Airway Planning Standard Number One Terminal Air Navigation Facilities and Air Traffic Services

ORDER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 7031.2C

CHANGE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

CHG 13 Effective Date: N 12/1 9 / 2024 a Airway Planning Standard Number One Terminal Air Navigation Facilities and t SUBJ: Air Traffic Services i o 1. Purpose. This change transmits revisions to Chapter 2, Section 2, Radar Services, and n Appendix 2 Summary of Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria.

a l 2. Who this change affects. This change pertains to t he number of flight operations necessary P for an FAA VFR control tower at an airport to become a candidate for a remoted radar display o scope in the tower cab . The change lowers the number of flight operations from at least 30,000 l annual itinerant operations to 15,000 itinerant operations . This change affects AJT and affiliated i offices such as the Program Management Office and STARS office .

c y 3. Disposition of Transmittal Paragraph. After filing the attached change, this transmittal should be retained.

PAGE CHANGE CONTROL CHART Remove Pages Dated Insert Pages Dated 3 0 6/17/02 30 1 2 / 1 9 / 24 APPENDIX 2 page 7 11 /1 5 / 84 APPENDIX 2 page 7 1 2 / 1 9/ 24 Natasha A. Durkins Executive Director Office of Aviation Policy and Plans Distribution: Electronic Initiated By: APO-200

ORDER 7031. 2C

Repri nt includes Changes 1 - 11

AIRWAY PLANNING STANDARD NUMBER ONE

TERMINAL AIR NAVIGATION FACILITIES

AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES

NOVEMBER 15 , 1984 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Distribution: A -WY Z -2; A-X(except AF /AS/AT/FSIPL)-2; A-X(AF/AS/AT/FS/PL)-3: Initiated By : AP0-200 A-FAF-2/3 (L TO); A-FAS -1 (LTD); A-FAT-1,2,5,6 (L TO) 7031.2C ll / 15/ 84 FOREWORD Tllis order contains the policy and criteria used in establishlng the eligi.l>ility of tcrmin.U. locations for terminal air navigation facilities and air traffic cont rol services.

