The Clockmaker's Curse

Newark International Airport
Capacity Enhancement Plan

May 2000
Prepared jointly by the U.S. Department of Transportation,

the Federal Aviation Administration, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,
and the airlines and users serving Newark International Airport and Teterboro Airport.
NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AI RPORT CAPACITY E N HANCE M ENT PLAN
Table of Contents
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Section 1 - Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Newark International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Newark International Airport Capacity Design Team . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Section 2 - Capacity Enhancement Alternatives . . . . . . . . 15

Airfield Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Facilities and Equipment Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Operational Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
User or Policy Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Section 3 - Summary of Technical Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Airfield Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Aircraft Delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix A - Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix B - Computer Model and Methodology . . . . . . . 33

Computer Model Airfield Delay Simulation Model (ADSIM) . . . . . 33
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix C - List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
i
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Newark International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Figure 2. Capacity Enhancement Alternatives and

Annual Delay Savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Technical Study Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 4. Airport Capacity Curves - Flow Rate

Versus Average Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 5. Airport Delay Costs (in Hours and Dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 6. Average Delay per Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Recommended Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 8. Airfield Weather Conditions and

Runway Utilization - Simulated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 9. Airfield Weather Conditions and

Runway Utilization - Historical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 10. Aircraft Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 11. Aircraft Approach Speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 12. Length of Final Common Approach (NM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 13. Aircraft Daily Fleet Mix by Aircraft Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 14. Profile of Daily Demand - Hourly Distribution . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 15. Daily Airfield Demand Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 16. Annual Delay Costs (in Hours and Dollars). . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 17. Average Delay per Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
ii
Figure 1. Newark International Airport
General
Aviation
The airport diagram is not intended for

Master Planning purposes. It only illus-
trates the location of capacity enhance-
ment alternatives.
22R
22L
11
29
1
Ball Park
N
Control
Tower
Terminals
Cargo
Cargo
4R
4L
1,000 ft.
5,000 ft.
1
Figure 2. Capacity Enhancement Alternatives and Annual Delay Savings
Estimated Annual Delay Costs (HRS and $M)

Baseline (454,000) Future 1 (500,000) Future 2 (550,000)
Do Nothing
2.5 NM Minimum In-Trail IFR Spacing–Between Similar Class
Non-Heavy Aircraft on Final Approach 120,286/$264.6 367,519/$808.5 765,034/$1,683.1
Estimated Annual Delay Savings
Airfield Improvements
1. Taxiway to Runway 11/29 between Y and C3 Ramp 1,049/$2.3 1,541/$3.4 Note 1
2. Off-Gate Holding Areas in Addition to Ball Park Note 1 Note 1 Note 1
3. New Runway with Independent Arrivals in All Weather Conditions 83,059/$182.7 278,880/$613.5 557,229/$1,225.9
4. Alternate Departure Queuing Scheme for Extended 4L/22R Note 1 Note 1 Note 1
Facilities and Equipment Requirements

Localizer Directional Aid (LDA) Equipment See Alternative 6 Note 3 Notes 1&3
Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA) Equipment See Alternative 7 Note 3 Notes 1&3
Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches (DCIA) Equipment See Alternative 8 Note 3 Notes 1&3
Operational Improvements
5. Parallel Dual Visual Approaches 3,856/$8.5 10,404/$22.9 Note 1
6. Localizer Directional Aid (LDA) Offset Approach to Inboard
Runway (4L/22R) by Non-Heavy Aircraft and Commuters
NE and SW Flows - 50% in VFR2 6,432/$14.2 15,582/$34.3 Note 1
7. Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA)
NE and SW Flows - 100% in VFR2 9,008/$19.8 20,759/$45.7 Note 1
8. Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches (DCIA)–SW Flow 3,371/$7.4 3,846/$8.5 Note 1
9. Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches
(SCIA)–NE Flow 6,530/$14.4 9,718/$21.4 Note 1
10. Reduce Minimum In-Trail IFR Separations to 2.0 NM–Between
Similar Class Non-Heavy Aircraft 2,101/$4.6 4,955/$10.9 Note 1
11. Immediate Divergent Turns for Turboprop/Prop Aircraft 9,560/$21.0 28,608/$62.9 78,840/$173.4
User or Policy Improvements

12. Vertiport and Tiltrotor Aircraft Note 1 Note 1 411,071/$904.4
13. More Uniform Distribution of Traffic within the Hour Note 1 Note 2 Note 1
14. 1996 Fleet Mix at Future Demands Note 1 Note 2 Note 1
Note 1: This improvement was not simulated at this demand level.
Note 2: Annual delay costs and savings were not computed for this improvement. The results for Future 1, VFR-1, showed
nominal benefit and indicate this improvement will not make Future 1 levels of operations achievable.
Note 3: NAVAIDS and Equipment required to allow use of procedures.
2
Figure 3. Capacity Enhancement Alternatives and Technical Study Results*
Actions and Steps Necessary

Prior to Decision/Implementation
* Study results based on computer simulations
Concept or Technology
Airspace/Procedures
** This equipment is required for the referenced alternative.
Capital Investment
Airport Planning
Environmental
Development
Cost/Benefit
Alternatives Technical Study Results
Airfield Improvements
1. Taxiway to Runway 11/29 between Y and C3 Significant Delay Savings • • • •
Recommend Next Steps
2. Off-Gate Holding Areas in Addition to Ball Park •
3. New Runway with Independent Arrivals in All Significant Delay Savings • • • •
Weather Conditions Recommend Next Steps
4. Alternate Departure Queuing Scheme for Extended 4L/22R Not Simulated
Operational Improvements
5. Parallel Dual Visual Approaches Significant Delay Savings • • •
6. Localizer Directional Aid (LDA) Offset Approach to Inboard Significant Delay Savings • • • •
Runway (4L/22R) by Non-Heavy Aircraft and Commuters Recommend Next Steps
7. Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA) Significant Delay Savings • • • •
8. Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches (DCIA)–SW Flow Significant Delay Savings • •
9. Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches (SCIA)–NE Flow Significant Delay Savings • • • •
10. Reduce Minimum In-Trail IFR Separations to 2.0 NM–Between Significant Delay Savings • •
Similar Class Non-Heavy Aircraft Recommend Next Steps
11. Immediate Divergent Turns for Turboprop/Prop Aircraft Significant Delay Savings • •
User or Policy Improvements
12. Vertiport and Tiltrotor Aircraft Significant Delay Savings • • • • •
13. More Uniform Distribution of Traffic within the Hour Delay Saving
Airline Prerogative
14. 1996 Fleet Mix at Future Demands Less Than Significant
Delay Savings
Facilities and Equipment Requirements **
Localizer Directional Aid (LDA) & Glide Slope (GS)–Required
for Alternatives 6&7 • • •
Precision Runway Monitor (PRM)–Required for Alternative 7 • • •
Converging Runway Display Aid (CRDA)–Required for Alternative 8 • •
3
Summary
This process is done outside the context of normal airport master planning
because it only identifies the operational benefits or delay savings of capac-
ity enhancement alternatives.
This study considered the airport, its immediate airport terminal airspace,
without regard for adjacent terminals and required en route supporting
capacity. Several of the improvement initiatives require changes to airspace
structure and procedures. This study did not evaluate the feasibility of
accommodating these initiatives in the approach control or center airspace.
It is possible that some procedures cannot be accommodated in the exist-
ing airspace environment, and their feasibility would be better considered
in the ongoing redesign of the New York area airspace.
The purpose is to provide decision-makers with this information. The find-

ings of this capacity plan are not recommendations to take an action. They
are data and information to be used to further consider improvements in
the full planning context, where capital costs, airspace management needs,
environmental costs, alternatives, and other appropriate factors help yield
the best plan for the airport. For this reason, the Design Team recommends
follow on studies to make these choices.
Recognizing the problems posed by congestion and delay within the

