Risk and Capacity Impacts of ATC Separation Rules
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 119, Issue 5
Abstract
Some of the most significant factors in determining runway capacity are air traffic control regulations. Interaircraft separation regulations have been established to provide maximum safety to the travelling public. Thus any modification of these regulations, in an attempt to increase capacity, must have sufficient benefits to outweigh any increase in risk. A simulation indicated that the required separation between two arriving aircraft of 5,490 m could be reduced to 4,570 m, with a modeled 15% increase in capacity and a 1.5% increase in risk. Further simulations indicated that parallel runways spaced as close as 914 m apart could be operated independently, with capacity increases of between 38% and 95% and no estimated increase in risk. Reducing the present requirement to separate arriving aircraft from departing aircraft by 3,560 m to 1,825 m was estimated to result in a 25% increase in capacity with only a 1.5% increase in risk.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
“Airport capacity handbook.” (1969). Report No. 66WA‐1521. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.
2.
Bookbinder, J. H. (1986). “Multiple queues of aircraft under time dependent conditions.” INFOR, 24(4), 280–288.
3.
Feazel, M. (1984). “Airlines worldwide earned profit in 1983.” Aviation Week and Space Technology, Jul. 23, 54–55.
4.
Gosling, E., Kanafani, A., and Hockaday, S. (1981). “Measures to increase aircraft capacity by changing aircraft runway occupancy characteristics.” Report No. UCB‐ITS‐RP‐81‐7, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
5.
Greeley, B. M. (1985). “Changing airline system prompts safety concerns.” Aviation Week and Space Technology, Nov. 11, 108–118.
6.
Hockaday, S., and Chatziioanou, A. (1986). “An analytical method for aircraft collision.” Transp. Res.—B, 20B, 415–428.
7.
“International standards and recommended practices; aeronautical telecommunications.” (1972). International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
8.
Jang, K. (1985). “A microcomputer‐based airport capacity model for Pearson International Airport,” MS thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
9.
Kanafani, A. (1983). “Operational procedures to increase runway capacity.” Transp. Engrg. J., 109(3), 414–424.
10.
Law, A., and Kelton, W. (1982). Simulation modelling and analysis. McGraw‐Hill, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
11.
Levin, R. E. (1980). “Aircraft delays at major american airports can be reduced.” SAE Prepr., N800725 for Meet May 20–22.
12.
Newell, G. F. (1979). “Airport capacity and delay.” Transp. Sci., 13(3), 201–241.
13.
“Requirements for independent and dependent parallel approaches for reduced runway spacing.” (1981). Report No. FAA‐EM‐81‐8. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.
14.
Stewart, J. A. (1987). “Risk and capacity impacts of changing air traffic control separation requirements for arriving and departing aircraft,” MS thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 119 • Issue 5 • September 1993
Pages: 705 - 722
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jun 15, 1989
Published online: Sep 1, 1993
Published in print: Sep 1993
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.