The 26th Congress of International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS)<br>including AIAA 2008-8920

14 - 19 September 2008, Anchorage, Alaska

26TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES

BENEFIT POTENTIAL OF CONTINUOUS CLIMB AND

DESCENT OPERATIONS
Paul Melby, Ralf H. Mayer
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD), The MITRE Corporation,
7515 Colshire Drive, McLean, Virginia, 22102

Keywords: CDA, OEP, climb continuity, descent continuity, benefit metrics

Abstract altitudes. The transition to a performance-based

National Airspace System (NAS) is envisioned
This report describes the analysis of radar track
to support improvements in the continuity of
data from the 34 Operational Evolution
vertical operations resulting in significant
Partnership (OEP) airports within the
benefits to aircraft operators. The Federal
continental United States with a particular
Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Roadmap for
focus on a measurement of the vertical
Performance-Based Navigation describes the
continuity of operations within the terminal
strategy for implementing RNAV and Required
areas surrounding these airports and the
Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures and
benefits that may be realized by implementing
airspace [1]. Implementations of performance-
Area Navigation (RNAV) procedures with
based airspace and procedures that leverage
vertical guidance at the airports. It provides a
advanced flight deck automation capabilities are
performance baseline of climb and descent
expected to enable the realization of the benefits
operations characterizing the extent to which
anticipated to arise from improved continuity of
departures and arrivals currently involve level
climb and descent operations.
flight segments at the airports. It presents the
While all of the currently implemented
modeling methodology used to estimate
RNAV arrival and departure procedures provide
operator benefits that can be expected to result
lateral navigational guidance in the terminal
from improving the continuity of climb and
area, few procedures currently define the
descent operations. The analysis of the terminal
vertical flight path and thus provide vertical
radar data shows that operator benefits of $380
navigational guidance. Future implementations
million annually and associated reductions in
and revisions of current RNAV arrival and
carbon dioxide (CO2) emission gases of
departure procedures have the potential to
850,000 metric tons annually may be possible at
improve the vertical flight profiles by providing
OEP airports by improving climb and descent
vertical navigational guidance of operations
continuities at key terminal altitudes.
within the terminal area. Improving the
continuity of vertical operations is expected (1)
to relieve Air Traffic Control (ATC) from
1 Introduction routinely issuing climb and descent clearances
often involving multiple intermediate altitudes
Aircraft arrival and approach operations that
and (2) to result in more efficient aircraft climb
involve continuous descents from cruising
and descent operations with reduced fuel burn
altitudes to runway thresholds are generally
and lower environmental impact.
viewed to be more efficient than the stair-step
descents commonly used in conventional en-
route and terminal operations. Similar 1.1 Scope
considerations apply to continuous departure The MITRE Corporation’s Center for Advanced
climbs to cruising altitudes that are conducted Aviation System Development (CAASD) was
without the need for level-offs at intermediate tasked to conduct evaluations of operator