National Airspace System, the FAA, airport operators, and aviation industry
groups have initiated joint Airport Capacity Design Teams (Design Teams)
at various major air carrier airports throughout the U.S. Each Design Team
identifies and evaluates alternative means to enhance existing airport and
airspace capacity to handle future demand, decrease delays, and improve
airport efficiency. Further, each team works to develop a coordinated
action plan for reducing airport delay. Over 50 Design Teams have either
completed their studies or have work in progress.
Newark International Airport (EWR) is a major hub airport, which was

ranked 12th in enplanements in 1997. This hub operation has the highest
average delay per operation in the U.S. The delays have system wide
impacts on a regular basis.
In the past decade, EWR has been one of the nation’s fastest growing
airports. Enplanements rose from 3.4 million in 1976 to 14.9 million in 1997,
an average annual growth rate of 4.3%. EWR’s total aircraft operations (take-
offs and landings) reached 467,688 in 1997, an average annual growth rate
of 2.5% over the 189,775 aircraft operations the airport handled in 1976.
4
Currently EWR is the only non-slot controlled, non-perimeter rule, free

market solution for commercial service passengers in the New York Area.
A Design Team for Newark International Airport was formed in 1996. The
EWR Design Team identified and assessed various actions that, if imple-
mented, could increase EWR’s capacity, improve operational efficiency, or
reduce aircraft delays. The purpose of the process was to determine the
technical merits of each alternative action and its impact on capacity.
Additional studies will be needed to assess airspace, environmental,
socioeconomic, or political issues associated with these actions.
Selected alternatives identified by the Design Team were analyzed using a

computer model developed by the FAA to quantify the benefits provided.
Aircraft classifications used were based on FAA separation standards after
August 17, 1996. Different levels of activity were chosen to represent
growth in aircraft operations in order to compare the merits of each action.
These annual activity levels are referred to throughout this report as:
➣ Baseline - 454,000 operations

➣ Future 1 - 500,000 operations
➣ Future 2 - 550,000 operations
Since all the initiatives modeled show a delay reduction, it is recommended

they be studied further to determine whether they should be undertaken.
Planning for improvements in a complex environment such as Newark has
become an iterative process requiring successive cycles of evaluation, proof
of concept, comparison to costs and resources required, etc. The following
initiatives should move on to the next steps in this process.
Based on the analysis completed during the study, the Design Team iden-
tified the following potential capacity enhancement or delay reduction
alternatives.
Future 1 Annual
Alternatives Delay Savings ($M)
Divergent Turns for Turboprop/Prop Aircraft $62.9
Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA) (100%) $45.7
Localizer Directional Aid (LDA) Equipment (50%) $34.3
Parallel Dual Visual Approaches $22.9
Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches (SCIA) $21.4
Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches (DCIA) $8.5
New Runway with Independent Arrivals in All Weather Conditions $613.5
5
Future 2 Annual
Vertiport and Tiltrotor Aircraft $904.4
New Runway with Independent Arrivals in All Weather Conditions $1,225.9
Figure 4. Airport Capacity Curves - Flow Rate Versus Average Delay
Airfield Capacity with 1996 Fleet Mix

50/50 Split and Balanced Hourly Flow Rates – Parallels without 11/29
20
Average Delay per Operation (Min)
16
66 78
VFR2 and IFR1 VFR 1
12
8
VFR2 and IFR1 VFR 1
64 and 62 72 4 Minute Average
4
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Total Flow
Figure 5. Airport Delay Costs (in Hours and Dollars)
800 Taxiway to Runway 11/29 Btwn Y and C3 Ramp

Do Nothing DCIA SW Flow
Reduce Minimum In Trail
Props Can
SCIA NE Flow
Diverge
Parrallel Dual Visual Approaches
600
LDA Offset Approach 50% in VFR2
Annual Delay Costs (Millions)
New Runway
with Independent SOIA NE and SW Flows 100% in VFR2
Arrivals
400
Vertiport and
Tiltrotor
200
454,000 500,000 550,000

Annual Demand
6
Figure 6. Average Delay per Operation
Average Annual Delay per Operation (in minutes)

0 20 40 60 80
Do Nothing 2.5 NM Minimum In-Trail IFR Spacing–Between 83.5
44.1
Similar Class Non-Heavy Aircraft on Final Approach 15.9
Taxiway to Runway 11/29 Between Y and C3 Ramp
43.9
15.8
New Runway with Independent Arrivals in All Weather Conditions 22.7
10.6
4.9
Parallel Dual Visual Approaches
42.9
15.4
LDA Offset Approach to Inboard Runway (4L/22R) by
43.4
Non-Heavy Aircraft and Commuters – NE Flow – 0% in VFR2
15.6
43.2
Non-Heavy Aircraft and Commuters – NE Flow – 50% in VFR2 15.6
43.6
Non-Heavy Aircraft and Commuters – SW Flow – 0% in VFR2 15.7
43.2
Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA)
42.2
NE and SW Flows – 50% in VFR2 15.0
41.6
Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches (DCIA)
43.6
– affects SW Flow 15.5
Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches (SCIA)
42.9
– affects NE Flow 15.0
Reduce Minimum In-Trail IFR Separations to 2.0 NM – Between
43.5
Similar Class Non-Heavy Aircraft 15.6
Immediate Divergent Turns for Turboprop/Prop Aircraft 74.9
40.7
14.6
Vertiport and Tilt Rotor Aircraft 38.6
550,000 (Future 2) Note: Future 2 was not simulated for most improvements because Future 2 levels of operation are not achievable.
500,000 (Future 1)
454,000 (Baseline)
7
Figure 4 shows the capacity curves (flow rate versus average delay) for the
existing airfield configuration at EWR under instrument flight rules (IFR)
and visual flight rules (VFR). It provides a 50/50 split of arrivals and depar-
tures and balanced flow rates for the parallel runways, without Runway
11/29. Under IFR, aircraft delays begin to escalate as the demand exceeds
31 arrivals per hour.
Figure 14 illustrates the hourly profile of daily demand for the Baseline
activity of 454,000 annual operations. It also includes curves which depict
the profile of daily operations for the Future 1 and 2 activity levels.
The information in Figure 4 illustrates that hourly demand exceeds 31

arrivals per hour at the Baseline activity level.
Figure 5 shows the delays and delay costs for the Do Nothing case and the
improvements studied by the Design Team. Under the Do Nothing case,
the annual delay costs of 120,286 hours or $ 264.6 million at the Baseline
activity level will increase to 367,519 hours or $ 808.5 million by Future 1,
and, 765,034 hours or $ 1,683.1 million by Future 2.
Figure 6 illustrates the average delay in minutes per aircraft operation for
these same alternatives. Under the Do Nothing case, the average delay per
operation of 15.9 minutes at the Baseline activity level will increase to 44.1
minutes by Future 1 and 83.5 minutes by Future 2.
Delays and delay costs at EWR escalate dramatically because the demand
at EWR causes the airport to operate beyond the knee of the delay curve.
An increase in demand results in a sharp increase in delay. Without some
improvements or combination of improvements, it is unlikely that EWR will
reach the Future 1 operational level.
Newark’s arrival demand consistently exceeds its IFR capacity throughout

the day. Consequently, the delays associated with its IFR operations esca-
late dramatically. However, delay reporting systems do not capture the
delays associated with canceled flights. Therefore, to capture the costs
associated with canceled flights, the Design Team simulated a full sched-
ule in IFR and full days of IFR conditions.
This conclusion suggests that in the near term future, unless passenger
services are provided at other regional airports, or by other modes of trans-
portation, planning for improving the capacity of Newark International
Airport should be undertaken now to select the best choices for the airport
and its communities.
8
Section 1 - Introduction
Background This process is done outside the context of normal airport master planning
because it only identifies the operational benefits or delay savings of
capacity enhancement alternatives.
without regard for adjacent terminals and required en route supporting
The purpose is to provide decision-makers with this information. The find-

ings of these capacity plans are not recommendations to take an action.
They are data and information to be used to further consider improvements
in the full planning context, where capital costs, airspace management
needs, environmental costs, alternatives, and other appropriate factors help
yield the best plan for the airport. For this reason, the Design Team rec-
ommends follow on studies to make these choices.
Problems posed by congestion and delay within the National Airspace