The safety and efficiency of air traffic determine requirements for air navigational facilities and air traffic control services, but these facilities and services should only be estab lish ed at locations where the ~nefits of service exceed ~~e cost to the government . Economic consider~tion of benefits and costs for both new establis~~ts and imprpvecents to existing facilities or service is rela ted to air traf fic activity lev e ls . This order specifies m.lnilllum activity levels for torm.lnals to become candidates for, to qua.li . fy for, or to retain primary termi nal ai r navigation facilities and air traf fic control services . For certain typ es of facili ties, the order also establishes a requiramant for additio~al cost benefit and oth er analyccs prior to facility comm.issJ.oning or decommissioning . satisfying cri ter ia specified herein does not constitute a commitment by t . he Feder&l. Aviation Administration to provide, modi.fy, or disconti.nue eliqiblo facilities or services.

~~~g~~,~

Administrator " • Page i (and ii) 7 031. 2C Cl{G 12 8/17/99 TABLE OF CONTENTS P age No.

CHAPTER l . GENERAL 1. Pu;rpose 2. Distribution 3. Cancellation 4. Background 5. Explanation of Changes 2 6. Author ity of Chang es to t his order 2 7. P olicy 8. Scope 9.- 1 9. Reserved CHAPTER 2. NAVIGATION AIDS SEC TI ON l. AIR NAVIGATION RI\DIO 1\IDS 20 . M icr owav~ Landing System (MLS) with Appr oach Li ghts 21. I nstrumen t . Landing Syst em ( IL S) with Approach Lights 14 - 2 22. Nonprecision In strument Approach System 17 23 . VOR Tes t Signa l ( VO T) 24. - 25 . Reserved 24 SECTION 2. RI\DAR SERV I CES 27 26. Airport Surve illance Radar with Air Traff ic C on trol Radar Beacon System and Automated Radar Te~~nal System (ASR/ATCRBS/ARTS) 27 27. Precision Approach Radar ( PAR) 31 28. Non- Federally owned Airport survei l lance Radar (ASR) 29. Res e rved 32 • CHAPTER 3. AERONAUTICAL LIGHTING AND AIRPO RT MARRING AIDS 30. Runway End I den tific ation L ights (R EIL ) 31 . Visu a l App r oac h Slope I ndicator (VASil VFR O nly 32. Retrofit of Runway Approach Lighting Syst ems 33. - 39. Reserved Page iii 7031. 2C CHG 12 8/17/99 Page No.

C!IA.PTER 4 • AIR TRAF FIC CONTROL 41 40. F AA Airport Traffic Contro l Tower 47 41. Approach Control Servi ce 42. Combined Stations/Tower s 43. T~rrnina~ En Rout~ Conerol Service 44. Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE) 4!'>. Automated T~rminal Info>:::mation Service (AT!S) 52 46. Automated Weather Observi ng System (AWOS) 52 47. Policy on Admini~trative Combination of Terminal Control Facilities 56 48. Low-Level W indshear Alert System (LLWAS) 4 9. Termi na l Doppler Weather Radar !TDiqR) 59 SO. Ai r port Surveillance Radar (ASR) Mod ifica tion for Windshear Detection 51. Integrated Windshear Dete c tion Systems: LLWAS, TDWR, and Modified ASR 60 52. Mecropl~x control Facility ( MCF) 61 53. Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) Facility 54. Precisio n Runway Monitor (PRM) 67 APPENDIX l. Rlll-IOTENE SS-COMPENSATION FOR BENEE.IT /COST CRITERIA (2 pages) APPENDIX 2. SUMMARY OF ESTABLISHMENT AND DISCONTINUANCE CRITERIA (18 pages) Figure l - Criteria Summary for Chapter 2, Navigation Aids 3 Sect ion 1 . Air Naviga tion Aid~ 3 3 • Radar Services • Sec tion 2.

Fiqure 2 - Cr i teria Summary for Chapter 3, Aeronautica l Lighting and Airport Ma~k i ng Aids 9 Figure 3 - Cr iteria Summary for Chapter 4, Ai~ Traffic Control ll APPENDIX 3. SUMMARY Of "CRITICAL VALUES" (5 pages) APPENDIX ~. ESTAB LISIIMENT }IJlO DISCONTINUANCE CRITERIA FOR AIRPORT TRAFF IC CONTROL TOWER FACILlTI£5- -FI NAL RULE (6 paqes) l Page iv 11 /1 5/84 7031.2C CIUPTER 1. GENERAL 1. · PURPOSE. This order contains the policy and criteria used in establ ishing the eligibility of terminal locations for terminal air navigation facilities and air traffic control services.

2. DISTRIBtrnon. This order io distributed to the division level in WashiQgton, regions, and centers w ith a branch level distribution in the regio nal Airway Facilities, Airports , Air Traffic, and Plight Standards Divhions aad the PlallDiag Staffa; a li.mited distribu tion to all Airway Facilities S ector s, Airports District Office s, Air Route Traffic Control Centers , Airport Traffic Control To wers, Flight Service Stations, and International Flight Service Stations.

3. CANCELLA TI ON. Order 7031.28, Aitvay Planning Standard Number One Terminal Air Naviga~ion Facili ties and Air Traffic Contr ol Services, dated Septe=ber 20, 1974, is cancelled.