Copyright © 2008 by The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
 8TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON FLOW VISUALIZATION (1998)
Level f light segments in the terminal area
are replaced with the same distance
f lown at cruise.
Initial descent prof ile
remain unchanged.
Descent in the terminal
area remains unchanged
Fig. 1 Schematic of descent profiles of arrival operations illustrating the potential for reduced level flight in the terminal
area
benefits resulting from potential improvements
in the continuity of vertical operations at the 35
airports within the OEP [2]. This report
summarizes the results of the analysis of
terminal radar data from each of the 34 OEP
airports that are within the continental United
States. This analysis focused on a single day of
arrival and departure operations recorded at
each airport and was based on the limited
number of landing configurations in use at the
airports and represented in the data. The report
describes analysis of (1) the vertical continuity
of climbs and descents within the terminal area
at each of the airports, (2) the potential
reduction in flight time, fuel burn, and
emissions potentially obtainable through
improved vertical continuity, and (3) the
resulting user benefit associated with reductions
in flight time and fuel burn at the airports,
expressed in dollars.
2 Operational Considerations
Conventional arrival or departure operations
often involve the issuance of ATC clearances to
climb or descend and maintain an assigned
altitude. For traffic transitioning between en-
route and terminal airspace, letters of agreement
between the facilities often limit the volume of
available airspace and agreed-upon altitudes are
routinely assigned in a stair-step manner. While
stair-step climb and descent operations often
help support ATC needs for positive control,
Glide-slope intercept unchanged
they generally entail that aircraft remain in level
flight below cruising altitudes for often
significant amounts of time.
2.1 Vertical Operations
For the case of an arrival operation,
Figure 1 provides a schematic illustrating key
differences in descent profiles associated with
conventional and more continuous arrival
descents in the terminal area. In the illustration,
stair-step descents and level flight at altitudes
associated with aircraft entry into as well as
within the terminal area are contrasted with a
more continuous descent path associated with a
delayed initiation of the initial descent from
cruising altitude. It is important to note that this
concept of arrival operations involving more
continuous descents does not call for the
complete elimination of level flight. Instead, a
more conservative approach is illustrated
recognizing that some airspace constraints may
continue to require early initiation of initial
descents and that tactical ATC needs associated
with sequencing and spacing at altitudes
associated with downwind extensions and
interception of the glide slope continue to
require level flight in the terminal area.
Unconstrained departure operations
generally enable the most continuous and most
efficient climb profiles that reflect available
climb performance capabilities and applicable
speed constraints. Vertically unconstrained
RNAV Standard Instrument Departure (SID)
2
 BENEFIT POTENTIAL OF CONTINUOUS CLIMB AND DESCENT
procedures in conjunction with the absence of
ATC needs for intermediate level-offs are
consistent with near-optimal operational
efficiencies for departures. Conducting
diverging departure operations, application of
separation standards on departure, the use of
segregated departure airspace, and de-
compression effects due to aircraft acceleration
to initial and en-route climb airspeeds often
enable largely continuous departure climbs in
today’s terminal operations.
2.2 Benefit Mechanisms
The mechanisms that enable operational
benefits of continuous vertical operations are
based on differences in aircraft speeds generally
applicable at higher and lower altitudes and
resulting differences in flight time.
Furthermore, differences in aircraft engine
efficiencies and associated fuel flows when
operating at differing speeds at higher or lower
altitudes give rise to differences in fuel burn.
Reductions in fuel burn, in turn, cause
reductions in environmental impacts including
lower emissions and reduced noise footprints.
For most transport category aircraft,
level flight at altitudes below 10,000 feet (ft)
generally entails significantly reduced speeds
when compared to flight at higher or cruising
altitudes. Consequently, improved vertical
continuity of climb or descent profiles and
associated reductions in the time aircraft remain
in level flight at terminal altitudes generally
result in reduced flight times. Shorter flight
times reduce applicable time-dependent
components of aircraft direct operating costs
typically including crew and maintenance costs
thus reducing overall operating cost. Associated
with flight time reductions but primarily due to
differences in aircraft engine efficiencies and
ensuing fuel flows at higher and lower altitudes
are fuel burn reductions resulting from
extended, more fuel efficient flight at cruising
altitude (see Figure 1). Reductions in fuel burn,
in turn, result in environmental benefits of lower
quantities of emission gases as well as reduced
noise footprints especially if more continuous
vertical operations can be conducted at lower
terminal altitudes.
OPERATIONS
3 Benefit Assessment Methodology
MITRE’s Integrated Terminal Research,
Analysis and Evaluation Capabilities (iTRAEC)
was applied to perform the analysis of radar
data of arrival and departure operations at OEP
airports [3]. Benefits were estimated using
iTRAEC’s aircraft performance modeling and
fuel flow integration capability which are based
on Eurocontrol’s Base of Aircraft Data (BADA)
[4]. BADA specifies aircraft performance and
fuel flow parameters for 84 aircraft types
commonly used in commercial air carrier
operations. The data base also supports 180
additional aircraft types by assigning each
additional type to one of the 84 directly
modeled types with similar performance
characteristics. All fuel flow integrations
assumed (1) a clean aircraft configuration, (2)
decelerations and descents at descent idle thrust,
and (3) true airspeed values equivalent to the
ground speeds recorded in the radar track data.
3.1 Analysis Approach
For the analysis, radar track data of Automated
Radar Terminal System (ARTS) and Standard
Terminal Automation Replacement System
(STARS) terminal facilities were obtained from
the FAA Air Traffic Airspace (ATA)
Laboratory characterizing flight operations at
the OEP airports. One day of operations was
chosen for analysis, 5 October 2006, during
which most flights were primarily operating
under Visual Meteorological Conditions
(VMC). The data collected at ARTS facilities
were recorded by single sensors best suited for
recording operations at the airports. A total of
approximately 45,000 tracks of arrival and
departure operations were recorded at the OEP
airports evaluated in the study.
3.1.1 Data Selection
The radar data were prepared for analysis by
selecting radar tracks associated with turbofan
(jet) arrivals or departures at the OEP airports.
Additional selection criteria were applied to
ensure that radar tracks characterizing level
flight at low cruising altitudes were excluded
from the analysis. Tracks associated with
operations in the local area and tracks that could
3