System resulted in the FAA asking the aviation community to study the
problem of airport congestion through the Industry Task Force on Airport
Capacity Improvement and Delay Reduction, chaired by the Airport
Operators Council International.
By 1984, aircraft delays recorded throughout the system highlighted the

need for more centralized management and coordination of activities to
relieve airport congestion. In response, the FAA established the Airport
Capacity Program Office, now called the Office of System Capacity (ASC).
The goal of this office and its capacity enhancement program is to identi-
fy and evaluate initiatives, having the potential to increase capacity, and
enhance the performance of the National Airspace System without com-
promising safety or the environment.
In 1985, the FAA initiated a renewed program of Design Teams at various

major air carrier airports throughout the U.S. Each Design Team identifies
and evaluates alternative means to enhance existing airport and airspace
capacity to handle future demand and works to develop a coordinated
action plan for reducing airport delay. Over 50 Design Teams have either
completed their studies or have work in progress.
9
In 1997, 23 airports each exceeded 20,000 hours of airline flight delays. If

no improvements in capacity are made, the number of airports that could
exceed 20,000 hours of annual air carrier delay is projected to grow from
23 to 31 by 2007. The challenge for the air transportation industry as we
began the year 2000, was to enhance existing airport and airspace capacity
and to develop new facilities to handle future demand. As environmental,
financial, and other constraints continue to restrict the development of new
airport facilities in the U.S., an increased emphasis has been placed on the
redevelopment and expansion of existing airport facilities.
For Newark International Airport, FAA and industry cooperatively maintain

a Capacity Enhancement Task Force, comprised of FAA representatives,
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, airline and satellite air-
port representatives, etc. This group meets periodically to discuss oppor-
tunities for delay reduction. This group concurred in the need for this
Capacity Enhancement Plan in mid-1996 for several reasons. Primarily, it
became evident that attempts to increase flight schedules resulted in sharp
delay increases, indicating capacity saturation. Since Newark is the only
airport in the three-airport system providing passenger service to New York
City, New Jersey and the surrounding area without flight restrictions (High
Density Rule), it was important to know how much additional service the
airport could provide. Also, a recently completed study of capacity and
delay reducing initiatives done for The Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey (“Delay Reduction Strategy Study” Leigh Fisher, 1995) called for
additional study. The Capacity Enhancement Design Team study was
launched the following year.
Newark International Newark International Airport (EWR) is a major hub airport, which was
Airport ranked 12th in enplanements in 1997. This hub operation has the highest
average delay per operation in the U.S. The delays have system wide
impacts on a regular basis.
In the past decade, EWR has been one of the nation’s fastest growing
airports. Enplanements rose from 3.4 million in 1976 to 14.9 million in 1997,
an average annual growth rate of 4.3%. EWR’s total aircraft operations
(takeoffs and landings) reached 467,688 in 1997, an average annual growth
rate of 2.5% over the 189,775 aircraft operations the airport handled in 1976.
Currently EWR is the only non-slot controlled, non-perimeter rule, free
market solution for commercial service passengers in the New York Area.
Currently Newark International Airport is owned and/or leased and oper-

ated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The airport is
located on approximately 2,200 acres of land about three miles from down-
10
town Newark and primarily serves the greater New York/New Jersey area.
The airfield was modeled with runway lengths of:
➣ Runway 4L/22R at 8,200 feet long and 150 feet wide.*

➣ Runway 4R /22L at 9,300 feet long and 150 feet wide.
➣ Runway 11/29 at 6,800 feet long and 150 feet wide.
* Runway extended to 11,000 feet in 2000
Newark International A Design Team for Newark International Airport was formed in 1996. The
Airport Capacity EWR Design Team identified and assessed various actions that, if imple-
Design Team mented, would have the potential to increase capacity, improve opera-
tional efficiency, or reduce aircraft delays. The purpose of the process was
to determine the technical merits of each alternative action and its impact
on capacity. Additional studies will be needed to assess airspace, environ-
mental, socioeconomic, or political issues associated with these actions.
This report has established benchmarks for development based upon traf-
fic levels and not upon any definitive time schedule, since actual growth
can vary from year to year from projections. As a result, the report should
retain its validity until the highest traffic level is attained regardless of the
actual dates paralleling the development.
A Baseline activity level of 454,000 aircraft operations (takeoffs and land-

ings) was established based on the annual traffic level for 1996. Two future
traffic levels, Future 1 and Future 2, were established at 500,000 and
550,000 annual aircraft operations, respectively; they were based on
Design Team consensus of potential traffic growth at EWR. If no improve-
ments are made at EWR, annual delay levels and delay costs are expected
to increase from an estimated 120,286 hours and $264.6 million at the
Baseline activity level to 367,519 hours and $808.5 million by the Future 1
demand level, and to 765,034 hours and $1,683.1 million by the Future 2
demand level. Another way of describing delay is the average delay per
operation. If no improvements are made at EWR, average delays – will
increase from 15.9 minutes at the Baseline activity level to 44.1 minutes at
Future 1 and 83.5 minutes at Future 2.
The improvements evaluated by the Design Team are delineated in

Figure 2 and described in some detail in Section 2, Capacity Enhancement
Alternatives.
11
Objectives The major goal of the Design Team was to identify and evaluate proposals
to increase airport capacity, improve airport efficiency, or reduce aircraft
delays. To achieve this objective, the Design Team:
➣ Assessed the current airport capacity.

➣ Examined the causes of delay associated with the airfield, the
immediate airspace, and the apron and gate-area operations.
➣ Evaluated capacity and delay benefits of alternative air traffic
control (ATC) procedures, navigational improvements, airfield
development, operational improvements, and policy changes.
Scope The Design Team limited its analyses to aircraft activity within the terminal
air airspace, 5NM from threshold, and on the airfield. It considered the oper-
ational benefits of the proposed airfield improvements, but did not address
environmental, socioeconomic, or political issues regarding airport develop-
ment. These issues need to be addressed in future airport planning studies,
and the data generated by the Design Team can be used in such studies.
without regard for adjacent terminals and required enroute supporting
Methodology The Design Team, which included representatives from the FAA, the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, and various aviation industry
groups see (Appendix A), met periodically for review and coordination. The
Design Team members considered capacity improvement alternatives pro-
posed by the FAA’s Office of System Capacity, the FAA’s Technical Center,
the FAA’s Regional Aviation Capacity Program Manager, The Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey, and other members of the team. Alternatives
which were considered technically practicable were developed into exper-
iments that could be tested by simulation modeling. The Technical Center
provided expertise in airport simulation modeling. The Design Team vali-
dated the data used as input for the simulation modeling and analysis and
reviewed the interpretation of the simulation results. The data, assumptions,
alternatives, and experiments were continually reevaluated, and modified
where necessary, as the study progressed. A primary goal of the study was
12
to develop a set of initiatives, that if able to be implemented after the study,

would provide capacity enhancement or delay reduction.
These initiatives can then be considered by decision-makers, who can

compare them to the capital costs, airspace management needs, environ-
mental impacts, alternatives, and other appropriate factors, to identify the
best plan for the airport.
Initial work consisted of gathering data and formulating assumptions

required for the capacity and delay analysis, and modeling. Where possi-
ble, assumptions were based on actual field observations at EWR.
Proposed improvements were analyzed in relation to current and future
activity levels using an FAA computer model, the Airfield Delay Simulation
Model (ADSIM). Appendix B briefly explains the model.
The simulation model considered air traffic control procedures, airfield

