKHOURRUNWAY 3

9 DELAYS(HOURS)

2

I N ,."I I ,

0 . I , ,,I , t' ,*, '

060 70 80 90 100 110 120

HOURLY RUNWAY CAPACITY

9 (AIRCRAFT PER HOUR)

ATTACHMENT B

FOUR-RUNWAY CAPACITY EXPERIMENTS(Numbers 7 through 11 of Technical Plan)



Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.

San Francisco, California

July 1978

FOUR-RUNWAY CAPACITY EXPERIMENTS

The PMM&Co. runway capacity model (RCM) was applied toevaluate alternative ways of operating a four-runway con-figuration (Runways 8/26 and Runways 9/27) at Atlanta Inter-national Airport. Four 4-runway cases were analyzed, asshown in Figure B-I. Table B-l contains hourly runwaycapacities for each case as a function of the percentage ofarrivals.

The first three cases correspond to Stage I Experiments 7,9, and 10 of Table 111-2 of the Atlanta Technical Plan. Froma capacity point of view, Experiments 7 and 8 are the same,although there are differences in the airfield operations ofExperiments 7 and 8 (mainly differences in taxiways crossingrunways). Similarly, Case 3 applies, from a capacity stand-point, to both Experiments 10 and 11 of the Technical Plan.Case 2, however, applies only to Experiment 9.

One additional experiment, not called for in the TechnicalPlan, is provided as Case 4 of Figure B-1 and Table B-l.This is the all-operations-on-all-runways configuration thatmight apply for very short, peak-directional time intervals.All of these experiments are for the pre-1985 demand andATC system scenario under VFRI weather with the 8L/26R near-term improvements.

!

Figure B-i

ATLANTA FOUR RUNWAY EXPERIMENTS

1 2

818 R '- p p

9L ----- 4Ci:)

3 4

> ARRIVAL

S DEPARTURE

( HOURLY RUNWAY CAPACITYAT 50 PERCENT ARRIVALS

cc co

ou 5 Le 0

o CD 0 Co

coC

.j O N C

4 C M C 0 0

0 CD CD cc

zU 0 wCcw

(3 1 0rM

0!

,- 9

C 1'* "- 8CD L

I-.

S U 0 o N" cico cc

XA . 9- NCL- 0 -

m z0

.0

U.'

u0

4 __ llttTIU

-a i

(a 0) m c

<~ ccgo"

0L r A - 0 I

cC

0- 0 ..j 0

4J 0

w3

U).ln

• 4= o

co

ATTACHMENT C

DATA FOR REMAINING STAGE I EXPERIMENTS




July 12, 1978

ATLANTA STAGE I EXPERIMENTS

At the third Atlanta Task Force meeting on June 14, 1978, anumber of changes were made to the list of Atlanta DelayExperiments that was contained in Table 111-2 of the January1978 Technical Plan. Attachment B of this data packagecovered Experiments 7 through 11 of the original list. Theremaining Stage I experiments, as modified at Atlanta TaskForce Meeting No. 3, are the subject of this attachment.More precisely, input data for the following Stage I Experi-ments are presented herein:

Seq. Experiment* Arrival Departureno- no. Model runways runways Weather Demand Coements

1 1 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L VFRI Pre-19852 2 ASM B, 9R 8, 9L IFRI Pre-19853 1A ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L VFRI 1978 baseline4 2A ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1978 baseline5 3 ASM 9R 8, 9L IFR2 Pre-19856 5 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRl Pre-1985 2.0 n.m.

stagger7 6 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI Pre-1985 1.5 n.m.

staggerB 12 ASM n.a. n.a. n.a. 1978 Only one

in Stage I

*Refers to Original Technical Plan. No. contained in the Minutes of AtlantaAirport Improvement Study, Task Force Meeting No. 3, June 14, 1978.

All other aspects of the Stage I Experiments, e.g., ATCSystem Scenarios and Near-Term Improvements, are as specifiedin Table 111-2 of the Technical Plan.

Input data for each of the foregoing list of experiments arepresenced in the remainder of this attachment.

INPUT DATA FOR EXPERIMENT NO. 1

A. LOGISTICS

1.Title: Atlanta International Airport AirfieldSimulation Model: Stage I Experiments


3. Start and Finish Times: 0830 to 2100 EDT.

4. Print Options: Summary run for ten random number seeds.

5. Airline Names: Name Code

Air Freight A-FAir Taxi ATBraniff BNDelta DLEastern EANorthwest NWPiedmont PISouthern soTrans World TW

IUnited UA



8. Time Switch: Not applicable.


9. Airfield Network: See Figure C-1.


11. Runway identification: 8, 9L, 9R.

12. DepartureRunway End Links: 194, 300.

V13. Runway Crossing Links: 188, 192, 195, 203, 310, 313.

14. Exit Taxiway Location:

Distance fromRunway Taxiway Link Threshold (feet)

8 E 186 4,8908 F 185 5,7608 V 184 6,6508 G 182 7,5308 H 181 9,2508 K 180 10,0109R X 345 4,6809R Y 347 6,5809R M 351 9,000

15. Holding Areas: Holding for (a) EA at north end of Runway 15,and (b) DL on taxiways P and R as appropriate.

16. Airline Gates: See Figure C-2.

17. General Aviation Basing Areas: Two areas, one to west ofterminal area and one toeast of terminal area(see Figure C-1).

C. ATC PROCEDURES

18. Aircraft Separations: These values are based onReport No. FAA-EM-78-8.

Arrival-Arrival Separation (n.m.) - All cases exceptas noted.

VFR


Lead A 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9Aircraft B 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

Class C 2.7 2.7 1.9 1.9D 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.7

Departure-Departure Separations (seconds)

VFR - Near Term


Lead A 35 35 45 50Aircraft B 30 35 45 50Class C 50 50 60 60

D 120 120 120 120

19. Route Data: See Figure C-3.

20. Two-Way Path Data:

Two-way taxiways are located as follows:

1. Taxiway V.


Arrival Aircraft Length of CommonRunway Class Approach Path

8 A 3.0B 3.0C 5.0D 5.0

9R A 3.0B 3.0C 5.0D 5.0


This input allocates delays among vectoring and holding.Model input values will be used that hold arrival air-craft if delays to arrival aircraft exceed 10 minutes.


Aircraft are assigned departure runways to precludeairspace crossovers, not to balance departure queues.

24. Gate Hold Control:

Aircraft are held at gates when departure queue atrunway is 10 or more, except when gate holds wouldcause gate congestion.



26. Inter-Arrival Gap:

With this runway use, arrival aircraft are delayed ine the arrival airspace when departure delays exceed10 minutes.

27. Runway Crossing Delay Control:

Arrival and departure runway operations are only inter-rupted for a taxiing aircraft to cross an active runwaywhen the taxiing aircraft is delayed by 4 minutes ormore.



Exit Utilization (percent)A/CClass C D E F V G H K

Runway8 A 70 30 0 0 0 0 0 0

B 60 20 10 0 10 0 0 0C 0 4 28 24 36 7 0 0D 0 0 0 0 40 60 0 0

Exit Utilization (percent)A/C

Class X Y M

Runway A 100 0 09R B 100 0 0

C 13 83 4D 0 100 0


Runway Occupancy Time (second)A/CClass C D E F V G H K

Runway A 40 45 - - - -

8 B 35 40 50 - - -

C - 35 45 50 60 - - -D . . . . 60 65 - -

A/CClass X Y M

Runway A 45 - -

9R B 50 - -C 40 60 65D - 60 -

30. Touch & Go Occupancy Times:


A 22 3B 23 3C 27 4D 27 4

31. Departure Runway Occupancy Times:


A 34 3B 34 3C 39 4D 39 4

32. Taxi Speeds: To be based on reduced field data.


Aircraft Approach Speed (knots)Class Mean Standard Deviation

A 95 10B 120 10C 130 10D 140 10

34. Gate Service Times: To be based on reduced field data.


36. Runway Crossing Times: 20 seconds.

37. Lateness Distribution: See Table 1.

38. Demand: To be based on reduced field data.



...... ......... ......... .*li.i.111 ........................I. .......... ... .....

..........I... pre are.fo....... DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ......

FEDRALAV.T.O.AD.NITRAIO%ude contract.

... DO FA77WA -3961...

I Pat MrwikMichel C......... SETE BE 1978.......

.. ..I. ... .... .... ..

IPEAT. M[ARWICK. MITCHELL & CO.

P. O.BOX 8007

SAN FRANCISCO INTEENATIONAL. AIRPORT

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFOUNIA 94128

Telephone: (415) 347-9521

September 13, 1978



Dear Ray:

Enclosed is data package No. 3 for William B. HartsfieldAtlanta International Airport. The package contains theresults of the Stage 1 delay experiments (Attachment A)ad an input data package for Stage 2 experiments(Attachment B).

These data should be reviewed by the Atlanta Task Forceduring the 15th September 1978 Task Force meeting.

Sincerely, /., ., /

-'e

Stephen L. M. HockadayManager

SLMH/sqEnclosure

cc: Mr. J. R. Dupree (ALG-312)Mr. B. Drotts (ASO-4) (w/encl)

!!

AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIESAtlanta International Airport

Data Package No. 3

Table of Contents

Page

Attachment A - RESULTS OF STAGE 1 EXPERIMENTS DELAY IExperiment 1A.....................4Experiment 2A.....................7Experiment 1......................11Experiment 2......................14Experiment 3......................19Experiment 5......................22Experiment 6.....................26Experiment 12.....................30

Attachment B - DATA FOR STAGE 2 EXPERIMENTS ......... 37Experiment 28.....................40Experiment 22.....................42Experiment 17.....................44Experiment 18.....................51Experiment 19.....................53Experiment 20.....................60Experiment 21.....................62Experiment 16.....................65Experiment 14.....................69Experiment 15.....................70Experiment 13.....................71Experiment 27.....................72Experiment 25.....................76Experiment 26.....................77Experiment 24.....................78Experiment 23.....................79

Attachment C - COMMON INPUT DATA ............. 80

eI

Attachment A

RESULTS OF STAGE 1 DELAY EXPERIMENTS

William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport



September 1978

2

Table A-I

ATLANTA TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIESLIST OF STAGE 1 EXPERIMENTS

ANDINDEX TO RESULTS

Demand/Experiment Runways ImprovementNo. Model Arrivals Departures Weather ATC Page

1A ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L VFR1 1978 4

2A ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFR. 1978 7

1 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L VFRI 1982 11

2 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1982 14

3 ASM 9R 8, 9L IFR2 1982 19

5 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFR 1982-2 n.m. 22

stagger

6 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1982-1.5 n.m. 26

stagger

12 ADM n.a. n.a. n.a. 1978 30

I

04 1

4 C

'-4

E-4 0:'-2 '*

VIM 0-.

r-4 m OD a4-o C N4l -

N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a aI1 > N r ~ N (

I o~z '9 .

< <0 j ~ N -~ - ~9- cr4 a

4

EXPERIMENT NO. lA

Objective:

To obtain 1978 baseline delay estimates in VFRl weather forthe following runway-use configuration:

Arrival Runways Departure Runways

8, 9R 8, 9L

Related Comparison Experiments:

Experiment 2A has same demand and network but in IFRl weather.

Length and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:

From 8:00 to 22:00 (14 hours) with 1-hour output summaries.

Results:

Figure (1A) A shows that the total aircraft flow rates varyfrom 33 to 129 aircraft per hour over the 13-hour run. Thepeak hour is from 11:00 to 12:00 hours and contains 70 arrivalaircraft and 59 departure aircraft.

Figure (1A) B shows the pattern of average delays to air-craft and that the peak-hour average delay to arrivals was14.2 minutes while the peak-hour average delay to departureswas 12.1 minutes.

Figure (lA) C shows the pattern of average delays to aircraftusing the taxiways, i.e., taxi-in delay and taxi-out delays,which had peak-hour average values of 0.5 minutes and0.6 minutes, respectively.

FIGURE (LA)A-AVERAGE RUNTfWAY FLOW RATES

160 i I

140_I I I, J

100 I I i --° I ji 'Ii\\,I'.'. 80 r

60. '--'

40 /! ,,I

20 • , tI , ii I ! tiiI __ ___-___

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Bei nn Ing

FIGURE (lA)S-AVERACE RUNWAY DELAYS

30 ,

__ _ _ _ I I

0:J, I

0

I I Arrivals

3 I I I I js

• I I

./7

12 13 14 is 16 17 is 19 Z I

.wi1z aegtnning

FZGMR (1A)C-AVERAGE " %=RAY DELAYS6, i i I , I

3

~~ - ~ I i I J.....I.........A.1...i.....L...[......

A 23 i i i i I ' 'i j i [ ' i " '

L v ,L.Ltll.i l_ __ , ! I I i-l,

-7. 1 j 1 I -Ar iv1 1 _ _ _ _ 1 j j8 9 10 U 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Roiji Beglnz2±nMUGRE D-AVERACE TrAXIWAY TRAVEL M=~

30 ! 1J' -.... . t

-. II I i, [Ii .J i LLJ. .. . I ________t,!

S I I ! i I I j t j I ______o r i i L ' I * 1 * ] __'___'_

'ijI ': II I I _____

-' I' i1 iji1. I I iiT I

6

2

3 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21Hour Beginninq

II

7

EXPERIMENT NO. 2A

Objective:

To obtain 1978 baseline delay estimates in IFRl weather for

the following runway-use configuration:


8, 9R 8, 9L


Experiment 1A has same demand and network but in VFRl weather.


From 8:00 to 22:00 (14 hours) with 15-minute summaries.

Results:

Figure (2A) A shows that total aircraft flows vary from 32to 113 aircraft per hour over the 13-hour simulation run.The peak hour is from 12:00 to 13:00 hours and contained53 arrivals and 60 departures.

Figure (2A) B shows that average delays to aircraft usingthe runways are as high as 33.0 minutes per aircraft. Peakhour average delays are 33.0 minutes for arrivals and25.8 minutes for departures.

Figure (2A) C shows that the peak-period average delays toaircraft using the taxiways are 1.3 minutes for taxi-inand 1.1 minutes for taxi-out.

Figures (2A) E and (2A) F show variation of runway flowrates and delays by 15-minute period. Note that the peak15-minute total flow rate is 31 aircraft per hour, whichis 27 percent of the corresponding peak-hour total flowrate. The peak 15-minute average delays are 42.9 minutesfor arrvials and 34.2 minutes for departures.t

I

I

!

FIGURE (2A) A--AVERAGE RUNWAY FLOW RATES

-T I _ _J _ _ f i I160 L I 1 ____

140 -- , LU. II I

L°I./ ! !I .I i _\ _ / I IT iq '120 IIItIIii !

o i I I 1 i t8 9 10 1i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

mouzDgqnnln~g

_______ _ I I. I i I I ! i I30 ... . . . . . , ,. .

I ,'

s~ 9i 10 11 12 13 14 i s 16: 17 i s 19 20 , 21i

, i' i ! /! I !, ! I I ,, ' 1 A i 7 I

Ho /ii~in

t.. ____._____.i___ I .X r f f i.