4. BACKGROUND.

a. Since 1951, P AA and its p redecessor organizacions have used the establhluent criteria published '-n the a. irws y planni~ standards as the primary means of a ll oca ting air navigation faciliti e s and a ir traff ic con trol services. The result has been an orderly distribution of faci lities and services at l' ocations where theY' benefit the gr eatest number of users for the lowest c ost to the government cona:l.atent with safe ty and operational · efficiency.

b. After the establishment of an operational requirem en t, : air traff ic demand determines nearly all requirements for air·navigational facilit ie s and air traffic contro l services. Ho wever, since the agency must op era te, maintain, and improve the air navigation system within de fined budgetary li=itations, it is impossible, and it is' not economically feasibl~ to sat isfy all operational requirements. The facilities and services must be allocated to locations w here the greatest benefit will be derived fr om their cost .

The re fore, a second consideration must necessarily be econord.es . This is a. lso the primary factor in considering improvements to existing facilities or servic es. · c. Generally, the total present value of the benefits over the life cyc le of an improvement t o· a prilllary f ac ilitY . or service must exceed the tota l present value of · the Ufe cycle cos ts for ea tabUs h:mcnt and maintenance of the i mprovement.

Chap 1 Page 1 Par 1 7031. 2C 11/15/84 ~ . Activ i ty lev els at vhich the p r !nary terl" i nal a1. r navi r.a tior.

facilities and air traffic control servi ce s eit her qua l ify , beco ~e cancli~n tt!s, or do not qua lify for irnp rov ernents, add iti onal f acil ities, an~/or se r vices nre con tained in the c r i t eria . 'ihe prieary a t.r navigation fa cili t ies """ associate ai r traffic control services are: (1) Airport ~nrveillan ce P.a dn r S ystem • .

(2) Air port !ra ff ic Con trol Tower.

(3) l!icrowave Lanc:!ina Systea \11th App roa ch Lights .

(4) Instrume nt l~ncling System \11th ~ ppronch Li~hts .

(5) Tcrai na l Ins tr unen t Approach Sy~te n s.

a . ' Incorporates t he current panes of an<' all changes to r · r~er 70~1.2!: .

Tha revi aed or~cr contains nc" pa g in8ti on and follows the c urrent FAA.

c!ire ct i v es syst e"' fc rl!at , but doc s not revis e previously apr>r oved cstablislu:len t or di s continuance criteria nor i ncl ude any sul-s t antive cn,.n c es .

b. Upd ate s Appendix 3 , S u1111:1ary of "Critical Values", to also p rovit! e u nit eco no mic va lu es in curr en t <! ollar s for l!.lP.l , 191'2, on( 1Nl3, in a~c!it i.o n ttl l c;ec dolla r s .

c. C rou ps si nilar su b jects in ch a pters that fo ll ou t~e con ten t as published i n the Ff..A's Ainnan'o I nfo l'1M tio n Hanuel.

~ . Con t nir.s n ~cleg ation of aut ho rity fo r th e ~ !r ector of AviatJon Poli c y and P la ns to issu e nonsuhstantive chanc es.

.

• &. AUTI ; C'P. ITY TC' Cl:AJ lGE Tlii S c: r. !lr.r. . Aft er coo r c'in:otio n trl.t,.,. a ffect etl 'Orga n izational el emen u , the Di rector of Aviation Policy an d Plans is autho r ized to issue ch ange s to th is orde r provltl e d thf' ehal'l!e& c!o not ·affect policy , a del~gation of au th ority , an assic~ent of rcsponcioility, or cont8in stenlfieant unreso lve d is sue s .

7. PPLlC• . ";.A shall ~c ter cine the eligib i lity of terninal lncatfone fo r t~e est a b li shmen t, moclification , or di scontinuance of t eroinal ai r navig ati on fac ili ties and air tr affic control $er v1ccs ir. aceor~anee i• ith the folln.,fn r policy; howe ver , e li81bil ity clet ernin ati ons do n ot consti t ute a c~ it rDnt t o provi de such facilities o r services.

Public .1\irnor.ts , ns c\ef ine d in t he Ai rpor t and M. r! ·ray 1 .np rove r.ent Act

"·

of · 19!!2, are eand!d ate s for tho var ious f acilities a~ services provi~cd the~ aec t the criteria specifi~d !terein .

b. re"' Pnblie Airr 'o r ts :and C'thcr P ubli c Air ports l'-es1r.nate<' .<1s r.e;:!on~l

f.!rports qualif)' fo r facilities and servi c es provide<' t l>.e forec~sts of nc tivity na c! e by ' the 'fAA indi ca te t hat the:! criteria specHied here i n I'Oulc' '1--e ~e t wi th in ~years ~ f ter t h~ o! rport hegins o peration.