improvements, and traffic demands. Airfield configurations were prepared
from present and proposed airport layout plans. Various configurations
were evaluated to assess the benefit of projected improvements. Air traffic
control procedures and system improvements determined the aircraft sep-
arations to be used for the simulations under both visual flight rules (VFR)
and instrument flight rules (IFR).
Aircraft fleet mix and schedule assumptions were derived from Official
Airline Guide, C.A.T.E.R. (Collection and Analysis of Terminal Records)
data, historical data, FAA ATCT sources, and the Design Team. Aircraft
volume, mix, and peaking characteristics were considered for each of the
three different demand levels (Baseline, Future 1, and Future 2). From this,
annual delay estimates were determined based on implementing various
improvements. These estimates took into account historic variations in run-
way configuration, weather, and demand. The annual delay estimates for
each configuration were then compared to identify delay reductions result-
ing from the improvements. Following the evaluation, the Design Team
developed a plan of recommended alternatives for consideration.
The cost of the EWR Fleet Mix, computed at $2,200 per hour by the FAA
Technical Center and used to determine delay savings figures, represents
the 1997 (4th quarter) direct operating costs of the airlines serving EWR.
The costs include: cockpit crew; fuel and oil; rentals; insurance; taxes;
total flying operations; maintenance, and depreciation. The costs do not
consider intangible factors such as lost passenger time or disruptions to
airline schedules.
13
The total delay cost savings are based upon no cancellation or deviation
of scheduled flight during periods of inclement weather or high delay.
While removing those cancellations or deviations from the schedule would
reduce the delay cost savings, there is still a cost for those flights that
would need to be added to the delay costs. The costs include passenger
costs, hotel costs, reissued tickets, disruption to the schedule and bank
integrity, and equipment and crew repositioning and rescheduling. Some
of the costs are very difficult to measure, and most of the cost information
is proprietary. Also, those costs of cancellations and deviations vary great-
ly between airlines. So rather than further complicate the delay costs
methodology and benefit of delay cost savings through reduced delays, the
delays are calculated without deviating from the schedule.
14
Section 2 - Capacity Enhancement Alternatives

The capacity enhancement alternatives are categorized and discussed
under the following headings:
➣ Airfield Improvements
➣ Facilities and Equipment Requirements
➣ Operational Improvements
➣ User or Policy Improvements
In the opening Summary of this report, Figure 1 shows the current layout of
the airport, plus the airfield improvements considered by the Design Team.
Figure 2 lists the capacity enhancement alternatives evaluated by the

Design Team and presents the estimated annual delay savings benefits for
the improvements studied. The annual savings are given for the Baseline,
Future 1, and Future 2 activity levels, which correspond to annual aircraft
operations of 454,000, 500,000, and 550,000 respectively.
Figure 7 presents the Capacity Enhancement Alternatives that the Design

Team considered during the study and are recommended for further study.
Figure 7. Capacity Enhancement Alternatives and Recommended Actions

Note: NAVAIDS and Equipment required to allow use of procedures
Action
Airfield 1. Taxiway to Runway 11/29 between Y and C3 Ramp Further Study
Improvements 2. Off-Gate Holding Areas in Addition to Ball Park Further Study
3. New Runway with Independent Arrivals in All Weather Conditions Further Study
4. Alternate Departure Queuing Scheme for Extended 4L/22R Further Study
Facilities and Equipment Localizer Directional Aid (LDA) Equipment See Alt 6 and Note
Requirements Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA) Equipment See Alt 7 and Note
Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches (DCIA) Equipment See Alt 8 and Note
Operational 5. Parallel Dual Visual Approaches Further Study
Improvements 6. Localizer Directional Aid (LDA) Offset Approach to Inboard
Runway (4L/22R) by Non-Heavy Aircraft and Commuters Further Study
7. Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA) Further Study
8. Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches (DCIA) - affects SW Flow Further Study
9. Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches (SCIA) - affects NE Flow Further Study
10. Reduce Minimum In-Trail IFR Separations to 2.0 NM - Between
Similar Class Non-Heavy Aircraft Further Study
11. Immediate Divergent Turns for Turboprop/Prop Aircraft Further Study
User or Policy 12. Vertiport and Tiltrotor Aircraft Further Study
Improvements 13. More Uniform Distribution of Traffic within the Hour Further Study
14. 1996 Fleet Mix at Future Demands Further Study
15
Airfield 1. Taxiway to Runway 11/29 between Y and C3 Ramp

Improvements
This taxiway would provide an additional access to the terminal apron
from Runway 11/29. It would allow more flexibility, provide a more direct
route for commuter and regional jet aircraft, and reduce congestion around
the existing Taxiway U. The additional access to Runway 11/29 would pro-
vide the greatest benefit in VFR-1 and VFR-2 conditions, when use of
Runway 11 is permitted.
Annual delay savings would be 1,049 hours or $2.3 million at the Baseline
activity level; and 1,541 hours or $3.4 million at Future 1. This improve-
ment was not simulated at Future 2.
2. Off-Gate Holding Areas in Addition to Ball Park
The Technical Center developed an analytical tool to perform a gate analy-

sis at EWR using aircraft schedules (gate areas, arrival times, and departure
times) and the existing infrastructure. The analysis did not compare aircraft
size to gate size. It did not consider lateness distributions, gate service
times, runway usage, or other model inputs. Towing of international air-
craft from Terminal B3 to Terminal C1 was simulated.
Analysis of the international gates revealed Terminal B3 is at or below

capacity during the mid-afternoon hours at the Baseline and Future 1 activ-
ity levels. At Future 2, Terminal B3 exceeds capacity.
Analysis of the Domestic gates at the Baseline level showed Terminals A1,
A3, B1 exceed gate capacity overnight, starting at 2100 hours. Terminals C1
and C2 are at capacity overnight. At Future 1 and 2: Terminals A1, A3, B1,
and C1 exceed gate capacity overnight. At all activity levels, Terminal A3
exceeds gate capacity the most.
At all activity levels, the commuter area at Terminal C3 may be used to

store aircraft overnight. Other areas, such as Ball Park, may also be used.
There is a need for more off-gate holding in addition to the Ball Park. Areas
closer to other terminal aprons could provide additional flexibility, improved
gate utilization, and less congestion in the Ball Park and terminal area.
3. New Runway with Independent Arrivals in All Weather Conditions
None of the initial alternatives simulated showed enough delay reduction

to indicate a viable airport operation by Future 1. The Design Team,
with the permission of the full Newark Capacity Enhancement Task Force,
16
calculated the delay cost savings that could be realized by an additional,

independent, all-weather traffic stream. In this case, an independent paral-
lel runway was explored. This alternative was explored as a capacity
concept only. Extensive discussion, planning, public participation, and
environmental assessment would be required before this concept could
begin to be considered as a viable alternative.
The addition of a new runway could permit 2 independent parallel arrival

streams in all weather conditions. For the simulation of the Baseline activ-
ity level, 25 percent of the arrivals used the new runway. At the Future 1
and 2 levels, approximately 33 percent of the arrivals used the new run-
way. The NE and SW flows were simulated with 2 arrival runways and 2
departure runways. These configurations provided greater delay savings
than could be obtained by putting arrivals on Runway 11.
It should be noted that the new runway could provide additional delay
savings if departing turboprops/props could do divergent turns.
The new air carrier runway is included in the list of improvements for the
sole purpose of providing delay cost savings. Its inclusion should not be
viewed as a change to the Airport Layout Plan. This report considers only
the operational benefits of the proposed airfield improvements, and does
not address airspace, environmental, socioeconomic, or political issues
regarding airport development. These issues would have to be addressed
in future airport planning studies, and the data generated by this report
could be used in such studies.
Annual delay savings would be 83,059 hours or $182.7 million at the