/ : ; \, ,- \' ! , I '

30

4 , 1

20

0

8 i ole

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Beginn.±nq

ntGM (2A)C-AVAE.G VAXNAY DEMAY1S9

0_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

a j IIIJI

9L 0 11 1 3 1 L15 1I6 17 is 19 20 21

10

E- __I I I_____

a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2

Hour Beqinnizig

FIGURE (2A)E-AVERAGE R.UNWAY FtCW RATES 10

40

,__ _,_, I ,i ,_ ,,

-1 ____ t I _____ ! / -____

, ,_ , _ - J ./ il i*II! f i

20 HllTT3K

jr1i I Ll I I jI I t ii i15A-ivj1 1 t-' 11 J1 1 1 1 1 N 1 r

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

15-Minute Period Beginning

Frim (2A) F-AV'RAGE ROwAy )ErAYS

- I ''I~I,,:i. [I i i , J i .._]_i I fli I I, " '

UI 1 ' '1t4 11 t } t '

20 II _

1 6 .,l

___,_ i __.____t..# ,-'__

810 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2115-Minute Period Beqinning

I

EXPERIMENT NO. 1

objective:

To obtain delay estimates in VFRl weather with the newMidfield Terminal, 1982 demand, and near-term ATC separationsfor the following runway-use configuration:


8, 9R 8, 9L


The results of this experiment can be viewed in comparisonwith Experiment No. 1A which was for the old terminal and1978 demand and ATC separations in VFRl weather.


From 8:00 to 22:00 with 1-hour output summaries.

Results:

Figure (1A) A shows that the total aircraft flow rates varyfrom 33 to 136 aircraft per hour over the 13-hour run. Thepeak hour is from 19:00 to 20:00 hours and contains 77arrival aircraft and 59 departure aircraft.

Figure (1A) B shows the pattern of average delays to aircraftand that the peak-hour average delay to arrivals was11.6 minutes while the peak-hour average delay to departureswas 12.0 minutes.

Figure (1A) C shows the pattern of average delays to aircraftusing the taxiways, i.e., taxi-in delay and taxi-out delays,which had peak-hour average values of 0.3 minutes and1.9 minutes, respectively.

?IGUt I A-AVEAMG RMIWAY FLOW RATZS 12

160 - .- - - - - - - - - - .

1 4 0 '..

/ , "k ," i , I N I rNIi I I'.k I, ,t I, ! f II\ I f I I I _I

20 -j--- _ __ __ i ii

o , I i 1 1 A I [ ,I I .

0

1 1

40 7 f ____ ij IA IJ I\ ITh J I 1L A11

20 ~.~r 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Boeinaing

?IGIM- IB-AVMANG RMfMYA( 0EAUS

.. .. I ' !! -

° i " I ! ..

30 , ,i _ z'n z , _-

--- 77

. L 10 r1 1 1 i, 15 II T 1 18Dpart ui0eu

10 II_ _ _ 1...

4_~Arrivals)

3 9 la10 132 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 120 21

HourZ DBq9znq

FlGtRE I C--AVERAGE TAXWAY )E:AYS 13

1 Il r J i t r I i ____________

l i iIi , 1 ~I [Ii I I

.........I. li i I F i lF ,." " _ _ L-*b;r , , r-______

' ! 1 t ) I 1 ) \ J.)lIi

- -i - I ___ i . . -i - -~i

I ! i IF I I ji ! I !i

I I TAA! J 9I !ti l l u ll -, i

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 IS 19 20 21

Hour Beginning

FIGURE ID-AV"ERAGE TAXr4AY TRAVEL TTLES

- 20I -I I I L I I II I*1II .L.i...L. 'i J t i !! iIIIKKKV

20 ... !lI~I jI[ I Il

! ; ![!! JtilI!.! t

Ilo t iI Ji I 1117!? I !t______! II. , , I

6 -i I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J I _ _ _ _ _ _

I . ! i ' i I

o 9 10 11 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 :1Hour Beqi~r ing

t

14

EXPERIMENT NO. 2

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates in IFRI weather with the MidfieldTerminal, 1982 demand, and near-term ATC separations for thefollowing runway-use configuration:

Arrival R-nways Departure Runways

8, 9R 8, 9L


The results of this experiment can be compared toExperiment No. 2A to examine differences due to the newdemand, ATC separations, and terminal building compared totoday's IRFI conditions. It can also be compared toExperiment No. 1 to examine differences between 1982 VFRIand IFRI.


From 6:00 to 22:00 with 15-minute output summaries.

Results:

Figure (2A) A shows that total aircraft flows vary from 32to 128 aircraft per hour over the 13-hour simulation run.The peak hour is from 11:00 to 12:00 hours and contained60 arrivals and 68 departures.

Figure (2A) B shows that average delays to aircraft usingthe runways are as high as 38.3 minutes per aircraft. Peakhour average delays are 38.3 minutes for arrivals and37.8 minutes for departures.

Figure (2A) C shows that the peak-period average delays toaircraft using the taxiways are 0.2 minutes for taxi-inand 1.3 minutes for taxi-out.

15

Figures (2A) E and (2A) F show variation of runway flowrates and delays by 15-minute period. Note that the peak15-minute total flow rate is 31 aircraft per hour, whichis 27 percent of the corresponding peak-hour total flowrate. The peak 15-minute average delays are 61.7 minutesfor arrvials and 35.4 minutes for departures.

2 A--A;TPAC; RlN4AY F~W R.AT E

140_ _

120

100

S60 TiTi 7 I I

20

a 9 10 11 12 i3 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21

!arBagining

I JFIUR 29--AVERAGE RUNWiAY DELAYS I

301

/~ JI

4 1

Hou Beginning

?tR 2 C-AVEPAGE -AXL--,TY ZELAYS 17

20

8o i . 12 -.3 14 15 1Z1:1 9 0 2Hour 3eqinnincg

FIGURE 2 E-AVEAGE R0W~FLCW RATES1

40--_-

______ ______ iT ta1'

.4 30

25 I II_r __ ij ria j __

2.0

LS__ _

30

3 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 183 1-9 20 2 1

15-Miuiute Period Boqinning

19

EXPERIMENT NO. 3

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates in IFR2 weather with the 1982 demand,Midfield Terminal, and near-term ATC separations for thefollowing runway-use configuration:


9R 8, 9L


The results of this experiment can be compared to the resultsof Experiment No. 2 to examine differences between 1982 IFRland IFR2.


From 8:00 to 22:00 with 1-hour output summaries.

Results:

Figure (lA) A shows that the total aircraft flow rates varyfrom 27 to 84 aircraft per hour over the 13-hour run. Thepeak hour is from 10:00 to 11:00 hours and contains 31arrival aircraft and 53 departure aircraft.

Figure (lA) B shows the pattern of average delays to aircraftand that the peak-hour average delay to arrivals was260.3 minutes while the peak-hour average delay to departureswas 7.1 minutes.

Figure (lA) C shows the pattern of average delays to aircraftusing the taxiways, i.e., taxi-in delay and taxi-out delays,which had peak-hour average values of 0.1 minutes and4.8 minutes, respectively.

The foregoing very high arrival delays are due to an extendedperiod during which there is an excess of demand over capacity.In practice, IFR2 weather rarely occurs for 14 hours straight.In any event, delays of 260 minutes are unrealistic as can-cellations and diversions would occur long before delaysbecame that great.

FnsunE 3 A--AV-r.AGE RU1,AY FLOW RATES 20

140 1....i....1.!...h1..1II . I io ! I . i I I I I __

_- too -b.-----"-- I L i[__,10 - -- I60 A I£rI7 II

To/oi i I . II J -I I ii ?_J__.[.JLK -- J _--, ' ' _ 4 ,,.J.. -

.- ......--- _.......JILfh ......._J . L.....40 V I.-..-

J i i i J I I i I I II tLLL .I ..L __20 4iit

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Hour Beginning

I _ FIGVzE 3 B--XVERAGS RUNAY DELAYS

30 ! 1 1 ,4 1 11 1___ I II[i i !

° I / i iI i I I __ i. _ _ _ _ _ _I

20 I I IL iiIIII. . ..... I I! I IjFI _ _ 111!'!. , i I I I I I t II . I _ __ .

'itII I [ti 1i t I I ~iT I

6 , , - _ __ __ I __ __

4

8 9 10 11 12 1- 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20 21

Hour Beginning

F'I~GE 3C-AVERAGE T XrAY DELAYS 21

_____ ____ ________

3

I H Beginnn I::] i ii tj ;i!" I - I 1 J1 - I ',

IFG 3i4 t D * LDPzftEL 2TRAVL MES" t I i i I} I i I

i I I [ i' i ' I / i , .. 'S . I .I h z ivia' s -

30-

3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21'our Beginning

FtGURE 3 fl-AVERAGE TAI'A TAVEL S

o ) I I I I I ,,SI i _____________

I I i I I I ________

__} i li i i ______

o __ _ _ _ _ _ '

__I,___________ _ I I I I

___________________,___________r_____

Hour 8.qinninq

22

EXPERIMENT NO. 5

objective:

To obtain delay estimates in IFRi weather associated with2.0 nautical mile staggered arrival-arrival separationsproposed for use when simultaneous, independent arrivalscannot be accommodated on the following runway-useconfiguration:


8, 9R 8, 9L


The results of this experiment, in particular arrival flowrates and delays, can be compared with the results ofExperiment No. 2.



Results:

Figure 5E shows the pattern, by 15-minute time interval,of the average flow rates. The peak 15-minute, averageflow rate occur in the interval 10:45 to 11:00 which containsa total of 25 aircraft of which 12 are arrivals. Thiscompares to the Experiment No. 2 peak flow of 31 aircraftof which 16 are arrivals.

Figure 5F shows the pattern of average runway delays by15-minute period. The peak average arrival delay on thatfigure is 87.2 minutes per aircraft and occurs in theinterval 12:30 to 12:45. The corresponding peak averagearrival delay for simultaneous operations on 8 and 9R (fromExperiment No. 2) is 61.7 minutes per aircraft. The compari-son for departure delays is a peak average delay of12.3 minutes for this experiment versus 35.4 minutes fromExperiment No. 2.

23

Figures 5C shows average taxiway delays for this experiment,by 15-minute interval, for the 5-hour period simulated.

I

I

I

I

1

FIGURE 5 C--AVERAGE TAXrAY DELAYS 24

a __ _ 9__0 1 1 i 4 i 1 i 17 i 19 20 21

2 .. ih i i , i I T ]1 1 i iir I ...... ].....I I I-!! "

I..... L L 1 ! t I I I __ I4)I ' t l ti t l t i-

I I I/ ~ l j _ _ ! ii t i ! I I I ! I 1 ;i " i I .!_ _

9 ! 1 1 2 1 61 17 18 2.9 20 1

15-Mut Period Bginning

FIGURE 5 D-AVERAGE TAXIWAY TRAVEL =T'S

- - . - . - i i. - ,- r ,; t 1 - - -

l iI T! _____li 1

I , iI I { I_i i ii ! ! 1 i~

li t I I L' _____I ! i I

0

, II I 1 1 I II

S20-

8 ?; ii i l ii t

S ; I I I I1i [ i

8 9 2.0 2.i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21oux Beqir~nin

?IGL " 5E--AVRAGE ?nU .-WAY F:CW RA'ES 25

40

30

'o i t iL i I I~ -i i l ! l I

I ,, 1 1 . II .Lti .) Iq--:' I "i I; i ---.- I i { , ; ! '

s6 is _\_____'

i.i l ! .- I i KI I . ! '__ __ _ i I I _ _ _ .IV

S10 t / I ! I i t I I ._____________ ISI' i I L.. ! . I......L j . I2...1....L.....,>... ........ I 21I

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21


FIGURE 5F--AVERAGC MnlWAy DELAYS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I I , : I i I i i i20 -9 I LLL

S ! I F f f i i! i __ _ _ _ ________ I I I ,

A z r 1, a 1,, , I I Ii ! ! ! ! i i I I .I _ _ _ _ _

_______ I J

1 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 -9 20 21

1!-Minute Period Beginning

__ -- ___ I ____

I 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

26

EXPERIMENT NO. 6

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates in IFRi weather associated with1.5 nautical mile staggered arrival-arrival separationsproposed for use when simultaneous, independent arrivalscannot be accommodated on the following runway-useconfiguration:


8, 9R 8, 9L





Results:

Figure 6E shows the pattern, by 15-minute time interval,of the average flow rates. The peak 15-minute, averageflow rate occur in the interval 10:30 to 18:45 which con-tains a total of 27 aircraft of which 13 are arrivals.This compares to the Experiment No. 2 peak flow of 31aircraft of which 16 are arrivals.

Figure 6F shows the pattern of average runway delays by15-minute period. The peak average arrival delay on thatfigure is 64.7 minutes per aircraft and occurs in theinterval 12:30 to 12:45. The corresponding peak averagearrival delay for simultaneous operations on 8 and 9R (fromExperiment No. 2) is 61.7 minutes per aircraft. The com-parison for departure delays is a peak average delay of22.0 minutes for this experiment versus 35.4 minutes fromExperiment No. 2.

27

Figures 6C shows average taxiway delays for this experiment,by 15-minute interval, for the 5-hour period simulated.

FIG2RE 6 E--AV--AGZ RUNWAY FLCW RATES 28

40I ___ __ I I:

35 ____ __ _ , I [ . I,

30 i _ _ _ _

I;' I +/ __ ___r__

- io___ _________'_"

-. ! ,1 p + t [ I , I'~~~,~ ,____+~ l~ lf iS' ArrivaI J , I

8O 91 0u 2 1315-%Luta Period Beginning

FIGUM 6 i--UGz RUNWAY DEMA-.S

I I________ Ar illII ! _ __ _

4' '/I

ai / __ ,__

•I I I! ,

____. __ _,_ ____ ,__ ' I

9 10 11 12 1

15-Minute Period Beginni.ng

F~Z 6 C-AVIU.AGZ -XA,y :MAYS 29

i Z 1 L 1.2 14 is .16 17 ia i9 213 21

Four BegIingh

?t~ 6 O-AVEAG7Z -A-V 7SAVC -.-M=

* . : i4 7 .3 zI

Hour Beqit-.nq

30

EXPERIMENT NO. 12

Objective:

To determine average annual delays to aircraft in 1978.


None in Stage 1.

Results:

With the annual demand of 534,586 operations for the periodJuly 1977 through June 1978, average annual delays wereestimated to be 3.92 minutes per aircraft. Seventy-ninepercent of the delays were less than or equal to two minutes.

On the average day of the peak month, peak hour averagedelays are as high as 9.0 minutes (during IFRi weather condi-tions) . For the most frequent weather condition (VFR1weather), average peak hour delays were 6.7 minutes.

(See attached ADM output and list of inputs.)

A AIFF, PFT STL0Y CCNEITIC0PCATL t?3 ASELINE

AT LEAST -IESS THAN OCCL'PFENCE

0. 0 T

.1 TO .