Chap 1 Pag e 2 P ar 4 11/lli/84 7031. 2C c . Privately=Owued Airp ort & open to and available for use by the Public which are recognized by and contained vith in the Nat ional Plan of Integrated Airport Systems are also candidates for the various facilities and services described herein provided that they meet the sane facility establishment standards and implementation criteria as those specified for publicly-owned airports, and , in addition, that owner(s) of such airports enter into appropriate assurance& and covenants to guarantee: (1) Compliance vith that portion of Section 308(a) of the Federal Aviation Act dealing with the prohibition of exclusive rights.

(2) Compliance With anti-discrimination regulations and practices in · · terus of race, colo r, religion, se x or national origin.

(3) That any fees charged fo r services shall be fair and reasonable for all typee, kinds and classes of aeronautical uses. · (4) Protection of the government invescment and public: interest through cont inuing operation as public use facilities for long enough periods to pe xm1t the amortization of such investment .

(5) Compliance vith the same safety requirements and obst acle clearance c:r1~er1a applicab l e to publicly ovned airports.

(6) That FAA vill be furnished · land without · c ost for the construction of facilities.

(7) That compatible land use Will be accomplished where feasible with the land in the immediate vicinity of the airport.

(8) That there will be compliance with the equal opportunity clause of Executive Order 11246.

NOTE: For additional detai ls and the op erations•agreem ent formnt, • refer to Order 6030.40, FAA Policy fo r Receiving Assurances When Es ta blishing P&E Facilities at Privately O..aed Publlc-{)se Airports.

d. Military Facilities. FAA acquisition and operation of military facilities Will be cover ed by arrangements bet ween DOD and FAA . No FAA facility vill be established where an existing military facility ' satisfies FAA opera ti onal requirenents.

·.

Chap 1 Page 3 Par 7 703l.2C 11/15 /84 e . Establishment of Air Navigation Facilities and Air Traff ic Control Serv i ce s.

( 1) Candidacy and Qualification under Air Traffic De~ud Criteria .

An airport that meets the criteria specified herein for one or more terminal · air navigation facll1 ties or air traffic control services becomes a candida t e location for those facilities or ~ervices . It becomes qualified · for the establishment of the particular facilities or serv i ces ~he n : (a) It meets the criteria specified herein for three consecu tive FAA annual counts . ( An FAA annual count is a fiscal year or a calendar year activity SUilllary . Where actual traffic counts are unavailable or not recorded, adequate . ly docWlented FAA estimates of the demand for the facility or service may be used), and (b) It is recommended by a regional director as necessary to satisfy an operational requirement and u economically just . ified by a · cost/benefit study, and (c) The recommendation of the regional director is concurred with by the Administrator.

(2) Remote Locations . When the qualifying criterion is a benefit/cost ratio , and the proposed site is a remote location as defined in Appendix 1, Remote ne ss - Compensa tion for Benefit/Cost Criteria, t~e evaluation required by paragraph 7e(l)(b) will be based on the remoteness - cocpensated benefit/cost ratio. This does not affect the candidacy standards , which apply equally to remote and non-remote sites .

(3) Exception to Air Traffic Demand Crite r ia . If the community served by an airport is identified in a federally approved economic deve l opment program, such as the "ne~ communities" progran of the ~partment of Housing and Urban Develop ment, the airport may be considered fot establishment of a single-equipment instrument approach system, or may be conside red a candidate for TVOR. or LDA without meeting the requi rem ents set fort h in the su b sequent paragraphs of t h is order .

(4) Reexaminatio n Prior to Survey or Con stru ctio n. FAA ~ill, prior to the start · of surveys or construction for the establishment of a new facility or service, reexami. ne the basis on which the project ~s justified.

If the eligibility factors have changed or are expected to change significantly, such as discontinuance of air carrier services, clo sing of a military base, new airport plans, etc ., either prior to or afte r budgetary .

approval, the region shall advise the Office of Management and Budget of the situation and its reeoaaendations promptly.