Baseline activity level; 278,880 hours or $613.5 million at Future 1; and
557,229 hours or $1,225.9 million at Future 2.
4. Alternate Departure Queuing Scheme for Extended 4L/22R
Runway 4L/22R is being extended to the north by 1,000 feet and 1,800 feet
to the south. This extension eliminates the need for cockpit crews to
request the outboard runway for departure. Separate queuing schemes to
best utilize this extension are being analyzed under a separate study.
Facilities and Localizer Directional Aid (LDA) Equipment

Equipment
Requirements The navigational equipment needed to conduct LDA approaches to Runway
4L/22R consists of offset localizers, some type of Distance Measuring
Equipment (DME) guidance, and possibly a Glide Slope for each end of
the runway.
17
Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA) Equipment
The navigational equipment needed to conduct SOIA approaches to

Runway 4L/22R is a Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) and the equipment
associated for its operation, offset localizers, some type of DME guidance
and a Glide Slope for each end of the runway.
Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches (DCIA) Equipment
The surveillance equipment and ARTS software needed to conduct DCIA

approaches to Runways 4R and 11 is the Converging Runway Display Aid
(CRDA) to provide the electronic “ghost” images to assist in the separation
of the arrival aircraft.
Operational 5. Parallel Dual Visual Approaches

Improvements
This improvement would allow two arrival streams to the parallel runways
in VFR-1. Aircraft in a heavier class cannot overtake an aircraft in a lighter
class on the other runway. Therefore, dependent approaches were simu-
lated and wake vortex separations were applied between the closely
spaced parallels.
The simulation allowed arrivals to land on the inboard runway only dur-
ing peak arrival times in order to minimize their impact on departures.
6. Localizer Directional Aid (LDA) Offset Approach to Inboard

Runway (4L/22R) by Non-Heavy Aircraft and Commuters
An LDA would allow two arrival streams to the parallel runways 4L/22R
and 4R/22L in VFR-1 and some portion of VFR-2. As a NAVAID in VFR-2,
an LDA would permit dual parallel arrival streams to lower minima. The
expected minima for an LDA are approximately 3,000 feet and 5 miles,
which is 500 feet less than the VFR-1 minima. Aircraft in a heavier class
cannot overtake an aircraft in a lighter class on the other runway.
Therefore, dependent approaches were simulated and wake vortex sepa-
rations were applied between the closely spaced parallels.
18
Because the frequency of occurrence of the minima is unknown, the

Design Team performed a sensitivity analysis by varying the of use of an
LDA in VFR-2: 0% of the time in VFR-2 and 50% of the time in VFR-2.
Annual delay savings for an LDA used 50% of the time in VFR-2 operations
in NE flow would be 2,450 hours or $5.4 million at the Baseline activity
level; and 7,833 hours or $17.2 million at Future 1. This improvement was
not simulated at Future 2.
Annual delay savings for an LDA used 50% of the time in VFR-2 opera-
tions in SW flow would be 3,982 hours or $8.8 million at the Baseline activ-
ity level; and 7,749 hours or $17.0 million at Future 1. This improvement
was not simulated at Future 2.
7. Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA)
Currently under development, SOIA is a combination of technology and

procedures which would use a Precision Runway Monitor (PRM), an offset
ILS Localizer and Glide Slope, and a new procedure to permit dual parallel
arrival streams to lower minima. The expected minima for SOIA are approx-
imately 1,600 feet and 4 miles, which is 1,900 feet and 1 mile less than the
VFR-1 minima. Because the frequency of occurrence of the minima is un-
known, the Design Team performed a sensitivity analysis by varying the use
of SOIA in VFR-2: 50% of the time in VFR-2 and 100% of the time in VFR-2.
SOIA would allow 2 arrival streams to the parallel runways in VFR-1 and
some portion of VFR-2. Aircraft in a heavier class cannot overtake an air-
craft in a lighter class on the other runway. Therefore, dependent
approaches were simulated and wake vortex separations were applied
between the closely spaced parallels.
Annual delay savings for SOIA used 50% of the time in VFR-2 conditions
in the NE and SW Flows would be 6,432 hours or $14.2 million at the
Baseline activity level; and 15,582 hours or $34.3 million at Future 1. This
improvement was not simulated at Future 2.
Annual delay savings for SOIA used 100% of the time in VFR-2 conditions
in the NE and SW Flows would be 9,008 hours or $19.8 million at the
Baseline activity level; and 20,759 hours or $45.7 million at Future 1. This
improvement was not simulated at Future 2.
19
8. Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches (DCIA) -

Affects SW Flow
This improvement could permit arrivals to Runway 11, in addition to

runway 22L in the SW Flow in IFR-1a conditions (600 feet and 2 miles).
The DCIA requires a CRDA (Converging Runway Display Aid) and ARTS
software. The CRDA tool will assist controllers in maintaining the stagger
distances established between aircraft using DCIA.
The DCIA order requires that aircraft be separated by 2NM from a Non-
Heavy ghost target and 5NM from a Heavy ghost target. Consequently, a
slot is lost when there is a Heavy arrival. In simulating the DCIA in their
ETG (Enhanced Target Generator) Lab, the TRACON staggers the arrivals
and places aircraft 5NM in-trail on 22L.
activity level; 3,846 hours or $8.5 million at Future 1. This improvement
was not simulated at Future 2.
Note: The savings are less than that of Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches (SCIA) because
there are dependent approaches in DCIA and weather conditions will permit DCIA less often than SCIA.
9. Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches (SCIA) -

Affects NE Flow
Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approach rules permit simultaneous

ILS approaches to non-intersecting arrival runways. At EWR, candidate run-
way pairs would be Runways 11 and 4R using Flight Management System
(FMS) equipped aircraft on the converging runway. The current minimums
for testing this procedure are a 650 foot ceiling and 2 miles visibility. With
some additional funding for research, the minimums could be reduced to
match that of Runway 11: 600 foot ceiling and 2 miles visibility. In addition,
the missed approach procedure for Runway 11 would need to be changed.
Other missed approach procedures for other runways at other airports may
also need to be changed. The NY Area Airspace would require major
redesign for these changes in missed approach procedures. See DOT-FAA-
AFS-450-74, Independent Converging FMS/LNAV Missed Approach
Evaluation, Final Report dated June 1997.
20
10. Reduce Minimum In-Trail IFR Separations to 2.0 NM - Between

Similar Class Non-Heavy Aircraft
The minimum in-trail separation under IFR for aircraft within the terminal
area inside the outer marker is 2.5 NM when wake turbulence is not a
factor. when wake turbulence is a factor (e.g., when a small aircraft trails a
heavy jet), separations can be as high as 6.0 NM within the terminal area.
This option would reduce minimum in-trail separations under IFR to 2.0 NM
unless wake turbulence separation requirements dictate otherwise.
Reduced in-trail separations would increase arrival runway capacity because

more aircraft would be able to land on a runway during any given time
period. The capacity team noted, however, that if in-trail separations are
reduced, it may be necessary to construct new high-speed exits and make
more efficient use of existing high-speed exits so that runway occupancy
times (ROTs) are reduced to a level that does not restrict departure flow and
an excessive number of missed approaches do not occur.
This procedural improvement would permit reduced in-trail IFR separations

of 2.0 NM for similar class Non-Heavy aircraft. Simulations utilized reduced
occupancy times by assuming that aircraft would exit within 6,500 feet of
the threshold. This technique eliminated the high occupancy times (>70 sec-
onds for Heavies) associated with exit Y on 4R/L and exit N on 22R.
11. Immediate Divergent Turns for Turboprop/Prop Aircraft
This improvement would permit turboprops/props on the parallel runways

to diverge, eliminating the existing prop/jet departure penalty. The depar-
ture-to-departure separation would become 1.0 minute instead of the
current 1.6 minutes.
The NY Area Airspace would require major redesign for the type of pro-
cedures associated with Immediate Divergent Turns for Turboprop/Prop
Aircraft. Extensive discussion, planning, public participation and environ-
mental documentation would be required before this alternative could be
considered as viable.
activity level; 28,608 hours or $62.9 million at Future 1; and 78,840 hours
or $173.4 million at Future 2.
21
User or Policy 12. Vertiport and Tiltrotor Aircraft