.4 7 0 .5 202. 70T .6 L

.6 TO .7.0

.7 70 1.0 2.2

0 TO i. .I.0 T1 7-.7.

.1. 1 TO .62

P1INLl TE5. PERCENTL H "7r'd OCCL PRENCE

0. 0 TO .500

7o 0 .0

.. TO 1.f~ Z'

0 T 0 4.,

4.0L TO 5.0L

f.~5 tl 3

t 1 7.

L).

AVRPE PEAK HCUR F.A ORPEAK MCNTH.. RYO. DtRY

PEAK HOUR NlUMBER OF NUML OF.;LmliAy kIE37TER? PEzCV17 Pv' GE DELAI~ EAMR~RATE' CVERLOPD

V57-CUtP OCUR PENCE (MINUTES.) HOURS HOURS

-0- . 0 076a.; 2

2589.2 6.7 0 0

2.2 a.; 2

-: JNLP7L L -Er9"i6 HCURS

= J92 MIPIUTESA/tZRCFPT7

-71

-,. r r Lu

-7. C, 7if"LCC

4

L44

-4, -O~L Cjz cC. ~'

34

(Revised)

INPUT DATA - EXPERIMENT NO. 12

Annual Delay Model

1. Annual Demand: 534,586 (last 6 months of 1977 and

first 6 months of 1973).


3 day groups High, Average, Low12 week groups : 12 months, January through December3 weather groups: VFR, IFRl, IFR2

2 runway uses Arrivals DeparturesRunway Runway

1. 8, 9R 8, 9L

2. 26, 27L 26, 27R

3. Weekly Traffic 1977:

Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

% of annual4n one week 1.83 1.86 1.88 1.90 1.90 1.91 1.90 1.98 1.95 1.95 1.96 1.98


Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number ofweeks 4.43 4.00 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43

5. Daily Traffic (1977):

Day Group 1 2 3



Day Group 1 2 3



VFR: 1.00IFRl: 1.00IFR2: 0.90

3. Weather Ccureces:

Wee", ut . 2 3 4 5 -

"FR 32 97 34 93 91 2 -2iFRi 15 is1 7 7 7 2 22 "

3FR2 3

9. Houri> Punwa- Capacity:

Hourly Capacity

Runway Use VFR IFRI FR2

1 132 i0 68

2 132 ii0 6

10. Runwa'i Use IOccurrences*:

Percent OccurrenceRunway Use 7R :FRI FR2

1 30.2 8.0 0.8

2 57. 3.0 0.2

L1. Hourl; Traffic (1978)

% d.ily % daily % daily % dailyuou taffc ou f ic : u traf =

.....r traff- Hoir raffi Hour traffic Hour .....

3.1 06-7 2.9 12-13 6.1 13-19 6.4I-.6 7-0 1.3 13-14 4.3 19-20 6.3

2-03 0.2 33-09 3.2 14-15 4.9 20-21 5.333-04 0.3 19-13 6.7 1I-16 6.3 21-22 4.234-35 .6 10-11 6.7 16-17 6.3 22-23 3.2

-2 11-12 6.3 17-13 6.4 23-24 5.2


. .rnway Use Demand Factor:

All runway uses accommodate air carrier and generala,7iation demand (Demand factor = 1.0).


PM.;Co. estirmates based on 1977 PMS records.

36

15. Percent Arrivals (1978):

Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrivals Hour % Arrival.

00-01 24 06-07 5 12-13 34 18-19 3101-02 31 07-08 28 13-14 57 19-2' 6102-03 16 08-09 72 14-15 53 20-21 2703-04 44 09-10 69 15-16 63 21-22 63

04-05 80 10-11 34 16-17 46 22-23 3205-06 77 11-12 63 17-18 59 23-24 78

16. User-S2ecified Title: ATL ANNUAL BASELINE

~37

I

Attachment B

DATA FOR STAGE 2 EXPERIMENTS



!!

I Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.San Francisco, California

September 1978

I1

~~38

4- -1- Z z 4

.- 4-4.4-4 0 -. -

I c LIT: Lc f% -4

) -4 ~ 4 -4 * *

(1)0 E 0 0 00 4

0 coJ cc -4- (' -4 C) ' 4

00 0004-

4 1.441 0~- -40 0 0 0 4:

'-4-4wc. N 1 .4-r N t - Crd oo oo * * oc 0 c o > 1

z )J-J C a a d r

~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0

4J(~-- -40 -4f-f 'd-0 0C

4) ol

4 rrlf f C20 0 0fu z

a4: . .x

MJ .4 4 -'a) C

4-m r4 -q -1 c- I-o , *i jo Go 0 c(7) ON C; C' --4

z -41)

z C4 rX z z

0 E-4

E-- Ix 4 4-

< C) z 7" ~Ez~ E- E l

C -1

< -4

-4 C0 1 4C 4 co4 C4 m 61O

-4 -

.~~~ OEO- C2

0 0ao o7 0 -4 4 C

i C4 - - - 0

~x :3 a) - ~z

00 -4-~ Z Z LWE-~ ~I~ C Cl Ca)

Cl Cl zH - - 0

40

EXPERIMENT NO. 28

objective:

To obtain 1978 delay estimates assuming that there are twodeparture tracks per runway, i.e., no environmental constraints,for the following runway use in IFR1 weather:


8, 9R 8, 9L

Related Comnarison Experiments:

Results of this experiment can be compared to the results ofExperiment No. 2A of Stage 1 to evaluate benefits of relievingsingle departure track constraint.

Data Changes:

Unconstrained departure-departure separations are used in thisexperiment instead of the constrained values of Stage 1Experiment No. 2A.

(See attached change sheet.)

r ~ start sr4d !izsh, t.~s

iprcessinq

7 Tr'UnC~tiOfl 11~

z.Alr:fiald Pnvg:a : aracter'.stics

N2. e 0 zway s~:a~o

.2 wa ecare :..fia ed i:.

l2 Rx~a c caslm U

.33oldis~q areas

:7-erneraj avatio-I --asir.q azeas

- .; zca!-: seoar3%1=5 'Urnccnstrairned e./e.etrai73

Z~~: 2 60 -2z e way 7..euQ '

-- scc 4:enot :Irt2

:7 R=a7 :r~ss,.nq del.ay cnt~

:3 Xr~a.:n a ~cancy :t.a

azJ7 :-;away :zcc-.an c? .j l

s.szeeds

4 ate 3er-,~:e .. e

-1 A:rsacd -Iave. t.es

A ;eAnd

42

EXPERIMENT NO. 22

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates for the case where there are no gateholds in 1982 at Midfield with near-term ATC separations andthe following runway use in IFRI weather:


8, 9R 8, 9L


Experiment No. 2 estimates the delays associated with anassumed gate-hGld procedure where aircraft are held at thegates when the length of departure queue reaches 10 aircraft.

Data Changes:

Input data item No. 24, "Gate Hold Limits" will be changedfrom the current value of 10 to an arbitrarily large number,say 999.


I

* L4az nun-a seeds

4 ?rL:. oz:--s

2 rzcessL~q ?la%

-.. eza:-.L-a =-=-day azd .in<3

20 n azeas

:7 zee3 v:~. as;.:. azeaa

7ct:.r1.q old.ys

- :ar z cn~d' 'n -an ,7

a. 3 r -- Lr e -.

- z~:'-s.~-o -~wy Czupancry t;:e

- e dr Zd4V q f*.Z-flCV tLXS

7AI3ec

* Z. i-n&C

EXEPR:,s:ENT 17 I

Object ive:

To obtain delay7 estimates for 1982 demand, near-e ter. AC,,Mi-dfi*eld, and -he fourth ru;nway, 3L/26R, where the "inboard ,runways are ued for arrivals with the follswino runa _SeIn F , weather:

Arriv al Runways Departure Runways

8R, 9L 3:, 9R,

Related Comoarison- Ex;Deriments:

E:xneriment 'To. 18 estimates the delav for the same casebuwith- arrivals on the "ou-tboard" runways. Experiment No. 20also has arrivals on the "outboard" runways, but in 1937.Ex eriment No. 2 is the corresponding 3-runway case.

TData Changes and Needs:

" Runway assignments in the schedule.

" ATC nrocedures for deoartures cro-ssi~r. thearriv:al runways.

(See attached dat-a inp3ut sheets.)

. T-4tle: Atlanta Iterna, :ora or AriE mUl:1atir 10- del- 1: 3ae2 x -~

2. Pandorr. NurherSeeds: 2017, 1069, 42'5, 5772, ;59I,7137, 2,093, 92, 3: 227 1335

-.Sart an~d Fini sh Tie:0330 to 213C E-T in 3-ho-ursaunma rie s.

4. ri nt s t o ns: 1-hour summaries 5cjr te-n rando -umer

. A~rlin4r.e N;amres:

Ai Freight AF

Air Taxi AT

Delta DT

Eastern zNorthwest vPiedmont piSouthern soIrans WorldT'Jnited UACeneral Az'iattio.-

P* rocecsing rOctions: First r'ur to check mode npt.Ot he r run s i n CG-,MPU'' TF mnodeP.

7. Tr--nc a ti4o n Liits: 3 standard" devia cions.

-.-Tie S':witch: Not anoclicahle.

7. --=-I3L P:IYSICAL CIIAACTEPSTIcCS

. ried et--wo-,rk: Se e Ficruire C-5

I0 ;,n h Er o f 7--;nw av s 4.

AD-A092 455 PEAT MARWICK MITCHELL AND CO SAN FRANCISCO CALIF F/6 1/5TASK FORCE DELAY STUDY. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD ATLANTA INTERNATI--ETC(U)JUN 80 DOT-FA77WA-3961

UNCLASSIFIED NL

2-

I.IIII IllI 11111

~IlhIhh

46

12. Departure Runway End Links: 340, 378.

13. Runway Crossing Links: 299, 300, 374, 448, 451.


Taxiway DistanceRuwy Link Threshold (Feet)

9L 331 4,6509L 333 6,6008R 371 9,3008R 372 6,4508R 373 4,8758R 443 6,6958R 447 4,5008R 449 4,050

15. Holding Areas: Holding for (a) EA at north end ofRunway 15, link 141, and (b) DL ontaxiways P and R as appropriate.


17. General Aviation Basing Areas: Two areas, one to westof terminal area and oneto east of terminal area(see Figure C-5).

C. ATC PROCEDURES

18. Aircraft Separations: These values are based onReport No. FAA-EM-78-8A.

Arrival-Arrival Separation (n.m.)

IFR Near-Term:


Lead A 3.7 3.9 3.9 4.0Aircraft B 3.7 2.9 3.9 4.0

Class C 3.7 3.9 3.9 4.0D 4.7 4.9 3.9 4.0

47

Departure-Departure Separations (Seconds)

IFR Near-Term:


Lead A 60 60 60 60Aircraft B 60 60 60 60

Class C 60 60 60 60D 120 120 120 90

Departure-Arrival Separation (n.m.)

IFR Todays:


Lead A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0Aircraft B 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Class C 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0D 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Arrival-Departure Separations (Seconds)

Arrival runway occupancy times.

19. Route Data: (Under development)

20. Two-Way Path Data: 285-552441-131

Two-way taxiways are located as follows:131-441

172 575 440 130



8R A 4.0B 4.0C 5.0D 5.0

9L A 4.0B 4.0C 5.0D 5.0

48




Aircraft are assigned departure runways to precludeairspace corssovers, not to balance departure queues.


Aircraft are held at gates when departure queue at run-way is 10 or more, except when gate holds would causegate congestion.




With this runway use, arrival aircraft are delayed inthe arrival airspace when departure delays exceed10 minutes.





Exit Utilization (Percent)A/C

Class 449 447 373 372 443 371

RunwayB8R A 100 0 0 0 0 0B 98 2 0 0 0 0C 8 15 14 73 0 0D 0 1 8 89 2 1

49

Exit Utilization(Percent)

A/CClass 345 346

Runway 9L A 100 0B 100 0C 50 50D 16 82


Runway Occupancy Time (Second)A/CClass 449 447 373 372 443 371

Runway 8R A 50 - . . .B 47 51 - -

C 38 42 47 60 - -D - 42 47 60 63 65

A/CClass 345 346

Runway 9L A - -B - -

C 40 59D 40 59


Runway Occupancy TimeAircraft (Seconds)

Class Mean Standard Deviation

A 22 3B 23 3C 27 4D 27 4




A 34 3B 34 3C 39 4D 39 4

50

32. Taxi Speeds: To be based on coded network andcalibration.


Aircraft Approach Speed (Knots)Class Mean Standard Deviation

A 95 10B 120 10C 130 10D 140 10

34. Gate Service Times: See Table C-1.


36. Runway Crossway Times: 20 seconds.

37. Lateness Distribution: See Table C-2.

38. Demand: Computer printout available - copy providedto Task Force Chairman.

I!I

51

EXPERIMENT NO. 18

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates for 1982 demand, near-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, and the fourth runway, 8L/26R, wherethe "outboard" runways are used for arrivals with the

1 following runway use in IFRI weather:


I 8L, 9R 8R, 9L


Experiment No. 17 estimates the delay for the same case butwith arrivals, on the "inboard" runways. Experiment No. 20is for "outboard" case but with 1987 demand and ATC scenario.Experiment No. 2 is the corresponding 3-runway case.

Data Changes and Needs:

0 • Runway assignments for schedule

0 ATC procedures for arrivals crossing theI departure runways


I

1

I

Experiment Number: 18 ( Input changes from experiment number 17) 52

SIMULATION MODEL INPUT DESCRIPTION OF INPUT CHANGE

a. Lgaistics

I Title

2 Random number seeds

3 Start and finish times

4 Print options

S Airline names

6 Processing options

7 Truncation limits

I Time switch

b. Airfield Phvsical Characteristics

9 Airfield network

10 Number of runways

11 Runway identification

12 Departure runway end links 8R & 9L instead of 8L & 9R

13 Runway crossing links Arrivals cross departure runways

14 Exit taxiway location on 8L and 9R

13 Holding areas

16 Airline gates

17 General aviation basing areas

C. ATC Procedures

18 Aircraft separations

19 Route data Exits on 8L & 9R; departure on 8R & 9L

20 Two-way path data for new routing

21 Comn approach paths

22 Vectorinq delays

23 Departure runway queue control

24 Gate hold control

25 Departure airspace constraints

26 Zeparture queue

27 Runway crossing delay control

d. Aircraft oerational characteristics

25 Exit taxiway utilisation For 8L & 9R exits

29 Arrival runway occupancy times For 8L & 9R30 Touc.n-and-go ruway occupancy timsm

31 2epartuue runway occupancy times For 8R & 9L

32 Taxi speeds Same by link

33 Approach speeds I34 Gate serv.ce times

33 Airspace travel times May differ slightly

36 Runvay crossin smee For arrivals across departure runways37 Lateness distribution

38 emand I

53

EXPERIMENT NO. 19

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, intermediate-term ATC, Midfield Terminal, and the following runway usein IFRl weather:


8, 9R 8, 9L


Experiment No. 2 estimates the delays for the same conditionsin 1982. Experiment No. 20 has the same 1987 demand and ATCbut with the fourth runway 8L/26R and arrivals on the "out-board" runways.