Cliap 1 Page 4 Par 7 ·.

11/15/84 7031. 2C £. Discontinuance of Air Navig at ion F acilities and Air T ra ffic Control Services . Whenever the activity level of an air navigation facility or air traffic control service falls to or below the discontin uance criteria specified herein, or if factors other than activity level were used to j ustify establishme nt and these cease to exist or change significantly, the facility or service is a candidate for decommissioning. If the activity leve l remains at or goes below the discontinuance level for three consecu tive FAA counts, the facility or service shall be discontinued unless its retention can be specifically j ustified . If the di sc onti nuance criterion is a b enefit/cost ratio, and the f acility is remote as defined in appendix 1, eYaluation will be based on the remoteness-compensated (benefit enhancement only) benefit/co st r atio .

8 . SCOPE .

---

a . T he Federal Aviation Administrator is empowered to pro vide air navigation facilities and air tra f fic control services to insure efficie nt uti l izatio n of the navigable airspace an d t he safe and ex pedi ti ous flo w o£ air traffic . To discharge this r e sponsibility the FAA provides term inal facilities and services at airports to assist aircraft i n starting and terminating their fligh ts. This· order contains criteria f or the establishment o£ the · various termi nal air navigation facili ti es and air traffic control services provi ded by the agency and funded through the facili ty and equipment (F&£) appropriation. Criteria for ot h er air n avigation facilities and air tra ffic control services are contained in the appropriate airway planning standard or agency directive. · b . The criteria contained herei n are primari l y based on air traffic demand sin ce volume of traffic is a tangible and measurable indication of the need fo r air navigation facilities and air traffic control services . They do not, how ever , cover all situations which may arise and s hall not be used as a sole determination in denying a loca tio n a te rminal facility or service for which there is a demonstrated operational or air tra ffic control requirement .

Similarly, air traffic demand does not by i tself always constitute a requirement for an air navigation facility or air traffic control service .

c . A true aeronautical requirement may exist for facilities and /or services that cannot be measured with reference to the volume of a ir tr affic activity alone. Other factors wherein a f ixed requirement cannot be established which must also be considered are the general terrain features in the vicinity of the terminal, the nature of the operation, and the frequent and predictable occurrence of severe cl imato log ical phenomena such as heavy snow, ice, f og, or other local conditions that can adv ersely affect aircraft operations or the safety of the flying public.

Chap 1 Par 7 Page 5 ll/ 1 5/84 7031 .2C d. Non- Fe der al Termin al Facilities. N on-Federal termin al ai r navigation and approach aids and air traffic control fac i lities purchas ed and installea by other than the Federal Government ~ay be eligible for incl us ion in the Nat ion al Airspace Syst em. FAA will assume owners hip, ope rat io n, maintenance, and logistic support of equipment and facilities provided appropriate TAA standards and requirements, as out l ine d in applicable agency directives, ar e met .

e. Criteria for Provision of Electrical Power. Criteria fo r the pro vis ion of electrical powe~ config u ra t i on at N ati on al A ir space System facili t ies is contained in O rde r 6030.20C, Electrical Power Policy. This orde r prescribes the power configuration and characte ri stics of power systems which are stan dar d fo r various types of operating co ndit io ns, Guid an ce for t he uniform imp le mentati on of Order 6030.20C is con ta ined in ageocy Order 6950.28, Electric Power Policy lmpleaontation at National Airspace Syste n Fac ilit ies.

·f. Summaries of Criteria and Critieal Econocic Values. The establishment and discontinuance cri t eria and the criti cal economic va lues ut ilized in the develo pmen t of i nv es tment criteria ar e summarized in the foll ow ing appcndiceD to this o rder: ( 1) Appendix 2, Su mmari y of Establishment and D iscon tinuance Criteria.

(2) Appendix 3 , SUlllllary of "Critical Values."