not be positively identified to either climb to or
descend from altitudes exceeding approximately
10,000 ft above the field elevation of the
associated airport were removed from the data.
This selection process ensured that level flight
segments identified in the analysis were
primarily induced by ATC and minimally
dependent upon pilot preference. A total of
about 37,000 tracks were selected for analysis.
3.1.2 Time in Level Flight Metric
The metric used for the evaluation of
discontinuities of departure climbs and arrival
descents associated with terminal areas
surrounding OEP airports allowed to quantify
the extent to which these operations currently
involve level flight segments. Application of the
Time in Level Flight metric to the radar data
selected for analysis thus established a
performance baseline of vertical operations and
allowed for an estimation of potential operator
benefits that can be expected to result from
improving the continuity of vertical operations
at the selected airports.
The Time in Level Flight metric
evaluated the time selected departure operations
required to climb through 100 ft of altitude.
Similarly, the metric evaluated the average time
selected arrival operations required to descend
through 100 ft of altitude. For each evaluated
nominal altitude, the metric characterized the
time an average operation occupied a block of
altitude extending from 50 ft below to 50 ft
above the nominal altitude. For all evaluated
altitudes, the resulting series of average time
values thus represents an altitude spectrum
quantifying both the climb performance
between level-offs as well as the average time in
level flight at level-off altitudes.
The average climb or descent
performance between level-offs is represented
by those portions of the altitude spectrum that
form a smooth background distribution of
measured time values. Parts of the spectrum
that extend above the smooth distribution at a
given altitude characterize level flight, i.e. the
average duration of time aircraft remain level at
that altitude in excess of what is generally
required to climb or descend through 100 ft at
that altitude. Thus, larger values of time in level
P. MELBY, R.H. MAYER
flight reflect less continuous vertical operations,
while smaller values of time in level flight
reflect more continuous vertical operations. In
order to facilitate comparisons between
operations at various airports, the metric
compiles summary statistics including the time
in level flight at each altitude evaluated as well
as the total time in level flight at all altitudes of
interest.
Using data recorded at Chicago O’Hare
International Airport (ORD) as an example,
Figure 2 presents the radar track data of arrival
operations selected for analysis. The figure
illustrates plan view (a) of arrival tracks as well
as the associated profile view (b) of
arrival/approach descents. Figure 2b shows that
many descent profiles were observed to be non-
continuous at 7,000 ft above Mean Sea Level
(MSL) as indicated by level flight segments of a
large number of tracks. Figure 2 also illustrates
the results of the application of the Time in
Level Flight metric to the radar tracks of the
selected ORD (c) arrival operations.
In order to isolate and quantify any time
spent in level flight (characterized by the parts
of the blue distribution that extend above the
smooth background distribution), the metric
applied a median filter to the altitude spectrum
that was designed to quantify the background
level (shown in red) that represents the
component of time generally required to climb
or descend through 100 ft at a given altitude.
For each altitude evaluated, the metric then
defined the time in level flight as the difference
between the time aircraft were observed to
remain within each 100-ft block of altitude and
the time ordinarily required to climb or descent
through that block of altitude.
3.2 Operational Evaluation
In order to quantify the extent to which
departure and arrival operations currently
involve level flight segments, the time in level
flight metric was applied to radar data recorded
in the terminal areas surrounding 34 OEP
airports. While operations at most terminal
altitudes were captured in the data, it is
important to note that radar service volume
4