0 1987 schedule and assignments (fix, gate,and runway)

(See attached data input summary.)

54

INPUT DATA FOR EXPERIMENT NO. 19

A. LOGISTICS

1. Title: Atlanta International Airport AirfieldSimulation Model: Stage 2 Experiments


3. Start and Finish Times: 0830 to 2130 EDT by 1-hoursummaries.

4. Print Options: Summaries for ten random number seeds.

5. Airline Names:

Name Code

Air Freight AFAir Taxi ATBraniff BNDelta DLEastern EANorthwest NWPiedmont PISouthern soTrans World TWUnited UAGeneral Aviation GA



8. Time Switch: Not applicable.


9. Airfield Network: See Figure C-3.


11. Runway Identification: 8, 9L, 9R.

12. Departure Runway End Links: 340, 378

13. Runway Crossing Links: 299, 300, 374, 448, 451.


Taxiway DistanceRunway Link Threshold (Feet)

9L 331 4,6509L 333 6,6008R 371 9,3008R 372 6,4508R 373 4,8758R 443 6,6958R 447 4,5008R 449 4,050

15. Holding Areas: Holding for (a) EA at north end ofRunway 15, and (b) DL on taxiways Pand R as appropriate.


17. General Aviation Basing Areas: Two areas, one to westof terminal area and oneto east of terminal area(see Figure C-1).

C. ATC PROCEDURES

18. Aircraft Separations: These values are based onReport No. FAA-EM-78-8A.

Arrival-Arrival Separation (n.m.)

IFR Intermediate-Term:


Lead A 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7Aircraft B 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7

Class C 3.0 3.1 2.7 2.7D 3.5 3.6 3.2 2.7

56

Departure-Departure Separations (Seconds)

IFR Interimate-Term:


Lead A 60 60 60 60Aircraft B 60 60 60 60

Class C 60 60 60 60D 90 90 90 90

Departure-Arrival Separation (n.m.):

Assume half-way down to current VFR levels:


Lead A 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7Aircraft B 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7

Class C 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.8D 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.8

Arrival-Departure Separations (Seconds)

Arrival runway occupancy times.

19. Route Data: See Figure C-4.

20. Two-Way Path Data:

Two-way taxiways are located as follows:

285-552441-131131-441172 575 440 130



8 A 4.0B 4.0C 5.0D 5.0

9R A 4.0B 4.0C 5.0 ID 5.0

p

57




Aircraft are assigned departure runways to precludeairspace corssovers, not to balance departure queues.


Aircraft are held at gates when departure queue at run-way is 10 or more, except when gate holds would causegate congestion.




With this runway use, arrival aircraft are delayed inthe arrival airspace when departire delays exceed10 minutes.





Exit Utilization (Percent)A/CClass 449 447 373 372 443 371

Runway 8 A 100 0 0 0 0 0B 98 2 0 0 0 0C 8 15 14 73 0 0D 0 1 8 89 2 1

58

Exit Utilization(Percent)

A/CClass 331 333

Runway 9R A 100 0

B 100 0

C 50 50D 16 84


Runway Occupancy Time (Second)A/C

Class 449 447 373 372 443 371

Runway 8 A - - -

B 47 51 - - -

C 38 42 47 60 63 -D - 42 47 60 63 65

A/CClass 331 333

Runway 9R A - -B - -C 40 59D 40 59




A 22 3B 23 3C 27 4D 27 4




A 34 3B 34 3C 39 4D 39 4

II

U 59

32. Taxi Speeds: To be based on coded network andcalibration.


Aircraft Approach Speed (Knots)-Class Mean Standard Deviation

A 95 10B 120 10C 130 10D 140 10

34. Gate Service Times: See Table C-1.


36. Runway Crossway Times: 20 seconds.

37. Lateness Distribution: See Table C-2.

38. Demand: Computer printout available - copy will beprovided to Task Force Chairman along withresults of Stage 2 runs.

60

EXPERIMENT NO. 20

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, intermediate-termATC, Midfield Terminal, the fourth runway 8L/26R, and thefollowing runway use in IFRI weather:


8L, 9R 8R, 9L


Experiment No. 18 estimates the delays for the same conditionsin 1982. Experiment No. 19 has the same 1987 demand and ATC,but without the fourth runway.


o 1987 schedule and assignments (fourthrunway)


dlI

Experiment Number: 20 ( Input changes from experiment number 19) 61


a. Loaistics

9 I Title


3 Sta.xt and finish times

4 Print options

5 Aixline names

S6 Processing options

7 Tr uncation limits

I Tim& switch

S b. Air-field Physical charac-teristics

9 Airfield ne-dork

10 Number of runways Fourth runway 8L!26R11 Runway identification 8L/26R12 Departure runway end links

L3 Runway crossing links For arrivals on 8L

14 Exit taxiway location For 8L

15 Holding areas

16 Airline gates

17. General aviation basing areas

c. ATC Procedures


19 Route data For 8L exits

20 Two-way path data From 8L

21 coZnmon approach paths

22 Vectoring delays

23 Ceparte. mnway queue control For 8L-8R


25 Zepar.*re aizspace constraints

26 Ceparvuze queue


A d. Aircraft Oorational c=aracteristics

23 Exit taxiway utl41zatiGn For 8L

29 Arrival runway occupancy times For 8L

30 Touch-and-go runway occupancy times

3: epaarture runway occupancy times

32 Taxi speeds

33 Approachi speeds

34 Gate service t'nea

35 Airspace travel times For 8L

36 Runway crossing ti.mes For arrivals on 8L37 Lateness dis r bution

33 Zemand

62

EXPERIMENT NO. 21

Objective:

To be defined by Task Force. IRelated Comparison Experiments:

To be defined by Task Force. I


To be defined by Task Force.

Experiment Number: 21 ( Input changes from experiment number 63


a. Loaistics

I Title


3 Sta&-. and Oimish tea

4 Pri.nt options

5 Airline names

6 Processinq options

7 Truncation limits

I Time switch

b. Airfield PhysicaL Characteristics

9 ALif ield neork

0 lIumber of runways11 Runway identLfication

12" Departure runway and links

13 Runway crossing liks

14 Exit taxiway location

15 Holding areas

16 Airline gates

17 General aviation basing areas

c. ATC Procedures


19 Route data20 Two-way path data

21 Cozoon approach paths

22 Vectoring delays

23 Ceparzure runway queue cont-ol


25 3eparture airspace constraints

26 :epartuxe queue


d. Aircraft aeratianal Caracteristics

22 Exit :axz.way utilization

29 Arrival runway occupancy times

30 Touch-and-qo runway occupancy times

31 Departure runway occupancy times

32 Tax.% speeds33 Approach spoeeds

34 Gate Sel"tiCe t.,1esl

"33 Aizgpaee travel times

36 Runway crossing t*es"

37 Lateness distJrlbuton

3 8 Zomand

64

Table B-3

LIST OF STAGE 2 ANNUAL DELAY MODEL (ADM) EXPERIMENTSAND INDEX TO INPUT DATA

Sequence Stage 2 ATC No. of

No. Experiment No. Demand System Terminal Runways Page

1 16 1982 Today Old 3 65

2 14 1982 192 Old 3 69

3 15 1982 Today New 3 70

4 13 1982 1982 New 3 71

5 27 1987 Today Old 3 72

6 25 1987 --01987 V Old 3 76

7 26 1987 Today New 4 77

8 24 1987 -p 1987/ New 4 78

9 23 -1987 V*Z-7 New 6 mo. -3 796 mo. - 4

65

EXPERIMENT NO. 16

Objective:

To obtain estimates of average annual delays and distributionof delays to aircraft assuming 1982 demand, today's ATCsystem, the old terminal, and three runways.


Experiment No. 14 is same but with near-term ATC.Experiment No. 15 is the same but with new terminal.Experiment No. 13 is same but with both near-term ATC andnew terminal.

(See attached input data summary.)

66


Annual Delay Model

1. Annual Demand: 620,000 (1982)


3 day groups : High, Average, Low12 week groups : 12 months, January through December3 weather groups: VFR, IFRI, IFR2

2 runway uses Arrivals DeparturesL t Runway Runway

.--- c7 8, 9R 8, 9L2. 26, 27L 26, 27R

3. Weekly Traffic 1977 (Same distributior assumed for 1982):*

Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

% of annual .87 '-

in one week 1.83 1.86 1.88 1.90 1.90 1.91 1.90 1.98 1.95 1.95 1.96 1.98


Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of

weeks 4.43 4.00 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43


Day Group 1 2 3

% of weekly inone day 15.0 14.0 13.5


Day Group 1 2 3



VFR: 1.00IFRl: 1.00IFR2: 0.90

*Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. estimates based on 1977 PMS

records and Atlanta ATC Tower Counts.

67

8. Weather Occurrences:

Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

VFR 82 97 84 93 93 100 93 87 84 92 72 86IFRI 15 3 16 7 7 0 7 13 16 8 22 11IFR2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3

9. Hourly Runway Capacity:


1 (under development)2



1 30.2 fo 8.0 sS* 0.8 "2 57.8. 3.0 tC 0.2 -s

11. Hourly Traffic (1979):

% daily % daily % daily % dailyHour traffic Hour traffic Hour traffic Hour traffic

00-01 3.1 06-07 2.9 12-13 6.11° 18-19 6.401-02 1.6 07-08 1.0 13-14 4.3 19-20 6.302-03 0.2 08-09 3.2fc, 14-15 4.9; 20-21 5.303-04 0.3 09-10 6.7" 115-16 6.3 21-22 4.2-'04-05 0.6 10-11 6.7i -16-17 6.8 22-23 3.205-06 2.0 11-12 6.3 17-18 6.4 23-24 5.2





* PMM&Co. estimates based on 1977 PMS records. Assumed same

for 1982.

68



00-01 24 06-07 5 12-13 34 18-19 3101-02 31 07-08 28 13-14 57 19-20 6102-03 16 08-09 7-2 14-15 53 20-21 2703-04 44 09-10 69 15-16 63 21-22 6304-05 80 10-11 34 16-17 46 22-23 3205-06 77 11-12 63 17-18 59 23-24 78

16. User-Specified Title: ATL ANNUAL DELAY NO. 16.

iI

II

69

EXPERIMENT NO. 14

Objective:

To obtain estimates of average annual delays and distribu-tions of delays to aircraft for 1982 demand, near-term ATCsystem, and the old terminal.


See Table B-3 and Experiment No. 16.

Data Changes From Experiment No. 16:

0 Capacities for near-term separations

70

EXPERIMENT NO. 1.5

Objective:

To obtain estimates of average annual delays and distribu-tions of delays to aircraft for 1982 demand, today's ATCsystem, and the new terminal building.




* New capacities and demand-delay relationshipsassociated with new terminal area location

71

EXPERIMENT NO. 13

Objective:

To obtain estimates of average annual delays and distribu-tions of delays to aircraft for 1982 demand, near-term ATCsystem, and the new terminal building.




" Capacities for near-term ATC separations

" Capacities and demand-delay relationshipsassociated with new terminal area location

72

EXPERIMENT NO. 27

Objective:

To obtain estimates of average annual delays and distribu-tions of delays to aircraft for the 1987 demand imposed ontoday's ATC system, terminal building, and 3 runways.


(See Table C-3.) Experiments 25, 26, 24, and 23 have samedemand, but they have different ATC, terminal, or numberof runways.

(See attached input data summary.)

73


Annual Delay Model

1. Annual Demand: 690,000 (1987)*

f2. Group Specification:

3 day groups : High, Average, Low12 week groups : 12 months, January through December3 weather groups: VFR, IFRI, IFR2

2 runway uses : Arrivals DeparturesRunway Runway

1. 8, 9R 8, 9L2. 26, 27L 26, 27R

3. Weekly Traffic 1977 (assumed unchanged):

Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

% of annualin one week 1.83 1.86 1.88 1.90 1.90 1.91 1.90 1.98 1.95 1.95 1.96 1.98


Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number ofweeks 4.43 4.00 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.43 4.29 4.43 4.29 4.43


Day Group 1 2 3



Day Group 1 2 3



VFR: 1.00IFRl: 1.00IFR2: 0.90

I*PMM&CO. estimate based on ATA and FAA forecasts.I

74

8. Weather Occurrences:

Week Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

VFR 82 97 84 93 93 100 93 87 84 92 72 86IFRI 15 3 16 7 7 0 7 13 16 8 22 11IFR2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3

9. Hourly Runway Capacity (Today's ATC System):


1 Under development2



1 30.2 8.0 0.82 57.8 3.0 0.2

11. Hourly Traffic (1978):

% daily % daily % daily % dailyHour traffic Hour traffic Hour traffic Hour traffic

00-01 3.1 06-07 2.9 12-13 -6-.-l 18-19 -6.401-02 1.6 07-08 1.0 13-14 .,4-3 19-20 6.302-03 0.2 08-09 .33--.2,. 14-15 K4-9 20-21 -;5.3 03-04 0.3 09-10 7r6 ,7 15-16 6-.- 3 21-22 -: 4.204-05 0.6 10-11 6.7 16-17 , 8 22-23 3.205-06 2.0 11-12 -6.3 17-18 '6-4 23-24 5.2





e* PMM&Co. estimates based on 1977 PMS records.

!

II

75



00-01 24 06-07 5 12-13 34 18-19 3101-02 31 07-08 28 13-14 57 19-20 6102-03 16 08-09 72 14-15 53 20-21 2703-04 44 09-10 69 15-16 63 21-22 6304-05 80 10-11 34 16-17 46 22-23 3205-06 77 11-12 63 17-18 59 23-24 78

16. User-Specified Title: ATL ANNUAL INIMPROVED DELAY FOR 1987.

76

EXPERIMENT NO. 25

Objective:

To obtain estimates of average annual delays and the distribu-tion of delays to aircraft for 1987 demand, Intermediate-TermATC system, the old terminal, and 3 runways.




0 Capacities for Intermediatq-Term ATC system

I

I!

77

EXPERIMENT NO. 26

Objective:

To obtain estimates of average annual delays and the distribu-tion of delays to aircraft for 1987 demand, today's ATC system,the new terminal, and 4 runways.




0 Capacities and demand-delay relationships for4 runways and the new terminal location

78

EXPERIMENT NO. 24

Objective:

To obtain estimates of average annual delays and the distribu-tion of delays to aircraft for 1987 demand, intermediate-termATC system, the new terminal, and 4 runways.




a Capacities for -t -meiate-term separations,4 runways, and the new terminal location

* Demand-delay relationships for the newterminal location

I

I

i i n I I I " -

*79

EXPERIMENT NO. 23

Objective:

To obtain estimates of average annual delays and the distribu-tion of delays to aircraft for 19&7-demand, iintiemediate-termATC system, new terminal, 3 runways for 6 months and 4 runwaysfor 6 months.