Improvements
The analysis of this alternative involved a joint venture with NASA Ames
to simulate the introduction of vertiport operations and civil tiltrotor aircraft
at EWR. The alternative was simulated only at the Future 2 activity level,
and with the following assumptions:
➣ There were no operations on Runway 11/29,

➣ All tiltrotor arrivals and departures used the Continental
Express area,
➣ Vertiport rollway was approximately 500 feet long, permitting a
rolling takeoff,
➣ Vertiport was located at parking lot “E”, parallel to Runways 4L/22R
and 4R/22L,
➣ All Large Commuter Air Carriers arrived and departed on the
Vertiport runway using tilt rotors,
➣ Vertiport rollway was independent of all other runways,
➣ Vertiport had 170 arrivals and 170 departures per day, and
➣ Vertiport and parallels were simulated with existing departure
procedures.
Annual delay savings would be 411,071 hours or $904.4 million at the Future
2 activity level. Even with this improvement, Future 2 would not be feasible
because the average annual delay per operation would be 38.6 minutes.
13. More Uniform Distribution of Traffic within the Hour
A more uniform distribution of airline flights during peak periods would

promote a more orderly flow of traffic, reduce arrival and departure delays,
and reduce ground congestion near the terminal and on the taxiway system.
Future 1, VFR-1, was simulated with a more uniform distribution of traffic

within the hour in the NE Flow. It effectively smoothed out the arrival and
departure peaks within each hour. The numbers of arrivals and departures
per hour remained the same as the Do Nothing case.
This improvement showed a nominal benefit – a net savings of 0.7 min-

utes per operation in Future 1, VFR-1. The average daily delay per opera-
tion still exceeded 30 minutes.
Therefore, this improvement will not make Future 1 levels of operations

achievable and was not simulated in other weather conditions. Annual
delay costs and savings were not computed.
22
14. 1996 Fleet Mix at Future Demands
The original forecasts for Future 1 showed a significant number of 727s were
expected to be replaced with 757s. During the study, the Design Team
observed that some 727s were being replaced by 737-800s instead of 757s.
To determine the sensitivity of fleet mix changes on Future 1 operations,

the Design Team simulated VFR-1, with the 1996 fleet mix. This improve-
ment provided a net savings of almost 4 minutes per operation. However,
the average daily delay for all operations was approximately 30 minutes.
Therefore, this improvement will not make Future 1 levels of operations

achievable and was not simulated in other weather conditions. Annual
delay costs and savings were not computed.
23
Section 3 - Summary of Technical Studies

Overview The Newark International Airport Design Team evaluated the efficiency of
the existing airfield and the proposed future configurations. A brief
description of the computer models and methodology used can be found
in Appendix B. Certain standard inputs were used to reflect the operating
environment at EWR. Details can be found in the technical appendices
produced by the FAA’s Technical Center during the study. The potential
benefits of various improvements were determined by examining airfield
capacity, airfield demand, and average aircraft delays, as described below.
Figure 8 shows airfield weather conditions and runway utilization used for
simulation. Figure 9 depicts historical runway utilization and weather con-
ditions. Figure 10 defines the aircraft classifications. Figure 11 shows the
aircraft approach speeds used for simulation. Figure 12 shows the length
of final common approach. Figure 13 depicts the daily fleet mix by aircraft
class for the aircraft operating at EWR at each of the three demand levels.
Figure 14 illustrates the hourly profile of daily demand for the Baseline
activity level. For comparison, it also includes a curve that depicts the pro-
file of daily operations for the Future 1 and Future 2 activity levels.
Figure 15 illustrates the average-day, peak-month demand levels for EWR

for each of the three annual activity levels used in the study. Figure 11
depicts the annual operations for each activity level by aircraft category.
The average direct aircraft operating cost for EWR is to be $2,200 per hour
in 1997 hours. It represents the costs for operating the aircraft and includes
fuel, maintenance, and crew costs, but does not consider lost passenger
time, disruption to airline schedules, or other intangible factors.
Daily operations corresponding to an average busy day in the peak month

were used for each of the forecast periods. The Airfield Delay Simulation
Model (ADSIM) was used to determine aircraft delays. Delays were calcu-
lated for current and future conditions. Daily delays were annualized to
measure the potential economic benefits of the proposed improvements.
The annualized delays provided a basis for comparing the benefits of the
proposed changes. The potential benefits associated with various runway
use strategies were also identified. The potential cost of a particular
improvement was measured against its annual delay savings. This compar-
ison indicated which improvements would be the most effective.
For expected increases in demand, a combination of improvements could

be implemented providing delay reduction during those periods.
24
Figure 8. Airfield Weather Conditions and Runway Utilization - Simulated
VFR-1 VFR-2 IFR-1a ≤IFR-1b

Ceiling Minimum 3,500 feet 1,000 feet 600 feet 200 feet
Visibility Minimum 5 miles 3 miles 2 miles 3/8 miles Total
4, 11, 29 With Normal Use of 11 31.3% 6.8% 2.4% 2.4% 42.9%
NE Flow Subtotal 31.3% 6.8% 2.4% 2.4% 42.9%
22, 11, 29 With Normal Use of 11 22.1% 4.5% 1.8% 1.7% 30.1%
22, 11, 29 With Restricted Use of 11
15 NM In-Trail for All ARR on 11 24.1% – – – 24.1%
Half the Number of ARR to 11
22, 29 Without Use of 11
Arrive Only on 22L – 2.9% – – 2.9%
SW Flow Subtotal 46.2% 7.4% 1.8% 1.7% 57.1%
Total 77.5% 14.2% 4.2% 4.1% 100.0%
Note: The table above represents the way the weather categories and configurations were simulated and shows how
delays were annualized.
CAT I ILS: Runway 11: Minima are 604 feet and 2 miles. Currently, there are no arrivals on 11 in IFR-1a.
CAT I ILS: Runways 4s and 22s: Minima are 200 feet and 3/8 mile.
CAT II ILS: Runway 4R: Minima are 162 feet and 1,600 feet RVR.
Figure 9. Airfield Weather Conditions and Runway Utilization - Historical
VFR-1 VFR-2 IFR-1a ≤IFR-1b