a)
b)
c)
120 7000 ft level-off
Average Time to Descend 100 ft (s)
100
80
60
40
20
0 applicable at higher and lower altitudes (see
0 5000
Altitude (ft MSL)
Fig. 2 Plan view (a) and associated profile view (b) of
radar track data illustrating level flight segments as well
as analysis results (c) quantifying the average times
aircraft were found to spend in level flight at various
intermediate altitudes
limitations often confined consistent flight
tracking to altitudes below about 20,000 ft
Above Ground Level (AGL).
The metric identified and quantified all
discontinuities in climb and descent operations
represented in the data. However, evaluations of
level flight segments were limited to a specific
range of altitudes at each airport. For each
terminal facility, this range was chosen to
include altitudes above the ceiling of the
associated terminal airspace that are often
assigned by Air Route Traffic Control Center
(ARTCC) facilities to arriving aircraft prior to
the hand-off from Center control to approach
control. The lower end of the range was chosen
to exclude those altitudes that often represent
the minimum altitudes assigned to approaching
aircraft for intercepting the glide slope of the
BENEFIT POTENTIAL OF CONTINUOUS CLIMB AND DESCENT
OPERATIONS
Instrument Landing System (ILS). Thus, the
analysis quantified the extent to which departure
and arrival operations currently involve level
flight segments at key altitudes within and
immediately above terminal airspace.
Consequently, estimates of the potential benefits
associated with reducing the amount of level
flight are based on the assumption of improved
continuity of arrival descents and departure
climbs in the terminal area at key altitudes
within and immediately above terminal airspace
of the OEP airports. Because vertical continuity
was not assumed along the entire descent and
climb phases of flight but only included key
altitudes within and immediately above terminal
airspace, resulting benefit estimates were
viewed to recognize the existence of other ATC
objectives including aircraft separation and
Time at Altitude system efficiency in managing terminal
Time Descending
operations and deemed conservative.
3.2.1 Potential Flight Time Benefit
The potential time benefit resulting from more
continuous climb and descent operations is due
to differences in aircraft speeds generally
10000
15000
Section 2.2). If a flight trajectory’s lateral path
remains unchanged, reducing or eliminating
level flight segments at terminal altitudes
inevitably results in extended flight at higher or
cruising altitudes (see Figure 1). Faster speeds
at higher or cruising altitudes result in shorter
times that are needed to travel the distance
otherwise flown in level flight at terminal
altitudes and associated slower speeds. The
resulting shorter flight times, in turn, reduce
applicable time-dependent components of
aircraft direct operating costs typically including
crew and maintenance costs and reduce overall
operating costs.
Figure 1 illustrates the two scenarios that
were evaluated to estimate the potential time
benefit associated with more continuous descent
operations. Similar scenarios apply for
estimating the potential benefit of more
continuous climb operations. The first scenario
characterized the status quo of vertical
operations and was based on the track data
which included level flight segments in the
terminal area within and immediately above
5
 P. MELBY, R.H. MAYER