" Capacities for intermediate-term separations,3 and 4 runways, and the new terminal location

" Demand-delay relationships for the new terminallocation

* Decision on which 6 months or on how to changeseasonal distributions, etc.

80

Attachment C

COMMON INPUT DATA:

* Airfield Networks

* Taxiway Flows

* Lateness Distribution

* Gate Service Time Distribution




September 1978

81

Table C-i

ARRIVAL AIRCRAFT LATENESS DISTRIBUTION(Average deviation from schedule, excluding

delays due to destination airport)

CumulativeAmount of Time Late or Early Probability

Less than 15 min. early 0.00Less than 0.1 min. early 0.02Less than 0.1 min. late 0.65Less than 5 min. late 0.78Less than 10 min. late 0.85Less than 15 min. late 0.90Less than 30 min. late 0.95Less than 45 min. late 0.98Less than 60 min. late 0.99Less than 65 min. late 1.00

Source: Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., analysis ofdata provided by Atlanta Task Force.

82

Table C-2

I GATE SERVICE TIME DISTRIBUTIONAtlanta Task Force Delay Studies

Histogram Points(Times are in minutes)

Aircraft Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 Point 5Class Time Prob.* Time Prob. Time Prob. Time Prob. Time Prob.

A 10 0.40 15 0.40 20 0.10 25 0.10

B 15 0.40 20 0.07 25 0.09 30 0.04 35 0.40

C 25 0.47 30 0.13 50 0.40

D 25 0.07 30 0.04 35 0.40 38 0.09 55 0.40

*These probabilities add up to 1.0 across the rows.

Source: Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., analysis of data provided byAtlanta Task Force.

/ 0

Ilk

-7 ~i

-AIFIELE3 NE=TWQ:FRKWlLLIpj E3. H /\mRTSFIE-LE3 ATL/\NTA INTEFRNP-IC

83

-

0

- 0S

- T-

N

FC

I.1

:)rRK Figure C-1

ArRFI :LD NE"T'WORK F'OR 1978,*R

* ,ci' Jn n n I I

84

922

ft

-E-4

U3

I -0

0 40

4-9 4

-0 4

-o -~r-9ZE O ^F!-L- NE-WC 4

WILLIAAA- 13 kr004^ N rF;N,-

85i

4/* /

B

6

0 vi4,.

F-. -4. 4......~.,.:

-@

o~

I.

9

N

-4

I.

.- --.

-*0-* r'J

B

(7

- (',J

ETWQF~K

Pigure C-3

AI~pIpT~D NETWORK FO~ 1982

INT r~I~NATIGNAL A 1 ~ ~ D~T

S LMULATTQ~ RUNS

*86

I IN

0

-- 4 1

I E-4

1k ..

. i ,- i l'-;-k

t /', " -

I I Y.

-"IT " \o ' .

• .:4. _ ." C.

' 'E'' (i2-' " " ,, 0 i

/ i ! i i' : , ..

- -

,.. .. .1, I

I I./

*. " r- ,.yt 1 , ,/ I <:"

......................... .. I , ............. '

; ~ *.<:.' ,[ !-" ,

-"I.i r , . . , . . . . . ,_..

9 " ": ! ': " : ' " 4 -- ,.I i' ... ',

- '/ " iI t_ ' . .. ' "': ' ' : ![ -I -:- . '

-~ / N>) /9

7'..*<#~ ,

.~ II.. -

~ .4(n V 4 0 j 4'

- - I- . __ . ~---w -

- ,* -0 - -

I- -

to' 4 ..I-,

I-. -. -. -'p '.. "414 ~42' - -to' 0

FUTURE AIRFIELD NETWDRK

WILLIAIVI 13. HARTSFIELD ATLANTA INTERNA

87

/. 7

N

9

II

-/0

Figure C-5

C3RK AIRFIELD NETWORK FOR STAGE 2

SIMULATION RUNS FOR 1987 AND

TERNATIC)NAL AIRPDRT FOUR RUNWAYS

88

C- (n QI V

4

L* I L

L* LDVJ 1 Li W. r. d)

E-1 0-72 -

-4 I I

.7 a) 0

<4- z -L LL w~s .LJ w L)

1CN A, jr-

- 89

Cr .

00

-7

00

4-3 en I

o SF) M C 0

-~C-4

-V7

CC'4

4)4

"CZ-)

(n Fig re C -

Airlie Gats focc Old ermi na

Sorc:4A

I DATA PACKAGE NO. 4I AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT

TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIES. .. ......

d..........

....................... X. .............. .. .... .. ...1. ... . .......lii111

.. ...

XI.......... .. .. .

.. ....I. ............ : ....... ... .......IN prpae ...... r.

DEPARTMENT..x OFT A S O T TOFEDRA.AIAIO.AMIISRAIO

... under. .o..a.......... O T ...... A.-3961I PeatMarwick.Mitchel .&.Co

1.. OCTOBER 1978..

PEAT. MARWICK, MITCHELL & CO.P. 0. BOX 8007

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128

Telephone: (415) 347-9521

October 24, 1978



Dear Ray:

Enclosed is Data Package No. 4 for William B. HartsfieldAtlanta International Airport. The package contains theresults of the Stage-2 delay simulations (Attachment B)and results of four, revised Stage-l delay simulations(Attachment A).

These data should be reviewed by the Atlanta Task Forceduring the 25 October 1978 Task Force meeting.

Sincerely,

Stephen L. M. HockadayManager

SLMH/nbeEnclosure

cc: Mr. J. R. Dupree, ALG-132Mr. B. Drotts, ASO-4 (w/encl)

AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIESAtlanta International Airport

Data Package No. 4

Table of Contents

Page

Attachment A - RESULTS OF REVISED STAGE-i DELAYSIMULATION ................... 1

Experiment 1A. ........................ 3Experiment 2A. ...................... 6Experiment 1 ....................... 9Experiment 2.......................12

Attachment B - DATA FOR STAGE-2 DELAY SIMULATIONS. ...... 15Experiment 28 ....................... 18Experiment 22 ....................... 21Experiment 17 ....................... 24Experiment 18 ....................... 27tExperiment 19 ....................... 30Experiment 20 ........................... 33Experiment 21.................. ...... 36

Attachment C - APPENDICES...................39

Summary of Stage-i and Stage-2 Simulation Results.......40

Airfield Networks.......................41

Attachment A

RESULTS OF STAGE-1 DELAY SIMULATIONS(Revised Experiments 1A, 2A, 1, and 2)

i




October 1978

II

2

Table A-I

ATLANTA TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIESINDEX TO REVISED RESULTS

STAGE 1 EXPERIMENTS

Demand/Experiment Runways Improvement

No. Model Arrivals Departures Weather ATC Page

1A ASM B, 9R 8, 9L VFR1 1978 3

2A ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1978 6

1 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L VFR1 1982 9

2 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1982 12

I

I I II-

3

EXPERIMENT NO. 1A

Objective:

To obtain 1978 baseline delay estimates in VFRl weather forthe following runway-use configuration:


8, 9R 8, 9L




From 0800 to 2200 hours with 1-hour summaries.

Anticipated Results:

Lower delays than in Experiment 2A.

Summary Comparison: (See Figures 1A, B, C, D)

Operation Performance This ExperimentTyeMeasure* Daily* Peak*

Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 49.6 70Arrival Air Delay (min) 7.2 11.4Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 0.3Arrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 1.3Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 47.4 70DTeparture R/W Delay (min) 7.2 11.3Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 0.6Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.3Departure Gate Delay (min) 2.1

*These are all average values, either over the entire simulationperiod (daily) or over the peak hour or 15-mmn period (Peak).

FIGURE (1A) A AVERAGE R=4AY FLOW RATES

i6 , [ I, I, , J _ _ _ I i L Ii _______ __________r, I I _ _ _I i140 -

120

acta80

2o i I I

6 7 0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Hou/r Beginning

FIGtJRE (IA) B AVERAGE RUNWAY DELAYS

3 O I . . . ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Ai

60

F' ;iv' la

40 i I / 1

z 20__ _

. ... : - - - - . . . I i "

10

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Beginning

FIUR (1A B AVEAG RUWA DELAYS

5

FIGURE (1A) C AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAYS

- 1]f I __ __ __

..i.L..9 -- r [FI2 ,rILo I

6o 7 8 i 9 10 ' 11' 12 1 4 15 1 7 I 1 9 20 2> 20

I /I 1 _*prruure~ IIII

6 7 8 9 10 i 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Hour Beginning

FIGURE (IA) D AVERAGE TAXI WAY TRAVEL TIMES

___ __- i / [\ ,fIi[C -oiI K n,, I ! fl ii

_______ ,4 ! 1 I I I

6 -7 _______ . . ... .- -t ~I

___'____ i ! I I \I I'i I ~ ..-!! * i i T ,.

6 7___ HI * _2j7 ! 15V 17 1 9 2

Hour Beginning

6

EXPERIMENT NO. 2A

Objective:

To obtain 1978 baseline delay estimates in IFRl weather forthe following runway-use configuration:


8, 9R 8, 9L


Experiment 1A has same demand and network but in VFRI weather.




Higher delays than in Experiment 1A.


Operation Performance This ExperimentTyeMeasure* Daily* Peak*

Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 47.8 54Arrival Air Delay (min) 23.5 42.8Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 5.9Arrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (win) 2.5Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 41.4 58Departure R/W Delay (win) 13.6 23.8Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 4.5Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2Departure Gate Delay (win) 42.1

*These are all average values, either over the entire simulationperiod (daily) or over the peak hour or 15-min period (Peak).

7

FIGURE (2A) A AVERAGE RUNWAY FLOW RATES

35I I_ _ I

40 ' _ r -/---- - ,=~*** i; -

30

I I- 420'' ~ .----------S4 15- ---- _ _

1 h ArI

10 t j I ,,i v i

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 Minute Period Beginning

FIGURPE (2A) B AVERAGE RUNWAY DELAYS

30 , - - ' '

2 i I_

6 4 I I 1 1 1"-It . . ; \ I - _ t - -

,- o i! Tt "l , '/,~II V IZ L

7 8 9 10 0i 12 13 14

15-Minute Period Beginning8 Dq ar i ! !

FIGURE (2A) C AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAYS

3 Al Izzpux -

_ I

0

6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Beginning

FIGURE (2A) D AVERAGE TAXI WAY TRAVEL TIMES

I

30 1~ 1- 1~'

>20 L- ~ i~ W z

114

o - -

0

o t~ i i it 1.i

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Beginning

(IUE(AD AVRG AIAYTAE IE

0 I !.i i i ! I I \/ N a s

> 0 1

6 7 al 9 0 1 1 3 1 1l6 1 18[ 9 20 2Hou Beginnin

9

EXPERIMENT NO. 1

Objective:



8, 9R 8, 9L


The results of this experiment can be compared withExperiment No. 1A, which was for the old terminal and1978 demand and ATC separations in VFRI weather.


From 0800 to 2200 hours with 1-hour summaries


Operation Performance This Experiment Experiment No. IAType Measure* D Peak* Daily* Peak*

Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 53.0 76 49.6 70Arrival Air Delay (min) 6.1 10.9 7.2 11.4Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 0.0 0.3Arrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.1 1.3Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 51.0 77 47.4 70Departure R/W Delay (min) 6.6 8.0 7.2 11.3Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 1.0 0.6Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.0 0.3Departure Gate Delay (min) 2.3 2.1

*These are all average values, either over the entire simulation

period (daily) or over the peak hour or 15-min period (Peak).

10

FIGURE 1A AVERAGE RUNWAY FLOW RATES

160 i -r-; I140

-I4 Tt- ,,,

i /I,/ i.. ,I- ,, ,1"0201260 7 81 Hou/ e g ,ivng20 I /N, )-ii

I° ,I _ i_ * J l

6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Beginning

FIGURE 1B AVERAGE RU.NWAY DELAYS

I -I t. ,T K i, 1A, r -TE;izal, 1

2o ii,~ ,I i/ !_ ! . ,

06 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Beginning

11

FIGURE IC AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAYS

i s _ I

/I I 1 \ 17-- '

.1 I i j

r val

I I I ti ! 2 [ eartres _ _'

i _ _ I I I i -:~l\ I __ if -- l ii

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Beginning

FIGURE iD AVERAGE TAXIWAY TRAVEL TIMES

- - .1. ---- ----

I " I

-- -.- . . ...- - -

> 20 1\- -- - -- - -i-- i- U!e.

l~~iii -- !! !S10-- - --

6 t I iv I 141

-

F0 I ', - ---- I 'i

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Beginning

II

12

EXPERIMENT NO. 2

Objective:



8, 9R 8, 9L


The results of this experiment can be compared toExperiment No. 2A to examine differences due to the newdemand, ATC separations, and terminal building compared totoday's IFRl conditions. It can also be compared toExperiment No. 1 to examine differences between 1982 VFRland IFRI.


From 0800 to 2200 hours with 15-minute summaries.


Operation Performance This Experiment ExPeriment No. 2AType Measure* Daily* Peak* Daily* Peak*



q period (daily) or over the peak hour or 15-min period (Peak).

13


40 - _ - - f i ltLL H j !U, i l I ! , 1 _l i

30

nI I 125

" I __ I

' 20 - - -10 [1

"08 9 10 11 12 13 14


FiGURE 2B AVERAGE RUNWAY DELAYS

.A.J II/II

30 '

i ! 15-

0 20

10791121I V i

-. -- -- ~rri__... .c 20 -1- - :

/° " a~iirqI IIN_-

6 I ..-V - 1- - -... i.... -

7 8 10 11 12 13 14


14

FIGURE 2C AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAYS

2 ___

II - -7 -K ii1__1

6 i0 11 12 13 14 5 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Beginning

FIGURE 2D AVERAGE TAXIWAY TRAVEL TIMES

____ lit ' -1~~ i -H -30 i,

o ! // i attur~s-4 I

:> 20 ~ ~- L

-1o,: - I lsI

I, I' 1 ,I I t -10

0 1 1~ 1' ! .Il 1 ! .6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Beginning

15

Attachment B

RESULTS OF STAGE-2 DELAY SIMULATIONS

I



I


October 1978

0' 16

- M~ to.

4.3 4

*r 10J~q 4jw' ---* a. -; 4 -41-4 ".J Q9'- eu* -- 4 Q) :J -4 C

0 z (n IT r w a0 E

> Un l co 0 X

m ' $.4 ON clm x I I OD-4 -A to M >I) -4 .- 4 %Dk z I I I a x

".3ji 40 -0'~c 0000+ )43W :1z- a, z coco . . xN a. Z . C 4

N* C1N r- C J tl- r- N - rl- ~

0J a,~ CC0Ca)0 ( 0 0

E-) W~4- 1.4-4 - -

V) u 00E- E- E

:Q x co

0' u

U))

E- >4

z 44 1.4 I1O CiCl>l2 (IC)

4- oa a ) aE-4 (1 C: (7

9z 81 at OC40 C~l0

0 ~ ~ ~ ~ C W. x-a o ,~'j cc

17

4)01 c -4 v r, 0 n k(a' r-4 C'j CN N en m

4.1Ln Ln

0) ' L LA Ln Ln co co w co co 0)

. C) 0) C) r-4 -> J 1-4 -4 -4 -4 1 1

0 ) I I 1 I 4.) 4-)w l .1 w ) w ) 0) Ei) (n)

0) - '4 '-4 -4 -4 04 0-

.a -4b

-4 $4 4 5. 0o 0

I(a m 44 r -

0~~~0 w ) ( 0)M

rnr o 0C N r- 0- d*-

-4 Q) 4 -4 -4 N4 rN

010 >4 4J0

N4 alA ~ -

UZZZ4~~cf 4. la ~

EXPERIMENT NO. 28

Objective:

To obtain 1978 delay estimates assuming that there are twodeparture tracks on Runway 9L, i.e., no environmental con-straints on 9L, for the following runway use in IFRl weather:


8, 9R 8, 9L




0800 to 1300 hours with 15-minute summaries.