Ceiling Minimum 3,500 feet 1,000 feet 600 feet 200 feet
Visibility Minimum 5 miles 3 miles 2 miles 3/8 miles Total
4, 11, 29 Winds Permit LAHSOs on 11 16.5% 5.8% 2.2% 2.3% 26.8%
4, 11, 29 Winds Prevent LAHSOs on 11 8.4% 0.6% 0.1% – 9.1%
4, 29 Winds Prevent Use of 11 5.3% 0.2% – – 5.5%
NE Flow Subtotal 30.2% 6.6% 2.3% 2.3% 41.4%
22, 11, 29 Winds Permit LAHSOs on 11 21.3% 4.3% 1.2% 1.3% 28.1%
22, 11, 29 Winds Prevent LAHSOs on 11 15.1% 2.0% 0.4% 0.3% 17.8%
22, 29 Winds Prevent Use of 11 8.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.1% 9.1%
SW Flow Subtotal 44.5% 7.1% 1.7% 1.7% 55.0%
4 only or 22 only 1.9% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 2.6%
11 only or 29 only 0.9% 0.1% – – 1.0%
Total 77.5% 14.2% 4.1% 4.2% 100.0%
Note: The table above represents the existing daytime runway use by weather category based on 12 years data.
Source of weather categories, minimums, and percent occurrence: Based on EWR Study, 1995. The percentages were devel-
oped by Leigh Fisher Associates (LFA) for the 1995 Study. LFA tabulated the hourly weather data for January 1, 1981, through
December 31, 1993, from the National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina. The tabulations reflect percent of
occurrence during daytime hours, 6am to 11pm.
CAT I ILS: Runway 11: Minima are 604 feet and 2 miles. Currently, there are no arrivals on 11 in IFR-1a.
CAT I ILS: Runways 4s and 22s: Minima are 200 feet and 3/8 mile.
CAT II ILS: Runway 4R: Minima are 162 feet and 1,600 feet RVR.
25
Figure 10. Aircraft Classifications
S Small Small, single or twin engine aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less
(e.g., BE58, BE90, C340, C441, AC21, BE20, C210, DO27)
M Small Commuter Small commuter aircraft (includes business jets) weighing more than 12,500 pounds and
and up to 41,000 pounds (e.g., BA31, BE02, E120, LR31, LR36)
LC Large Commuter Large commuter aircraft (includes small regional jets) weighing more than 41,000 pounds
and up to 255,000 pounds (e.g., ATR-42*, DH8, DH7, E145, CRJ, BA41*, SF34*)
LJ Large Jet Large jet aircraft weighing more than 41,000 pounds and up to 255,000 pounds
(e.g., DC9, B737, B727, MD80)
757 B757 Boeing 757 Only
H Heavy Heavy Aircraft weighing more than 255,000 pounds (e.g., L1011, DC10, B747, B767, DC8S, A300)
* The aircraft ATR-42, BA41, and SF34 are exempt from the small category and are classified as large aircraft
for separation purposes.
Figure 11. Aircraft Approach Speeds*
Aircraft Class VFR/IFR (Knots)

Small (S) 140
Medium (M) 140
Large Commuter (LC) 140
Large Jet (LJ) 140
B757 135
Heavy (H) 145
* EWR 1997 observed ground speeds along the common approach
Figure 12. Length of Final Common Approach (NM)
Class S M LC LJ B757 H
VFR 5 5 5 5 5 5
IFR 5 5 5 5 5 5
Figure 13. Aircraft Daily Fleet Mix by Aircraft Class
Aircraft Class Baseline (454,000) Future 1 (500,000) Future 2 (550,000)

Small (S) 20 (1.4%) 20 (1.3%) 20 (1.1%)
Medium (M) 114 (7.9%) 119 (7.5%) 127 (7.2%)
Large Commuter (LC) 304 (20.9%) 336 (21.0%) 370 (21.1%)
Large Jet (LJ) 772 (53.2%) 584 (36.6%) 644 (36.7%)
B757 118 (8.1%) 284 (17.8%) 314 (17.9%)
Heavy (H) 124 (8.5%) 254 (15.9%) 282 (16.1%)
Total Daily Number of Operations 1,452 1,597 1,757
26
Figure 14. Profile of Daily Demand - Hourly Distribution
150
Baseline
120 Future 1
Future 2
Arrivals
Operations per Hour
90 Departures
60
30
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time of Day
Figure 15. Daily Airfield Demand Levels

2,000
24-Hour Airfield Demand
1,500
1,000
500
0
Baseline Future 1 Future 2
Demand Level
24-Hour Day
Annual Operations (Average Busy Day, Peak Month) Equivalent Days
Baseline 454,000 1,452 313
Future 1 500,000 1,597 313
Future 2 550,000 1,757 313
Note: Baseline, Future 1, and Future 2. The number of equivalent days is determined by dividing the number of annual
operations by the number of daily operations. To capture the costs associated with flights that are cancelled, when
the weather deteriorates and delays increase, the Design Team simulated a full schedule in IFR, as well as in VFR.
The arrival demand consistently exceeds the IFR capacity throughout the day.
27
Airfield Capacity The EWR Design Team defined airfield capacity to be the maximum num-
ber of aircraft operations (landings or takeoffs) that can take place in a
given time. The following conditions were considered:
➣ Airspace constraints.
➣ Ceiling and visibility conditions.
➣ Runway layout and use.
➣ Aircraft mix.
➣ Percent arrival demand.
Aircraft Delays Aircraft delay is defined as the time above the unimpeded travel time for an
aircraft to move from its origin to its destination. Aircraft delay results from
interference from other aircraft competing for the use of the same facilities.
The major factors influencing aircraft delays are:
➣ Ceiling and visibility conditions.

➣ Airfield and ATC system demand.
➣ Airfield physical characteristics.
➣ Air traffic control procedures.
➣ Aircraft operational characteristics.
➣ Demand characteristics and fleet mix.
Average delay in minutes per operation was generated by the Airport and
Airfield Delay Simulation Model (ADSIM). A description of this model is
included in Appendix B.
Conclusions Figure 16 demonstrates the impact of delays at EWR. The chart shows how
delay will continue to grow at a substantial rate as demand increases if there
are no improvements made in airfield capacity, i.e., the Do Nothing case.
Figure 17 illustrates the delay per operation, or average delays for the var-
ious demand levels. The levels of average delay shown for the Do Nothing
case at future activity levels, are probably too large for a viable operation.
In other words, the delays and cancellations associated with these levels of
operations at the existing airport, probably would not be acceptable for a
hub operation, preventing the airlines from scheduling to such levels.
This conclusion suggests that in the near term future, unless passenger
services are provided at other regional airports, or by other modes of trans-
portation, planning for improving the capacity of EWR should be under-
taken now to select the best choices for the airport and its communities.
28
Figure 16. Annual Delay Costs (In Hours and Dollars)
800 Taxiway to Runway 11/29 Btwn Y and C3 Ramp

Do Nothing DCIA SW Flow
Reduce Minimum In Trail
Props Can
SCIA NE Flow
Diverge
Parrallel Dual Visual Approaches
600
New Runway Annual Delay Costs (Millions) LDA Offset Approach 50% in VFR2
with Independent SOIA NE and SW Flows 100% in VFR2
Arrivals
400
Vertiport and
Tiltrotor
200
454,000 500,000 550,000

Annual Demand
29
Figure 17. Average Delay per Operation
Average Annual Delay per Operation (in minutes)

0 20 40 60 80
Do Nothing 2.5 NM Minimum In-Trail IFR Spacing–Between 83.5
44.1
Similar Class Non-Heavy Aircraft on Final Approach 15.9
Taxiway to Runway 11/29 Between Y and C3 Ramp
43.9
15.8
New Runway with Independent Arrivals in All Weather Conditions 22.7
10.6
4.9
Parallel Dual Visual Approaches
42.9
15.4
43.4
Non-Heavy Aircraft and Commuters – NE Flow – 0% in VFR2
15.6
43.2
Non-Heavy Aircraft and Commuters – NE Flow – 50% in VFR2 15.6
43.6
43.2
42.2
41.6
Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches (DCIA)
43.6
– affects SW Flow 15.5
Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches (SCIA)
42.9
– affects NE Flow 15.0
Reduce Minimum In-Trail IFR Separations to 2.0 NM – Between
43.5
Similar Class Non-Heavy Aircraft 15.6
Immediate Divergent Turns for Turboprop/Prop Aircraft 74.9
40.7
14.6
Vertiport and Tilt Rotor Aircraft 38.6
550,000 (Future 2)
500,000 (Future 1)
454,000 (Baseline)
30
Since all the initiatives modeled show a delay reduction, it is recommend-

ed that each be studied further to determine whether or not the Alternative
should or can be undertaken. Planning for improvements in a complex
environment such as Newark is by nature an iterative process requiring
successive cycles of evaluation, proof of concept, comparison to costs and
resources required, etc. The following initiatives should move on to the
next steps in this planning process.
Based on the analysis completed during the study, the Design Team iden-
tified the following potential capacity enhancement or delay reduction
alternatives.
Future 1 Annual
Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA) (100%) $45.7
Localizer Directional Aid (LDA) Equipment (50%) $34.3
Parallel Dual Visual Approaches $22.9
Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches (SCIA) $21.4
Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches (DCIA) $8.5
New Runway with Independent Arrivals in All Weather Conditions $613.5
Future 2 Annual
Vertiport and Tiltrotor Aircraft $904.4
New Runway with Independent Arrivals in All Weather Conditions $1,225.9
31
Appendix A - Participants
Federal Aviation Eastern Region