terminal airspace as described in Section 3.2. guidance for estimating aircraft operating costs
The second scenario was assumed to and 2006 fleet mix data for operations at OEP
characterize continuous, but otherwise airports [5]. For each airport, the Potential
unchanged departure climbs and arrival descents Time Benefit was finally derived as the sum of
and trajectories with appropriately prolonged potential time benefits associated with all
flight at cruising altitudes as illustrated in the operations of each aircraft type.
figure.
3.2.2 Potential Fuel Burn Benefit
In order to estimate the difference in
Fuel burn benefits that are largely due to
flight time associated with the two scenarios,
differences in aircraft engine efficiencies and
the analysis involved two steps. In the first step,
associated fuel flows at higher and lower
the time in level flight metric was applied
altitudes were estimated using iTRAEC’s fuel
separately to the data of departure and arrival
flow integration capability. The fuel burn
operations at the OEP airports to obtain average
benefit evaluation was based on the results of
time in level flight values at the terminal
the two analysis steps carried out in the
altitudes under investigation. The second step
Potential Time Benefit analysis (see Section
was based on the time in level flight values
3.2.1).
deduced from the data and estimated the flight
For the radar tracks recorded for the
time associated with the assumed scenario in
same aircraft type, fuel flow rates applicable at
which vertical operations were continuous at the
the altitudes under investigation were multiplied
altitudes under investigation and trajectories
by the measured average time in level flight
entailed prolonged flight at cruising altitude.
values to obtain a fuel burn associated with
In the first step of the analysis, the radar
level flight observed in arrival and departure
track data were categorized by aircraft type and
operations at each airport. This fuel burn was
evaluated separately. For the radar tracks
compared to the fuel burn derived for the
recorded for the same aircraft type, the time in
assumed scenario in which vertical operations
level flight metric was applied and the average
were continuous at the altitudes under
time, distance, and speed associated with each
investigation and trajectories entailed prolonged
altitude were measured. The second step of the
flight at cruising altitude. The difference in fuel
analysis leveraged iTRAEC’s type-specific
burns derived in steps one and two served to
aircraft performance information and assumed a
estimate the potential fuel burn benefit
cruising altitude of 30,000 ft to derive a cruising
associated with more continuous climb and
speed estimate. A value of 30,000 ft was
descent operations.
chosen as a conservatively low estimate of the
In order to estimate the associated
cruising altitude used in commercial jet
monetary benefit, the fuel burn benefit estimate
operations. The estimated cruising speed and
was multiplied by an ADOC fuel cost
the measured average distance provided the
component associated with airborne operations.
basis for the calculation of the time needed for
A 2007 CAASD estimate of $1.75 per gallon
aircraft of a specific type to complete the
was adopted for all fuel burn benefit
prolonged cruise phase of flight (see Figure 1).
estimations. For each airport, the Potential Fuel
The difference in flight times derived in steps
Burn benefit was finally derived as the sum of
one and two served to estimate the potential
potential fuel burn benefits associated with all
time benefit associated with more continuous
operations of each aircraft type.
climb and descent operations. In order to
estimate the associated monetary benefit, the 3.2.3 Potential Environmental Benefit
time benefit estimate was multiplied by an Environmental benefits including reductions in
Aircraft Direct Operating Cost (ADOC) carbon dioxide (CO2) and oxides of sulfur
estimate. A 2007 CAASD estimate of $19.48 (SOx) emissions were based on estimated
per minute was adopted which included flight reductions in fuel burn. These benefits were
crew and maintenance costs and was based on calculated by multiplying the reduction in jet
FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans (APO)
6
 BENEFIT POTENTIAL OF CONTINUOUS CLIMB AND DESCENT
fuel burned by an emissions factor appropriate
for the emission gas under consideration [6].
Flight time, fuel burn, and
environmental benefits were annualized by
multiplying the single day benefits by 365. A
lower bound of the annual benefit was derived
as described in the following section, which
obviated the necessity of a commonly used
discounting factor in the annual benefit
calculation.
3.2.4 Lower Bound of Potential Benefits
In order to establish an operationally relevant
lower bound for the estimate of potential
benefits, a separate, detailed evaluation of
operational benefits associated with the
implementation of descend via operations at
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
(PHX) served to benchmark the fraction of
benefits that was realized soon after
implementation of RNAV arrival procedures at
PHX [7]. Key characteristics associated with
the PHX benchmark value include (1) arrival
route designs that enable descend via operations
for approximately 25 percent of arrivals, (2)
partial elimination of level flight at one terminal
altitude, and (3) incomplete RNAV participation
by operators. It is important to note that the
PHX implementation of descend via operations
represented an implementation test bed and
served to identify and address the operational
issues associated with the operations.
Comparing the benefit potential derived in this
study for PHX to the benchmark value, a lower
bound of 10 percent of the potential benefit was
identified. This value was believed to
characterize the currently achievable benefit that
is realizable in the short term through
improvements in descent continuities at key
terminal altitudes.
4 Analysis Results
In order to estimate operator and environmental
benefits resulting from potential improvements
in the continuity of climb and descent
operations at each of the OEP airports under
consideration, the time in level flight metric (see
Section 3.1.2) was applied to radar data
OPERATIONS
recorded in the terminal areas surrounding
airports.
4.1 Time in Level Flight
Figure 3 presents the results of the time in level
flight analysis for both arrival and departure
operations. The results are based on a total of
approximately 37,000 radar tracks evaluated in
the study. While Figure 3a illustrates the results
for each OEP airport under consideration,
Figure 3b presents the results grouped by
terminal facility rather than by airport.
The results demonstrate the operational
significance of discontinuities of stair-step
arrival descents and associated time in level
flight in terminal operations. Furthermore, they
reveal the relative insignificance of
discontinuities of departure climbs and
associated needs for level-offs at intermediate
altitudes. These observations were found to
apply across all airports, with ratios of time in
level flight of arrivals to departures ranging
3.5:1 to over 100:1 for airports with essentially
continuous departure climbs. On average, less
than 10 percent of all time identified in level
flight was found to be associated with departure
operations. These observations can be viewed
to reflect current airspace constraints and ATC
controller techniques for safely and efficiently
accomplishing the required sequencing,
merging, and spacing tasks especially during
periods of peak arrival demand (see Section 2).
Of all operations evaluated at OEP
airports, the results suggest that ORD arrivals
spent the largest amount of time of 8730
minutes in level flight during the single day of
operations evaluated in the analysis. Arrival
operations at Newark Liberty International
Airport (EWR) were found to rank second,
although far fewer operations were recorded at
EWR than at ORD or Hartsfield-Jackson
Atlanta International Airport (ATL) which
ranked third. On the other hand, when grouped
by Terminal Radar Approach Control
(TRACON) facility (see Figure 3b), New York
TRACON (N90) which includes three OEP
airports (John F. Kennedy International Airport
(JFK), EWR, and LaGuardia Airport (LGA))
7
 P. MELBY, R.H. MAYER