Anticiated Results:

Lower departure delays than in Experiment 2A.


Cperation Performance This Experi-ment Exmeriment No. 2AType Measure* Daily* Peak* Daily* Peak*

Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 47.6 54 47.8 54Arrival Air Delay (min) 23.9 42.7 23.5 42.8Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 7.4 5.9Arrival PW Crossing Delay (min) 0.2 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 2.4 2.5Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 40.4 56 41.4 58Departure R/W Delay (min) 13.3 22.3 13.6 23.8Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 8.5 4.5Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2 0.2Departure Gate Delay (min) 36.7 42.1



19


3 5ii T i

30 I ii I '

25

I 4 .1....

20

1l" JAr tl, I/ I f . i

7a 9 10 11 2 13 14

15 Minute Perio Beginning

FIGURE 28B AVE.RAGE. RUNWAY DELAYS

30 I I __ _ T_

4j~C. iF,/

1 04 9 I i 11: 1 / -vr i V,7ia iii9 10 11 12 13 14

15 Minute Period Beginning-

I I

iI -!/! 1 /4 1 I _

! !____!! 1i i I I __ _2 i i i li i 1 K .If Dplrtue V

10 ii 131

15-Minute Period Beginnin.

20


3 T F I __HiIAI

I II ! ICa 2

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20] 21Hour Beginning

1 1 1FIGUR 28D AVERAGE TAXWAY TRAVEL TIMES

I l ]

1 D pir IW

-[

1 7 ! I , I Arv

i 0 [.. .. .[..i~ .I...I ........

8~ ~~~~~~A ! /,I!!,ltd

4 l U,11-4 1t i 11 1 t 1 F! -IF!~7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Beginning

FIUE2 VRG AIWYTAE IMES m•

21

EXPERIMENT No. 22

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates for the case where there are no gateholds in 1982 at Midfield Terminal with near-term ATC separa-tions and the following runway use in IFRl weather:


8, 9R 8, 9L


Experiment No. 2 estimates the delays associated with anassumed gate-hold procedure where aircraft are held at thegates when the length of departure queue reaches 10 aircraft.




Reduced arrival and departure gate delays compared toExperiment 2.


Operation Performance This Experiment Experiment No. 2TyeMeasure* Dal* Peak* aiy Peak*


*These are all average values, either over the entire simulationperiod (daily) or over the peak hour or 15-mmn period (Peak).

22


40 Ii ! I40-------------I- I-- T--\ / J -

' / -------- tiI ...4

S30 -- iIiiV74S25---

20 --

-4

10 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - --. - f--

9 10 i 12 13 14


FIGURE 22 B AVERAGE RUNWAY DELAYS

30 I. I

13,mI 9I _11 12 1

20u- er- inning

SI i I -i

8 - }- _ ./ I / (.~r:, e _

!6 -. __ Li.. Dp tru

-.- --- -- _ _ T ' " I i r!80 '

78 9 10 1i 12 13 14


23

FIGURE 22 C AVERAGE TAXIWAY DELAYS

IE l~'H

a 2

Hour Beginning


30 I-f

------- T---

o- _I DNa~ e I I

10- I

___ - ---

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Hour Beginning

I

24

EXPERIMENT NO. 17

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates for 1982 demand, near-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, and the fourth runway, 8L/26R, where the"inboard" runways are used for arrivals in IFRI weather.


8R, 9L 8L, 9R


Experiment No. 18 estimates the delay for the same case butwith arrivals on the "outboard" runways. Experiment No. 20also has arrivals on the "outboard" runways, but in 1987.Experiment No. 2 is the corresponding 3-runway case.




Operation Performance This ExperimentType Measure* Daily* Peak*

Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 57.5 62.0Arrival Air Delay (min) 16.7 39.8Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 8.0Arrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.4Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 53.0 70.0Departure R/W Delay (min) 8.0 18.7Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 1.8Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2Departure Gate Delay (min) 2.5



I

25


-1 ~ ~ I -1 7~ - - - - - -

35 --

30 -r---f A

.4 25 --

m 20 _ .-- - - - - - -

14 20- -F ;I IN-

A I - I10 1_.

5 [_

01---- --" lt0

7 9 10 11 12 13 14


FIGURE 17B AVERAGE RUNWAY DELAYS

30 A I

I I rT I _ 1-

A I I II

I I m I I I i -1 1

0 -J x

10 14FaSMnt Pei BegiTin

6 F!A

26


,.__f_______ _ _________ ______ ____

zztz i ! i - i

t2

-- ---- -- -- ------ i0D' ]

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Beginning


30 i

"--- -- -.._______-

Iii. J I

1 i0 i 1, I _ _ji~2 Zii 1 ----- -~ __

10 ]I-

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Hour Beginning

i

27

EXPERIMENT NO. 18

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates for 1982 demand, near-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, and the fourth runway, 8L/26R, wherethe "outboard" runways are used for arrivals with thefollowing runway use in IFRI weather.


8L, 9R 8R, 9L






Operation Performance This Experiment Experiment No. 17Type Measure* Daily* Peak* Daily* Peak*

Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 56.8 62.0 57.5 62.0Arrival Air Delay (min) 17.5 40.1 16.7 39.8Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 0.2 8.0Arrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.5 0.4Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0

Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 56.0 81.0 53.0 70.0Departure R/W Delay (min) 4.8 10.4 8.0 18.7Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 0.6 1.8

Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.0 0.0Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.4 2.5

!*These are all average values, either over the entire simulation


I

28


40 1tz:~ 1 1h 1 zI 7C,

.I I F

U, ° , r I[ i ),

Is- /" IlLn 25

20 vTK~Sf - ArriVals

4,4, ! il, __ .. .-o 11 r'i, 2' LiI z

10- - -]I I I fI ft.fI I_____ - - 1 II I~

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14


FIGURE 18B AVERAGE R=;WAY DELAYS

! I I __ it[

Jii~ziL~i _ _ .~v ___

-4

10 - , _

4 I I A ! I i-

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14


29


i iI i I il T

4jio t

0 -"I- P4"! I _ _A1 ! 1 1 __ _ _ ''i i

tz Ii K:I ____i EEEF±i K

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Beginning

FIGURE 18D AVERAGE TAXIWAY TRAVEL TLMES

............ L...... I ] I I 'I I I

S , LI [ 11II..L... - I~i ! I ___

-.4 1 1 F i , 1 I I I IE-~

> 20 Tr-t-r

o l i I I I/ )e I 'ttr s i !!

a 4- -I- _ - | n -

LI T-

________ vailsl

6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Beginning

30

EXPERIMENT NO. 19

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, far-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, and the following runway use in IFRIweather.


8, 9R 8, 9L


Experiment No. 2 estimates the delays for the same conditionsin 1982. Experiment No. 20 has the same 1987 demand and ATCbut with the fourth runway 8L/26R and arrivals on the "out-board" runways.




Lower flow rates and greater runway delays than in Experi-ment 20.


Operation Performance This ExperimentType Measure* Daily* Peak*

Arrival Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 68.4 79.0Arrival Air Delay (min) 16.5 29.3Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 4.3

Arrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 41.2 56.0Departure R/W Delay (min) 19.9 46.7

jDeparture Taxi-Out Delay (min) 28.9Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.0Departure Gate Delay (min) 61.9



Ii I

31


40 I

3530 ' ' -Total

", I _______I I i ','l,,,,

30i ,,--I_,-___

K' .iL* -

i 1 1 '

Ui ' Ii, , l ii i f 'i

e15

07 a 9 10 11 12 13 14

1.5 Minute Period Beginning

FIGURE 19B AVERAGE RMNWAY DELAYS

30 --I i _ _ '' I I -/____ i

II I/t I i I/l_/____, _

10J Deparureo-

i i ! it__--_\ _

20

4 - I t i- li -,

H K2 :- ' -, ---i --I I, I I I, t i i i , i

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1415-Minute Period Beginning

32


Ii I li ll I I I I I I I

0 (,', I ___I___4_L

6 7 !8 9 0 ll 12 13 14 15 1 17 18 19 20 2

Four Beg innin

.5.

Deopa tures i I I _____

> 20K~__

:10_ _

>,iI ' I I 1 1 :i ! . L iI

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hour Beginning

FI UR 1 D AVRA E AX WA TR VE T1-TSSI __ I ' __ .1..... J I

S I I 1] I !

9_ I ii 1 1 14 1_6 1 8 1 0 2

20 Dep t re I I __ i

I I I I I , i I

0 h u _ea t r sI'ii

- I, !' I i'1 i I I * *,

_ _ _ _ _ _ __. ! I [ I I i

1 0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Hour Beginninq

EX?ERiME'T N.';.2

ih3e:tive :

:o obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, far-term ATe,Midfield Terminal, the fourth runway, 3L/26?, and the folow-inj runway use in !FR1 weather.

Arrival Runways Departure R.unways

8L, 9R 8R, 9L

Related Comparison Exneriments:

Experiment No. 18 estimates the delays for the same conditionsin 1982. Experiment No. 19 has the same 1987 demand and ATC,tut without the fourth runway.


Oa3% to 2200 hours with 15-minute surmmaries.

Antijciated Results:

greater flow rates and lower delays than in ExperrMen_ 19.

S="Lary Comarison: (See Figures 20A, B, C, D)

e erfcrman;e This Experiment Eperiment No. i9-Measure * Daily* peak* Dall'y* Peak*

Arri ;' F1w Pate (a/c r.er .r. 6 . 2 19.0 6R.4 79. -Arr.ial Air Delay (rain) 13.4 2P.5 1. 5 29.2Arri'va. Taxi-In Delay (min) -. 2 4. 3Arrival P/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.3 0.2Arrial ate Delay (min) 1.3 0.0Depart;re w ?ate 1a/c ner -r.) ;1.3 37.0 41.2 56.0

r /. Delay (min 7.7 2I. 19.9 46.7Dezarture xi-('t Delay (mir, 2.- 23.7

aear tre :/ r%;ing Delay (min) . . -

art'.e ate Delay (rin) i. 31.3

'he;a I--r all average ;alei, either over the entire ;crulation5 -. d $ail/, or czer te peak houwir )r 2-nun ,eri:d (Peak).

F: sunE 2 0A RUNA~ ZWAY FL-CW PA7ES

/VI\

40 V

35

30 Total

25

-J' ,

A riva.. "

10

a 9 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22


FIGURE 20B AVEPAGE RLM WAY DELAYS

30

Arrivals

6 eparjuresj

4 1' JA

7 31 1: 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 2215-Minute ?eriod Beginning

FIGURE 20C AVEPAGE TA.XWAY :ELAYc

_________ DpartureS

Aztriva1 sl6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

H~our Beginning

2TU? 20:D AVERAGE TAXI WAY TPAVEL TI.XS

II

Srtepartires_20

!3 1, V A

-Arrivals4

2

I -'

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21'four Beginning

II

EXPERIMENT NO. 21

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, far-tern ATC,Midfield Terminal, the fourth runway, 8L/26R, and the folow-ing runway use in VTRI weather.


8L, 9R 8R, 9L


Experiment No. 20 has the same conditions but in IFRIweather.


0800 to 2200 hours with 1-hour summaries.


Higher flow rates and lower delays than in Experiment 20.


Cperation Performance This ExrerimentTye Measure* Daily* Peak*

Arrivai Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 69.6 82.0Arrival Air Delay (min) 10.0 20.4Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 0.iArrival R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.4Departure Flow Rate (a/c per hr.) 62.2 106.0Departure R/W Delay (min) 1.9 3.5Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 0.7Departure R/W Crossing Delay (min) 0.0Departure -ate Delay (min) 0.1


period 'daily) or over the peak hour or 15-min period (Peak).

I

IJE21lA AIIERAGE KX4hTAY FL--rw ?A=-S

Tot al

102

Z -Arrivals A

40

20

8 79 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

"ocur 3eginnIing

F:OtTRE 21lB AliEPAGE RU'WAY !DE.AYS

2

20AIAtiv l 7 a 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 1 0 Z

/~Hu \ ___________

22

FIG E 2 !C AVEIRAGE TAXIWfJAY TELS

30

' I

,_ __ _ ! , eatues If _ A -

3i rl F7

6 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Hour Beginninq

FTGtTRE 21iD AVL. AGE TAXIWAY TRAV"EL TIMES

*J' I

- Ij i L F

> 20-

4. . - 4 , , , -

2 _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ I I 'pI

• I'e rtFe , I I

.£ /" ?k: Hou B eq!innin r g

29

Attachment C

APPENDICES

* Suinmary of Stage-i and Stage-2Simulation Results

" Airfield Networks




October 1978

I

I

- - -.40

-u -, oI-

>4>K

oN q IQ loL

31'o~ ~ : IQ

In

~'. -o

z m Q w Lz.

a- a

* A* ) 0*3S

* * C

USx 0 S

0 - SS

C gee * S* . a * a 0 0 - a a -s* aa

* a a * a ~ a

* * 0

* 0* S

* S* - S

0 0

* 0

0 0S

S *

* 0

* 0

S S

0 0

S * -*0 * ** a a a*~. * 0* **o a a a *~i a*.

75 a a a a a a a* a a *a * * 0 a a *a ~a *a a *a-a a a a a a a a

* S S0 0

50 a a a -

a a a0

AIRFmELD NETWQRK

WILLIAIVI E3. I-IJXR1-~FIELD ATLANTA INT NAT

41

(%) B

KI

6

01

*

SS

* ***~*~* . . 9 . *. *.