Administration Ken Kroll (Chair) Cecil Claytor Mike Sammartino
Frank Lawther
Headquarters
Donald Guffey
Technical Center
John Vander Veer Helen Monk Dan Penrith
Newark ATCT
Tom Schmidt Fred Prosperi Carl Zimmerman
Leo Prusak Robert Naporano
New York TRACON

Carmine Gallo Mike Sheedy Patti Moss
Aviation Operators Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Thomas Bosco Julio Pereira Frank Laprano
Teterboro Airport
John Panarello
Aviation ATA
Industry Groups Martin Keller Scott Godfrey
Continental
Les Parson Rick Klarman Glenn Morse
Continental Express
Richard Klein Marc Raffino Roy Salvesen
David Seavey
Delta
Bill Maloney
Federal Express
Bill Sanvidge Steve Vail
United Parcel Service

Bill Schocke
Teterboro Users Group

Bill Mack Rich Taub
32
Appendix B - Computer Model and Methodology

The Newark Design Team studied the effects of various improvements pro-
posed to reduce delay and enhance capacity. The options were evaluated
considering the anticipated increase in demand. The analysis was per-
formed using computer-modeling techniques. A brief description of the
model and the methodology employed follows.
Computer Model The Airfield Delay Simulation Model (ADSIM) is a fast-time, discrete event
Airfield Delay model, which employs stochastic processes and Monte Carlo sampling
Simulation Model techniques. It describes significant movements of aircraft on the airport and
(ADSIM) the effects of delay in the adjacent airspace. The model was validated in
1978 at Chicago O’Hare International Airport against actual flow rates and
delay data. It was calibrated for this study against field data collected at
EWR to insure that the model was site specific.
Inputs for the simulation model were derived from empirical field data.
The model repeated each experiment 10 times using Monte Carlo sampling
techniques to introduce system variability, which occurs on a daily basis in
actual airport operations The results were averaged to produce output sta-
tistics. Total and hourly aircraft delay, travel times, and flow rates for the
airport and for individual runways were calculated.
Methodology Model simulations included present and future air traffic control proce-
dures, various airfield improvements, and traffic demands for different
times. To assess the benefits of proposed airfield improvements, different
airfield configurations were derived from present and projected airport lay-
outs. The projected implementation time for air traffic control procedures
and system improvements determined the aircraft separations used for IFR
and VFR weather simulations.
For the delay analysis, agency specialists developed traffic demands based
on the Official Airline Guide, C.A.T.E.R. data, historical data, and various
forecasts. Aircraft volume, mix and peaking characteristics were developed
for three demand periods: Baseline, Future 1, and Future 2. The estimated
annual delays for the proposed improvement options were calculated
from the experimental results. These estimates took into account the yearly
variations in runway configurations, weather, and demand based on
historical data.
The potential delay reductions for each improvement were assessed by

comparing the annual delay estimates with the Do Nothing.
33
Appendix C - List of Abbreviations
ADSIM Airfield Delay Simulation Model

ARTCC Air Route Traffic Control Center
ASC Office of System Capacity (FAA)
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATCT Airport Traffic Control Tower
CAT Category - of instrument landing system
C.A.T.E.R. Collection and Analysis of Terminal Records
DCIA Dependent Converging Instrument Approaches
EWR Newark International Airport
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
GA General Aviation
GPS Global Positioning System
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
ILS Instrument Landing System
IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions
LAHSO Land and Hold Short
LBS Pounds
LDA Localizer Directional Aid
NE Northeast
NM Nautical Miles
PRM Precision Runway Monitor
ROT Runway Occupancy Time
RVR Runway Visual Range
SCIA Simultaneous Converging Instrument Approaches
SM Statute Miles
SMGCS Surface Movement Guidance and Control System
SOIA Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches
SW Southwest
TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control
VFR Visual Flight Rules
VHF Very High Frequency
VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions
34
Editorial, design, and production support provided by
ARP Consulting, L.L.C. and JIL Information Systems, Inc.
Photo supplied by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

The Clockmaker's Curse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Clockmaker's Curse

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Clockmaker's Curse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Newark International Airport

Capacity Enhancement Plan

Prepared jointly by the U.S. Department of Transportation,

Section 2 - Capacity Enhancement Alternatives . . . . . . . . 15

Section 3 - Summary of Technical Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Appendix B - Computer Model and Methodology . . . . . . . 33

Appendix C - List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 2. Capacity Enhancement Alternatives and

Figure 3. Capacity Enhancement Alternatives and

Figure 4. Airport Capacity Curves - Flow Rate

Figure 5. Airport Delay Costs (in Hours and Dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 6. Average Delay per Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 7. Capacity Enhancement Alternatives and

Figure 8. Airfield Weather Conditions and

Figure 9. Airfield Weather Conditions and

Figure 10. Aircraft Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 11. Aircraft Approach Speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 12. Length of Final Common Approach (NM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 13. Aircraft Daily Fleet Mix by Aircraft Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 14. Profile of Daily Demand - Hourly Distribution . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 15. Daily Airfield Demand Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 16. Annual Delay Costs (in Hours and Dollars). . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 17. Average Delay per Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 1. Newark International Airport

The airport diagram is not intended for

Figure 2. Capacity Enhancement Alternatives and Annual Delay Savings

Estimated Annual Delay Costs (HRS and $M)

Facilities and Equipment Requirements

User or Policy Improvements

Note 1: This improvement was not simulated at this demand level.

Note 3: NAVAIDS and Equipment required to allow use of procedures.

Figure 3. Capacity Enhancement Alternatives and Technical Study Results*

Actions and Steps Necessary

The purpose is to provide decision-makers with this information. The find-

Recognizing the problems posed by congestion and delay within the

Newark International Airport (EWR) is a major hub airport, which was

Currently EWR is the only non-slot controlled, non-perimeter rule, free

Selected alternatives identified by the Design Team were analyzed using a

➣ Baseline - 454,000 operations

Since all the initiatives modeled show a delay reduction, it is recommended

Figure 4. Airport Capacity Curves - Flow Rate Versus Average Delay

Airfield Capacity with 1996 Fleet Mix

Figure 5. Airport Delay Costs (in Hours and Dollars)

800 Taxiway to Runway 11/29 Btwn Y and C3 Ramp

454,000 500,000 550,000

Figure 6. Average Delay per Operation

Average Annual Delay per Operation (in minutes)

The information in Figure 4 illustrates that hourly demand exceeds 31

Newark’s arrival demand consistently exceeds its IFR capacity throughout

The purpose is to provide decision-makers with this information. The find-

Problems posed by congestion and delay within the National Airspace

By 1984, aircraft delays recorded throughout the system highlighted the

In 1985, the FAA initiated a renewed program of Design Teams at various

In 1997, 23 airports each exceeded 20,000 hours of airline flight delays. If

For Newark International Airport, FAA and industry cooperatively maintain

Currently Newark International Airport is owned and/or leased and oper-

➣ Runway 4L/22R at 8,200 feet long and 150 feet wide.*

* Runway extended to 11,000 feet in 2000

A Baseline activity level of 454,000 aircraft operations (takeoffs and land-

The improvements evaluated by the Design Team are delineated in