a) 9000 Departures
a)
Arrivals
8000
Time in Level Flight (minutes)

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
PHX
ORD

IAH

IAD
PHL

JFK

MCO
MEM

SFO
LGA

MSP
CVG

BOS

CLE
LAS

PDX
CLT

LAX
ATL

DEN

SLC

SAN
DCA

SEA
FLL

MIA
STL
PIT

TPA
DFW

MDW
EWR

DTW

BWI

OEP Airport

b) 12000 Departures
Arrivals
Time in Level Flight (minutes)

10000

b)
8000

6000

4000

2000

0
IAH
N90
C90

A80

D10
PHL
D21
M98
CVG

A90
MCO
MEM
P50

CLE
LAS

D01

MIA
S56

S46
P80
PCT

CLT

NCT
SCT

T75
PIT

TPA

OEP Facility

Fig. 3 Time in level flight analysis results for one day of

arrival and departure operations at (a) OEP airports and
(b) OEP terminal facilities
ranked slightly higher than the Chicago
TRACON (C90) which includes two OEP
airports, ORD and Chicago Midway Airport
(MDW). The two terminal facilities handled
approximately the same number of arrival and
departure operations at their primary airports
and this observation is consistent with the
significant operational constraints at New York
TRACON likely due to the greater airspace
complexity of the N90 multiplex.
Figure 4 presents the results of the time
in level flight analysis shown in Figure 3 in a
geographical manner. The figure illustrates the
geographic pattern related to the location of
each airport or facility. Of all OEP airports
evaluated in this study and illustrated in the
figure, the Eastern portion of the United States
was found to indicate larger amounts of level
flight than the Western portion.
4.2
Potential flight time and fuel burn benefits were
evaluated using the estimation approach
Fig. 4 Atlas of vertical operations illustrating time in level
flight for (a) departure and (b) departure and arrival
operations at each OEP airport
described in Section 3.2. The results are shown
in Figure 5.
Figure 5a presents the estimates of
potential fuel burn benefits for each of the OEP
airports evaluated in the study. Fuel burn
benefits were observed to generally scale with
the observed durations of level flight largely due
to often similar fleet mixes operating at the
major airports. The largest potential fuel burn
benefits of nearly $30,000 per day were found
for ORD airport, followed by EWR airport.
Figure 5b presents the estimates of
potential flight time benefits for each of the
OEP airports evaluated in the study. The largest
potential flight time benefits of over 3,500
minutes per day were found for ORD operations
followed by EWR operations with nearly 3,000
Benefit Potential minutes per day. The results illustrate the
significance of ORD and EWR operations
within the group of OEP airports. Potential
flight time benefits at all other OEP airports