I 0 * 0S

0 -V

I

* N

B

* 0

* 0

* S

* 0

* 0

* 0 *~ *~0** *'.~*

* 0 0 *

* 0 0 0 *

U 0 0

* *~

TWIDRK

A INTLF~NAJrI4ZJNAL AIRF~c3RT

2 /

3 -~~-1 ) .3 SS 0S

'I

S S SS I

S S S*.t * ~ * **5 ~ ) 3 5 ~ 2 ~

~ * S S * 2 2

.4., 5 ~**~ * 5 5, 5 5 3

. * S *)5 ** ~*S* 0 ~ S IS 5~* S

S

S

S* S . . S 3* 5 0

S. *S

S

SSS S 595 0 055 5 #55 5 - *~ S S S S -S

* S S S S S ****'* ~ S

-- 5 5 5 ~5 . S. *

* 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 .~*. .*. ***.~. .. S* S S S S

S* 0 5 9

EUTLJRE AIRF1F~LQ NF~TWc~F~

WILLIAIVI 8. HAF~T55FIELD ATLANTA INTE-sRr

33

SS

I

'~ 03 0 2 3 2 9

*~0 2

:3*S **

*e~*

0

IS 3 2 0 2 5

* S

S

S

N* 0

S

S

*S

* *~*-* 0

3 :3 :3 0 * *.*

:3, :3 0 5

* ***. ~* S S

S S

9 0~O

LD i~JE~TYi~ ~

NTA IN (U ~Ir~NA-rIQNAL AIF~~cjr~r

- I)

*I

I1 :

i) • . S

i "0 • •0

* *. -4TJIR - ) Ekt:l;L _ r, j -%)

W I !_ A M 1_:J . -1 1: I -_:$ - I _ . f)- &-2 I < 2/ N -/ . : *

* "

., nl I I I l I I I I I I II

I/ ) )

)I )

~

3

- 3

3 2

) J ; G 3 9 4

= 3 3 3 3 3 2 ~ : ) * ~ 4

3 - b

9

S

* N* * 9

00

00

S - ------ -0

2 9

) 2 ~ * * p .p * * *

) , I

p ,~ 0 * *

0 9 9 00

) I

LCJ ~ F'wV(J~K

AD-A092 455 PEAT MARWICK MITCHELL AND CO SAN FRANCISCO CALIF F/S 1/5 TASK FORCE DELAY STUDY. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD ATLANTA INTERNATI--ETC(UljUN B0 DOT-FATTWA-3961

UNCLASSIFIED NL

I II.IIIIIII 'Elii

MEM III



I ...*....................* . .

.j...... .. *.. *.. *.*... *.... ... . .... .. . . . . . .

..... ....... .... .

-~~~~~~... .....:.......:::...::

*~~.. . ..........................

. .. .. .

.. .... prepared .f.r -- -----DEPARTMENT ---- OFTRNSORATO

FEDERALAVIATIO.ADMINITRATIO~. under.contr.c

DOT.....A-396

.. .Pe. Marw.ck M ..tche.. & ........ ... E.... ..... 7 3

B

I PEAT, IMARWVICK. MITCHELL & CO.

P.O.BOX 8007

*SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128

i Telephone: (415) 347-9521

December 11, 1978

I

Mr. Ray Fowler, AEM-100

Federal Aviation Administration800 Independence Avenue, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20591


Dear Ray:

Enclosed is Data Package No. 5 for William B. HartsfieldAtlanta International Airport. The package contains revisedresults of certain Stage 1 and Stage 2 experiments andresults of the annual delay model runs. Furthermore, thepresentation of all of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 results hasbeen improved by showing results for the peak-demand hourand for the morning peak 3-hour period, which contains boththe arrival peak hour and the departure peak hour.

These results should be reviewed by the Atlanta Task Forceduring the December 13, 1978, Task Force meeting.

Sincerely,

Stephen M. HockadayManager

SLMH/nbeEnclosure

cc: Mr. J. R. Dupree, ALG-132Mr. B. Drotts, ASO-4 (w/enci)

II

S AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIESAtlanta International Airport

Data Package No. 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Attachment A - RESULTS OF STAGE-i DELAYSIMUL ATIOS ONS . .. .. .. ........ 1

gExperimentIA . ............ . . . . . . . 3IExperiment 2A................... 4

Experiment1................... 5Experiment2.......................6IExperiment 3 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 7Experiment 5................... 9Experiment 6............ .. .. .. .. 10

Attachment B - RESULTS OF STAGE-2 DELAY SIMULATIONS . 11Experiment 28 ...................... 13Experiment 22................... 14Experiment 17 .................... 15Experiment 18................... 16Experiment 19 .................... 17Experiment 20............ . . ... .. .. .. .. 18Experiment 21 .................... 19

IAttachment C - RESULTS OF ANNUAL DELAY EXPERIMENTS . . 20Experiment 12 .. ....... .. ..... . . . 22Experiment 13 .................... 25Experiment 14 .................... 28Experiment 15 .................... 31Experiment 16 .................... 34Experiment 24 .................... 37Experiment 25 .................... 40Experiment 26 .................... 43Experiment 27. ............. ... .. 46

Experiment 23 .................... 49

Attachment A


I

i

i


1 Airport Improvement Task Force Delay Studies

I

9

III


*December 1978

II

2

Table A-I

ATLANTA TASK FORCE DELAY STUDIES.. INDEX TO REVISED RESULTS

STAGE 1 EXPERIMENTS

Demand/

Experiment Runways ImprovementNo. Model Arrivals Departures Weather ATC Page

1A ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L VFRI 1978 3

2A ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1978 4

1 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L VFRl 1982 5

2 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1982 6

3 ASM 9R 8, 9L IFR2 1982 7

5 ASM 8, 9R 8, 91, IFRI 1982- 92 n.m. stagger

6 ASM 8, 9R 8, 9L IFRI 1982- 101.5 n.m. stagger

III

I

!I

3

EXPERIMENT NO. lA

Objective:I

To obtain 1978 baseline delay estimates in VFRI weather forthe following runway-use configuration:


8, 9R 8, 9L





IAnticipated Results:gLower delays than in Experiment 2A.

Results:

RThis

Experiment

Operation 0900-1200Type Performance Measure Averaaea Peakb

Arrival Runway Delay (min) 9.2 6.2Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.2 0.4Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.8 0..Departure Runway Delay (min) 8.0 7.6Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.4 0.5Departure Gate Delay (min) 1.3 2.1

I a. Average over the period 0900-1200 hours.b. For peak demand hour, 1000-1100 hours.g c. Includes runway crossing delay.

I

II

4

EXPERIMENT NO. 2A

Objective:

To obtain 1978 baseline delay estimates in IFRl weather forthe following runway-use configuration:


8, 9R 8, 9L


Experiment 1A has same demand and network but in VFRl weather.




Higher delays than in Experiment IA.

Results:

This Experiment

Operation 0900-1200Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb

Arrival Runway Delay (min) 23.8 29.1Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.7 0.6Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.6 0.1Departure Runway Delay (min) 9.9 8.8Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.8 0.5Departure Gate Delay (min) 2.2 1.6

!a. Average over the period 0900-1200 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1000-1100 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.

6

I

I

5

EXPERIMENT NO. 1

Objective:



8, 9R 8, 9L


The results of this experiment can be compared withExperiment No. 1A, which was for the old terminal and1978 demand and ATC separations in VFR1 weather.


From 0800 to 2200 hours with 1-hour summaries..

Summary Comparison:

This Experiment Experiment No. 1AOperation 1000-1300 0900-1200

Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Average Peakb

Arrival Runway Delay (min) 10.1 11.9 9.2 6.2Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1Departure Runway Delay (min) 9.9 15.2 8.0 7.6Departre Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.2 0.4 1.3 2.1

a. Average cver the period 1000-1300 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1100-1200 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.

I

II

6

EXPERIMENT NO. 2

Objective:



8, 9R 8, 9L


The results of this experiment can be compared toExperiment No. 2A to examine differences due to the newdemand, ATC separations, and terminal building compared totoday's IFRl conditions. It can also be compared toExperiment No. 1 to examine differences between 1982 VFR1and IFRI.


From 0800 to 2200 hours with 15-minute summaries.

Summary Comparison:

This Experiment Experiment No. 2A

Operation 1000-1300 0900-1200Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Average Peakb

Arrival Runway Delay (min) 25.5 19.3 23.8 29.1Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.6Arrival Gate Delay (miin) 0.02 0.0 0.6 0.1Departure Runway Delay (min) 10.2 14.1 9.9 8.8Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.5Departure Gate Delay (min) 2.6 2.2 2.2 1.6

a. Average over the period 1000-1300 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1100-1200 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.

I . i Ii

7

EXPERIMENT NO. 3

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates in IFR2 weather with the 1982 demand,Midfield Terminal, and near-term ATC separations for thefollowing runway-use configuration:


9R 8, 9L


The results of this experiment can be compared to the resultsof Experiment No. 2 to examine differences between 1982 IFRland IFR2.

Length and Level of Detailed of Simulation Run:

From 0300 to 2200 with 1-hour output summaries.

Results: (See attached figure for graphical corroborationof delay results)

This Experiment

Operation 1000-1300Type Performance Measure Averacea Peakb

Arrival Runway Delay (min) 60+ 60+Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.1 0.1Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0Departure Runway Delay (min) 0.5 0.3Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.2 0.1Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0


!

I

ATLANTA TASK FC=-.Z fZ.LAY ST'0:Y

Ex;erirent -40. 3

120C ;eterminis:'- ':euir.o Aalsts

1982 Dema.d, IF.Z Weather

D2 Case No. 7

but with near-term ATC and----

iS¢0fleet -, x

I-PL Demand -

500-

z/

I. C

Ma i800 - lay s-i/: o.

4:00 ~-.-- M2 Capacity (t:date of Case ;o. 7)

L''D

HU OIi l 2/

HOUSOF -

tS

3 m 3 3 -

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 i

EXPERIMENT NO. 5

Objective

To obtain delay estimates in IFRI weather associated with2.0 nautical mile staggered arrival-arrival separationsproposed for use when simultaneous, independent arrivalscannot be accommodated on the following runway-useconfiguration:


8, 9R 8, OL




From 0800 to 1300 with 15-minute output summaries.

Results:

This Exoeriment Exoeriment No. 2Operation 1000-1300 1000-1300

Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Averagea Peakb

Arrival Runway Delay (min) 60+ 60+ 25.5 19.3Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)C 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0Departure Runway Delay (min) 4.8 6.7 10.2 14.1Departure Taxi-Cut Delay (min)c 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.2

a. Average over the period 1000-1300 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1100-1200 hours.

c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.

10

EXPERIMENT NO. 6

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates in IFRI weather associated with1.5 nautical mile staggered arrival-arrival separationsproposed for use when simultaneous, independent arrivalscannot be accommodated on the following runway-useconfiguration:


8, 9R 8, 9L


The results of this experiment, in particular arrival flowrates and delays, can be compared with the results ofExperiments No. 2 and No. 5.

tLength and Level of Detail of Simulation Run:

From 0800 to 1300 with 15-minute output summaries.

gResults:This Experiment Experiment No. 5

Operation 1000-1300 1000-1300Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Averagea Peakb

Arrival Runway Delay (min) 43.5 36.1 60+ 60+Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Departure Runway Delay (min) 12.1 19.4 4.8 6.7Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Departure Gate Delay (min) 1.6 1.2 0.0 0.0

Ia. Average over the period 1000-1300 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1100-1200 hours.

c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.

I

11

Attachment B


I



IPeat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.San Francisco, California

December 1978

II

12

m 11 Ln t- N o 02-1' 1- -4 H -4 14 -

Ln LAp 0 02 02 m2 w' a9 . 14 cn (n ON ON H

> 4.J 1-4 14 1- H I

x. ".4 02 02 02 0 )a4 1 a4 a4 a44 a4i 0

rILO

a) w Q) 0 0 m$

z 02 N CN C") I-

02ON 0 0) cm 02 10

H 4 H

0 t02

u z z 4 41

0 H H W. 1

4 4 0

t-a 4 U4 )4

E-4~O~-4~

Z zE-4 E 02l

z IN a' a'a

4 oo OD O2co c

02~~( Nn N 2 a -4U

C444

Xv 0 a)

.4. 0% 4-4a. )0 :1

0100z r-4 C J) 0 - 1 UI4 N C - 4 A N C )9 r

I_

13

EXPERIMENT NO. 28

Objective

To obtain 1978 delay estimates assuming that there are twodeparture tracks on Runway 9L, i.e., no environmental con-straints on 9L, for the following runway use in IFRI weather:


8, 9R 8, 9L






Lower departure delays than in Experiment 2A.

Summary Comparison:

This ExPeriment Experiment No. 2AOperation 0900-1200 0900-1200

Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Average Peakb

Arrival Runway Delay (min) 23.6 28.6 23.8 29.1Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.1Departure Runway Delay (min) 8.9 7.7 9.9 8.8Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.5Departure Gate Delay (min) 2.1 1.3 2.2 1.6


14

EXPERIMENT NO. 22

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates for the case where there are no gate-holds in 1982 at Midfield Terminal with near-term ATC separa-tions and the following runway use in IFRI weather:


8, 9R 8, 9L


Experiment No. 2 estimates the delays associated with anassumed gatehold procedure where aircraft are held at thegates when the length of departure queue reaches 10 aircraft.




Reduced departure gate delays compared to Experiment 2.

Summary Comparison:

This Experiment Experiment No. 2Operation 1000-1300 1000-1300

Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Averagea Peakb

Arrival Runway Delay (min) 25.5 19.4 25.5 19.3Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.02 0.0 0.02 0.0Departure Runway Delay (min) 9.5 14.1 10.2 14.1Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.2


15

EXPERIMENT NO. 17

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates for 1982 demand, near-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, and the fourth runway, SL-26R, where the"inboard" runways are used for arrivals in IFRI weather.


8R, 9L 8L, 9R


Experiment No. 18 estimates the delay for the same case butwith arrivals on the "outboard" runways. Experiment No. 20also has arrivals on the "outboard" runways, but in 1987.Experiment No. 2 is the corresponding 3-runway case.



Summary Comparison:

This ExperimentOperation 1000-1300

Te Performance Measure Averagea Peakb

Arrival Runway Delay (min) 30.6 22.7Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.3 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0Arrival Taxi-In Time (min) 6.5 6.3Departure Runway Delay (min) 1.2 1.1Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.6 0.4Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0Departure Taxi-Out Time (min) 6.5 6.9

a. Average over the period 1000-1300 hours.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1100-1200 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.I'

I . . I I I

16

EXPERIMENT NO. 18

IO Objective:

To obtain delay estimates for 1982 demand, near-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, and the fourth runway, 8L-26R, wherethe "outboard" runways are used for arrivals with thefollowing runway use in IFRl weather.


8L, 9R 8R, 9L




g0800 to 1300 hours with 15-minute summaries.

i Summary Comparison:

This Experiment Experiment No. 17Operation 1000-1300 1000-1300Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Averagea Peakb

Arrival Runway Delay (min) 30.4 23.0 30.6 22.7Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Arrival Taxi-In Time (min) 6.1 5.94 6.5 6.3Departure Runway Delay (min) 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.1Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Departure Taxi-Out Time (min) 5.6 6.5 6.5 6.9


iII

17

EXPERIMENTr NO. 19

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, far-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, and the following runway use in IFRlweather.


8, 9R 8, 9L


Experiment No. 2 estimates the delays for the same conditionsin 1982. Experiment No. 20 has the same 1987 demand and ATCbut with the fourth runway, 8L-26R, and arrivals on the "out-board" runways.




Lower flow rates and greater runway delays than in Experi-ment No. 20.