8
 BENEFIT POTENTIAL OF CONTINUOUS CLIMB AND DESCENT
OPERATIONS

were estimated at levels below half of those a) $45,000,000

Potential Time Benefit
estimated for these two airports and facilities. $40,000,000 Potential Fuel Benefit

Potential Annual Benefit (USD)

$35,000,000

a) 30000
$30,000,000

$25,000,000

25000
$20,000,000
Potential Fuel Savings
(Gallons per Day)

$15,000,000
20000

$10,000,000

15000
$5,000,000

$0
10000

PHX

PDX
LAX
ORD

IAH

IAD

MCO
MEM

DEN

SLC

SAN
PHL

JFK
LGA

MSP
CVG

SFO
LAS
BOS

CLE

DCA
FLL

MIA

SEA
CLT
ATL

STL
PIT

TPA
DFW
MDW
EWR

DTW

BWI
OEP Airport
5000

b) $160

Potential Benefit per Arrival (USD)

$140
PHX

LAX
ORD

IAH
IAD

MEM

DEN
PHL

JFK

SFO

MCO

CVG
LGA
MSP

LAS

BOS

FLL

MIA

CLE

PDX
CLT
ATL

SLC
SAN
DCA

SEA
PIT

STL
TPA
DFW
MDW
EWR

DTW

BWI

OEP Airport $120

b) 4000
$100

$80
3500
Potential Time Savings

$60
3000
(Minutes per day)

$40
2500

$20
2000

$0
1500

PHX

PDX
LAX
ORD

IAD

IAH

SAN
PHL

MCO

MEM

SLC
DEN
LGA

MSP
JFK

SFO
CVG
FLL

CLE

DCA

SEA
BOS

LAS

MIA
CLT
ATL

PIT

STL

TPA
MDW

DFW
EWR

DTW

BWI
1000 OEP Airport

500
Fig. 6 (a) Potential annual flight time and fuel burn
0 benefits associated with arrival and departure operations
PHX
ORD

IAH

IAD

MCO
MEM
PHL

CVG
LGA

MSP
JFK

SFO
LAS
CLE
BOS

PDX
CLT

LAX
ATL

DEN

SLC

SAN
DCA

FLL

MIA

SEA
STL
PIT

TPA
DFW
MDW
EWR

DTW

BWI

OEP Airport
Fig. 5 a) Potential fuel burn benefit estimation results for
one day of arrival and departure operations at OEP
airports and (b) potential flight time benefit estimation
results for one day of arrival and departure operations at
OEP airports
Figure 6a presents annualized monetary
benefit values associated with the potential
flight time and fuel burn benefit estimated for
each of the OEP airports. The results suggest
that both flight time and fuel burn benefits
contribute significantly to the total potential
operator benefit associated with improving the
continuity of climb and descent operations. The
largest potential benefits of nearly $45 million
per year were found for ORD operations
followed by EWR operations with about $35
million per year. Comparing terminal facilities
associated with the OEP airports, the results for
operations at New York (N90) and Chicago
(C90) TRACONs were found to suggest
potential flight time and fuel burn benefits of
nearly $70 million and about $60 million
annually, respectively.
at OEP airports and (b) Potential flight time and fuel burn
benefits per arrival operation at OEP airports
Total annualized emissions benefits
across all OEP airports were found to be
approximately 850,000 metric tons of CO2 and
216 metric tons of SOX. The airport with the
highest potential emissions benefits was ORD,
with potential annual benefits of approximately
100,000 metric tons of CO2 and 25 metric tons
of SOX.
Applying the previously discussed 10
percent lower bound to the monetary benefit
values associated with the potential flight time
and fuel burn benefit estimates at all of the OEP
airports, the results suggest annual benefits
ranging from $38 million to $380 million per
year of which fuel burn benefits account for $16
million to $160 million per year and crew and
maintenance costs account for $22 million to
$220 million per year. Of the total, 92 percent,
or $35 million to $350 million was found to be
attributable to arrival benefits, with the
remaining due to benefits of more continuous
departure climbs.
Figure 6b presents potential flight time
and fuel burn benefits per arrival operation at

9

each of the OEP airports as well as for the
terminal facilities evaluated in the study. The
results for all OEP airports were found to
suggest an average potential benefit $5 to $52
per arrival operation. EWR was found to rank
as the airport with the highest potential benefit
per arrival, at $16 to $160 followed arrival
operations at MDW and LGA.
5 Summary
The MITRE Corporation conducted evaluations
of operator and environmental benefits resulting
from potential improvements in the continuity
of climb and descent operations at OEP airports.
The analysis focused on a single day of radar
tracks of arrival and departure operations
recorded at each airport and considered terminal
routing and ATC vectoring appropriate for the
landing configurations represented in the data.
For the day of arrival and departure operations
evaluated in the study, the results were found to
demonstrate that aircraft remained in level flight
for about 77,600 minutes at key altitudes within
and directly above terminal airspace. Over 90
percent of the time in level flight was attributed
to stair-step descent operations indicating that
improvements in the vertical continuity of
arrival descents currently hold the vast majority
of the benefit potential.
On a per-flight basis, the OEP average
benefit potential associated with improvements
in the continuity of arrival descents was
estimated at about $52 per arrival. Of all OEP
airports, the highest average potential benefit
was estimated for EWR at approximately $160
per arrival operation.
The benefit potential was found to be
nearly equally attributable to reductions in fuel
burn and reductions in flight time. Combining
the results for all OEP airports, the benefit
potential of more continuous arrival descents
and departure climbs was estimated at $380
million per year. Of this total annual benefit
potential, about $160 million were credited to
reductions in fuel burn and resulting reductions
in fuel costs and approximately $220 million to
reductions in flight time and associated
reductions in air crew and maintenance costs.
Furthermore, of the total annual benefit
P. MELBY, R.H. MAYER
potential of $380 million, over 90 percent
(about $350 million) were found to be
associated with improvements in the continuity
of arrival descents. It should be pointed out that
recent changes in the price of jet fuel could
more than double the estimated fuel burn
benefit. At $4/gallon of jet fuel, the estimated
annual benefits would increase to $365 million.
Annual environmental benefits
associated with reductions in engine emissions
were estimated at about 850,000 metric tons of
CO2 and 216 metric tons of SOX.
References
[1] Federal Aviation Administration, Roadmap for
Performance-Based Navigation. Washington, DC, 2006.
[2] Federal Aviation Administration, Operational
Evaluation Partnership 1.0. Washington, DC, 2007.
[3] Mayer, Ralf H., Estimating Operational Benefits of
Aircraft Navigation and Air Traffic Control Procedures
Using an Integrated Aviation Modeling and Evaluation
Platform. Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation
Conference, Monterey, CA, 2006.
[4] Eurocontrol, Base of Aircraft Data (BADA 3.5), The
EUROCONTROL Centre, Brétigny, France, 2004.
[5] Federal Aviation Administration Office of Aviation
Policy and Plans, FAA Airport Benefit-Cost Analysis
Guidance. Washington, DC, 1999.
[6] Sutkus, Donald J., et al., Scheduled Civil Aircraft
Emission Inventories for 1999: Database Development
and Analysis. NASA Contractor Report 2001-211216,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Washington, DC, 2001.
[7] Sprong, Kevin R., Mayer, Ralf H., Analysis of RNAV
Arrival Operations with Descent Via Clearances at
Phoenix Airport. Proceeding of the 26th Digital Avionics
Systems Conference, Dallas, TX, 2007.
Disclaimer
The contents of this material reflect the views of
the author and/or the Director of the Center for
Advanced Aviation System Development.
Neither the Federal Aviation Administration nor
the Department of Transportation makes any
warranty or guarantee, or promise, expressed or
implied, concerning the content or accuracy of
the views expressed herein.
©2008 The MITRE Corporation. All rights
reserved.
10