Summary Comparison:

5 This ExperimentOperation 0900-1200

Type Performance Measure Average a Peak b

Arrival Runway Delay (min) c20.3 24.3Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 0.2 0.2Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.03 0.02IDeparture Runway Delay (min) 12.4 12.0Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.6 0.6gDeparture Gate Delay (min) 1.1 0.6

a. Average over the period 0900-1200 hours.I b. For the peak-demand hour, 1000-1100 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.

18

EXPERIMENT NO. 20

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, far-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, the fourth runway, 8L-26R, and the follow-ing runway use in IFRI weather.


8L, 9R 8R, 9L


Experiment No. 18 estimates the delays for the same conditionsin 1982. Experiment No. 19 has the same 1987 demand and ATC,but without the fourth runway.




Greater flow rates and lower delays than in Experiment 19.

Summary Comparison:

This Experiment Experiment No. 19Operation 0900-1200 0900-1200

Type Performance Measure Averagea Peakb Average a Peakb

Arrival Runway Delay (min) 15.2 23.3 20.3 24.3Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min)c 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.2 0.2 0.03 0.02Departure Runway Delay (min) 2.2 3.3 12.4 12.0Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min)c 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.6

Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.6


I i-

19

EXPERIMENT NO. 21

Objective:

To obtain delay estimates for 1987 demand, far-term ATC,Midfield Terminal, the fourth runway, 8L-26R, and the follow-ing runway use in VFR1 weather.


8L, 9R 8R, 9L


Experiment No. 20 has the same conditions but in IFRlweather.


0800 to 2200 hours with 1-hour summaries.

* Anticipated Results:

Higher flow rates and lower delays than in Experiment 20.

Summary Comparison:

This ExperimentOperation 0900-1200

TyePerformance measure Average a Peakb

Arrival Runway Delay (min) c12.0 19.9Arrival Taxi-In Delay (min) 0.2 0.3Arrival Gate Delay (min) 0.2 0.6IDeparture Runway Delay (min) c1.4 2.9Departure Taxi-Out Delay (min) 0.3 0.6Departure Gate Delay (min) 0.0 0.0

a. Average over the period 0900-1200 hours.I.b. For the peak-demand hour, 1000-1100 hours.c. Includes runway crossing delay, if any.

20

Attachment C

RESULTS OF ANNUAL DELAY EXPERIMENTS

I William B. Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport


Ig

III


December 1978

II

21

Table C-1

LIST OF ANNUAL DELAY MODEL (ADM) EXPERIMENTSAND INDEX TO RESULTS

Sequence Experiment No. ofNo. No. Demand ATC System Terminal Runways Page

1 12 1978 Today Old 3 22

2 16 1982 Today Old 3 25

3 14 1982 Near-Term Old 3 28

4 15 1982 Today New 3 31

5 13 1982 Near-Term New 3 34

6 27 1987 Today Old 3 37

7 25 1987 Far-Term Old 3 40

8 26 1987 Today New 4 43

1 9 24 1987 Far-Term New 4 46

10 23 1982 Near-Term New 6 mo. - 3 496mo. - 2

I!

!

!

I

I

Attachment D

SUMMARIES OF EXPERIMENT RESULTS



4


December 1978

I

I

22

.. . . .~ .

. . . . . .

23

I

I

--- " -'o-!...-

77- i -.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I

1I

24

-- -- - 4

CC-

-. Z .

U - -. *n . -

. . . .x .~ . ?-' -

C C

: ++1[ 25

i

'C- i' t ~ 2 - r~

I -I.'.4

1 2 _ +-. c

:I" 7: - - 7

I " - > ? ' ..

i

..

II

U I I I

26

.i . . ,

C-

- C-- -

It. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

qC-

927

I-K-K

- r. -K

~N ~ -

-KI -K

-KK

I- --K -K

-- - -

- .*-

~:3-K-K

* -K

.-- -. 'i~l -~-K- I

- C~ ~,J t~

* - ~ -~

-x -

*x _ _

* -.~ -----

~ *- .9C"

-~5: - -' - -' -- C"

i -K

-K

-.- -

-~

i28

II

iI-

g -

29

I

9

I

'r -r Li !,L

+i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +

. . . . . . ... . . ... ........... . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . .

II

30

-. 'J cN.

Ci,

F- . -.-

-V .-

- 1* 4 -,- - -

231

I444K4AA

44

4

k 4

.c c ;c. . . . . .4

At4 -'

4C< ~ -K ~ ~-. ~ _-

It 4 C-

4 4 Lt-

4 i-. 4

32

F-zzI, C l 1 r - -IlC 7I c L n L)L= I * , c nzLI - C - Cr - - 4C

In-T c,-4- -.L; C I4c r C

CC

IN C,

'n 'D C C, a

33

4C

4c

-K

-x-K-K

-x

4c

tf.K

n-K

C.-. C:

-x-

4c

* -K

-Y

I

34!

4

Z :c

. .~ . . . ...

.e .- . . . . ..-

--

12|

35

*

t

* - - .-. ,. '- .4.-- ~4. r. - - - r-. - - -

- - - ~'-'r~ -. ~.r9 :---.................................................................................................................

-~ - C -

- - -I -

I - -

U- - - -. -- z - - -~

I K ------------------------- - -- - .~ - - - -. ~- -

...............................

t -. -

-z - ~ ~ - -

I

II

II

- -- - - -fl --

- I -

-r

-.

I

I

I

I 37

I

I

III

II C -

*- .*. .**

e -~ -~-~-~

* ~ ~

* -*- --

I - -. * E-~~-~-~ -PV -

U -

z -

I* - -

I - - - -* ., * * - * - e~*r-~~ r' - r t~L.

g ~ -

- - - ~ C-c-i -~-'

I -

II

1 38

Ia

II

I

,JoclCNrCt~N.'eJr~. - -

-- JrJ-,-2.~-rrrrrC :zc zr~"-~-~-~> ,~<t~,ZZ -

I'i3 z~-.--....................................

- ~ :.:.-.;4~..

- ~ ~

I*

II

- - .2 - - .

39

I rL.

C~ L' '

cI

40

.~ .j .~ .-

- --Pt

.. -. . .-.._

' - x ; -X c-.---

4 - - .- , -" "

- 'j

-:C-

-- 4

-" - -,I I

41

7 Lfr<L .7 - 'j,':f:-Z

c c-

I,, en en -*, r' e Lr , C C.Z C C C

g42

Ia

aII *- V

I -.

I

F-' J~

-t ~ -

.- , - V

- ----.- ~zL -

- - - C-' -P. -,

* ,"- -~

- - .,- I

. -- - -. , -PU U

- - -~t*.. .-

C~J~N LI

-* - -, -~

I

I~- - - - - -

| 43

*

"'" " --- _

-

I -. -

I'' I • • • •

44

e

I

I

I-. .. z. . .. -. ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. L~

I -,

I "- CC-,- - - -

n4C iC

g7.1

45

-, - - - - '-I -~ ~

- r-.-~ -e - - -

* -. - .- C-

.4. - - -- -

- ~- -

- . . -- - A ~-:-~.4-.z. :.~ -

-

-c.-- ... a -~

.4.

- _ C-

I - ..-- 4.

.. " j ... -......................

.4. -'

4:

4- - - -~J 4.* - -

- -- ..- -.

4.

- - .- :-. 4:

4:

4:

1

I

46

I L-~~~ ... .. .~ - .-. . . . -. .

-X

. -. . .. ..

-- -------------------------

-x -

-t'.

,I I

47

|- -

I • .

I

I

I

I

48

*' 4c

e" el

-A

- .. :-

49

~ N. N. -

t B

S U= '-.

,- - - N. = - N~ f

.. - -

* ~N.

oIII

I

I

t 50

77f

-e Z' z'-'-~

-now

51

-'; 2 -- ¢J -

S-3- -- .

"- - - .. -C C 4 - '.1:- C

- - -- - ....

4: . <

I .

L-" - 4: 77>.

-. .-- 4z Z~J

Telephone: (415) 347-9521

August 6, 1979

Ir. Michael J. PowderlyChief, Atlanta Toweri artsfield International AirportP. 0. Box 20722Atlanta, Georgia 30320

Re: Discussion Outline, July 23, 1979

Dear Mikez

The attached contains changes to pages 3 and 8 of the July 23,1979, discussion outline. These changes reflect the effect ofthe West Operation at Atlanta which is unaffected by the pro-posed single departure route to the East.

The numbers now reflect that there is a higher percentage ofIFR weather when the East Operation is used (22% instead of12%) but the East Operation is used only 40% of the year.

If you have any questions on this, please let me know.

Sincerely,

W. J. Dunlay, Jr,Senior Consultant

WJD/nlmEnclosure

bcc: TFD Corresp.TFD Proj ATLS. L. M. Hockaday(w/o encl)

ww

o

- x00 o

ul - - 0-< c - 1=0 (==o LU (c- w-: - H UH CLwCL

w C:)

< 0 <c-L w LU=

_j C~ w w 0 wu- >- <~~

WLL3: < LLw LLW L4W

cl) U ) w -J

< CD)

L'I,

- HGO.

co

to)

-iLr - - - 00LLJ 4 : C4 N 00 10 -

cz

0c LULUs

- 0 LCL Cl

<~ F-

-y 0 n- wu <<U m- >< a_ a-

W 0- -= 0I co N r1 L) ) C 0 0.~m C/l) 00 rq- r

CC)Ll 0 LL- '-x .

.- 5 0 ix

LL !he LLL

< -- 1 00 -= -C:) 0 -

- LU CN C:) < ICI-~ C:) 3-- -- -- 1-0XV) Z) X~ F-~xHF I ~w

-L 0-3 r-, L- U <J < U% : )

H a x xL

< cr crI cc F-H0 0 IX I)9- : - - < L

0 0CL) 0 <. <U LU L U U LIx a: a: ck:CD CL CL CL

- ~ ~ 0 LU C "C " u ' C U

IX'C~ w > w m CC >I--J :m L > > > > > >< X: w:cC: Nc ::LU~

t~l, Lr% r--4 -4

t~li r-l rlrrLO C

F- C-

I-L

C:- C7 '-i 0 r-.. r4 . C: 0 C C:)

-j L/) L.-4 '--I Lt C -7

< I-

IF- - 0<ciC)- - <-

F-WLLJ w L

C)0 r-f LU

F- 1 00 <<wJ LU 0 C7) -- --I~ => Lr C=O) CD CD --J C=) Lfl '

C/ > - CD

-LJo- n- 00 cl 9

U)lfl LL

_-r 00

I -4 -- Lj v-4 CD - LCl0- c CD C7) 0: x- F- X -V) u- --z- r--, - W 0C:- C71 IL a. X I -H D LUI

-0 w I-C .4i L L2L LUJ

-CC <. d< <~ >--00> > > cc0 0- 1.- - P- - -I w < LUJ

ix- cl i.. <r- CL C .0. C0- LU: cU LU LUCl -- MC cwcc u wCD CD .0 ZL LU LU < LU LU LU

(.40 CD cm CD C D C- L < d< LU < < LU

LU < L LUI LU w LU LU Lr-Jo > > > > > >=2 w LU ~c -:c -:1W

3c - (

LL

wu M) LO CDWcr .zLC LO -- 4 -~ CN LL

_-j %

L -ZI 0

F-L

F- z w< ,w U LL) >-Z 0y) 00 C

a: < - - 0WU Q >< j 1 C4 Q0 r-. w:-D LUJ w C

< >- =woF- < -

< wL w

F-:r -L

uL L L e< F

w / w ixF-< (x CL F-WCC -r

C- ~C C- r

-40 - -4 0 0)

C). - *1F F- OL

<4 <4Ix4

WU w <

(D (DX<< < =) Wr

WU W - C/) C-> > 0%1v

C F-.

Ne- CN4rI-

~N 44L

U- C-

lc: 0IL

< LILZ WLU >-L C=

JI 9=1 fr-< 00 WL

F- C.,, _

-

<N WOJ< CL-

z j -

Im LX

L 5 <J F-

0: Cl) w

-cr LUW w

.. J w J-L ix.oU o

- -i

aU LU

:CcW

LU LU EnC .> > 40:c

-l LL.

H< Li~LLI

--

C)L/) ML ) - -

CL F- a : u 0< 0 0D

-a Z0 tnC HaIL _ U

LU _-: -ri 0-4 Ui CD Hi -: UULL

- - .- I 0.L CL - ~ L< n <) C:) 0 ~ ~

< LLJ H- (D Hix - m CD LL U-. LU

I-- :D _j % : x: <C C)'- C/) Q' 0 LJ HwO

H- U L 10 -- LL- a-<JU >- :5= t

_j .4 Lm U). >- 0-- 3 < - O-

w~L 00 0 HOCu -j>- -J -mw a I <C < 0<

i IL LUJ LU HCN 'C U

IL. V-C LLWtjCz : 0 DU) (n _.j 0~ ucX H-f=. C CH

ClU - 0

H C) C:)

'C <0 0%-LU u100 -j J

I- 3: <CC ~ 4C)

cLC. -w oL oIL F-- HZ H H -

C0k 04l < LU CZW OWJ czw C: W C)

C=~ ~ - -Ucc LWH

Nd)E <LU

C., 0 <

h2one: (413) 347-9-'1

?zrh11, 1930

Ta~ rorce Chairm'an~j~ra1Aviation Ac'.hIinitratior

-.utlur 2Con

zJ1 Caaci'-y 7xhibIt for AtI anta Task Force .2erort

Limcloso, is a .AI-otostat arm one cony of th-e edii cit!,-ourlr-y runl~zy ca;.AcitiC±3. I0te that part or all a- t!'

tle w~c~thichj is on ;-Cc-an te reT-o':od a r~1'~

.iz]~ ffi-otcotat should serve as a rorro&'uciblh co7y f 'r tIL-;a:iorce reor.t.

If -- u have any' j-uetions about thao exh-ibit '-,1oasc cill-

Sin cf-,r c y

.- r. J. C. ( man

bcc: S. L. M. HockadayAtlanta TFD Project

Do NC. .: AR Ti AM..P- ME NTS C.44

:Oc 200 7

1 75 ,\\

212 13: 131 2,

IZ - 24 23 120 - 24 !I':28

10, 71 I0 102- Ao -" 70 10 1711_

\ x~4-. ~ 1

S - --

I 7,

50

525

'0711 1982 1917 1 74 9112 1987

YEAR YEAR

o .FR C.RcC,- 0 30 50. 70% A,,.IWZ '~ 7(;#

WITH NEAR TERM IMPROVFMENTS ANDWITH FUTURE ATC SCENARIO ONLY FUTURE ATC SCENARIO

;25 220S

22S -

755

200

I 4, \ I75 175

50 so -

!3

3172 25

.12 -- \ 2 :

FAR YEAR

HOURLY RUNWAY CAPACITIES AT30%, 50%,70% ARRIVALS

Atlanta International Airport

pm'm & Co. J,,ne 1979

.. .. *. i

a0-a092 peat marwick mitchell and co san ...irunway a 100 26 b 75 25 c 100 d 100! i exit utilization...

Documents