9. - 19 , RESERVED.

Chap 1 Par 8 Page 6 ( t hru 10)

-·

2/10/86 7031. 2C C HG 1 CHA PTER 2. NAVI GA TION AIDS SECTION 1. AIR NAV IG ATION RADIO AIDS 20 . MICROWAVE LAND I N G SYS"rEM ( HLS) lliTH APPROACH LI GH T S.

a. Establishmen t . A runway where scheduled turbo j et operations are conduc ted on a sustained basis and are expected to continue with out long peri ods of interruption, or any runway or heliport not currently equipped with an operating precisi on app roa ch sys tem and meets the annual instrument approach criteria in pa. ragrap h 20b, is a candi date for MLS Iilith an appr oach light sys tem for Category I operation as provided 1n paragraphs 20a(l) through 20a(3) .

* Note that Supplemental MLS Crit eria apply to in . itial establishment at co mmercial se rvice airports, paragraph 20d, and relt'ev er airports,

paragraph 20e. *

( 1) A coaprebcnsive evaluation of the runw ay to be served by the MLS indicates that i t meets applicable FAA airp ort design and operational standards and that th e opera . tions to b-e conducted wi ll be safe and the cyp e( s) of aircraf t vhi ch wi ll u se or are forecast to use · the MLS can be accoamodated saf ely. Furthermore, it must be techn ical ly fe asible and practical for the airpo r t sponsor ~o protect the MLS critical areas .

(2) Runway length and width dimen sio ns are in accordan ce vith FAA policies and dir ecti ves. At a mi n imum, a ru nway must be 4200 feet long and 75 feet wide in ord er to receive an MLS. the se crit er ia do not apply to helipo rts or sho rt -take-off-and-landing (StoL) runways . The r equired heliport or STOL run way dimen sio ns will be in accord ance wit h FAA policies and directives.

(3) Approved runway and heliport l ights must be installed or programz>ed.

b. Annual Instrument Approa ch ( AlA ) Criteria . An airport that meets the pro v isi ons of paragraph 20a is a ca ndida te for MLS w ith approach l i ghts when the annual instrument approaches recorded for the runway on which the MLS is to be installed aeet or exceed the fo llowing cond1 Uo ns : Chap 2 Page ll Par 20 i; 11/15/84 7031. 2C MLS Qualifying (R~quired) AlA Count for Stated Non-Pr~cision A22roach Miutmums User C ategory 3oo-3/4 400- 3/4 400- 1 500- 1 600-1 800- 1 Ai.r Carrier Hub 500 250 200 150

iOO so

Non Hub 900 500 400 300 200 Ai.r Taxi 475 450 400 500 350 Oeneral Aviation 1400 2700 2300 2000 1700 900 Military 1100 1000 900 BOO 650 450 NOTE: The AIA levels apply only when the MLS v ill give a iuiauas of 200-1/2 or the equiva l ent; i f other minimums are ach i evable, consult with the Office of Aviation Policy and Plane (APO) to determin e procedures (criteria) that are applicable. ·.

(1) To determine whether an airport meets the Phase I or annual instrument approach (AIA) criteria contained in paragraph 20b: (a) Determin~ the lowest non-pr e cision approach minimums currently authoriud for the largest aircraft using the runway in question , e.g . , 50D-l.

(b) Reference the above table to seiect the quali fyin g number of AIA' s on the candidate runway for each uce.r category, e . g. , Air Carrier Hub-150 , Air T axi - 400, General Aviatioa-1700 , Military-8 00.

(c) Estimate the number of recorded AIA' s on the candidate run way by one of tb~ follo w ing procedures: 1 An on-cite survey of lFR activity on the candidate runway.

2 Estimate the percentage of total airport AlA's on the candidate runway. Multiply total AlA's by this percentage to determine the runway AlA's . If specific data are not available , use 70 percent for the initial precision approach runway , 25 percent for the second precision approach runway . For third and subsequent run w ays a cit• •urvey of projected lFR runway usage will be required .

l Use the AlA e stim ating model developed tu Report

FM - AP0-83- 10, Establishlllent and Discontinuance Criteria for Pre cision Landing Systems.

Chap i Par 20 Page 12 7031.2C 11/15/84 (d) Enter estimated recorded and required AlA's for the candidate runway as indicated below. The contributions of each category to~~rd meeting the criteria are summed. A runway with a total ratio of 1.0 or more · meets the AlA Phase I criteria for MLS establishment.

User Category AlA's Recorded *" X a X:X Air Carrier Required AIA's a. x.xx Recorded AlA's Air Taxi Required AlA's c x.xx Recorded AlA's General Aviation Requ ired AIA's Recorded AlA's = x.xx Military Req uired AlA 's x.xx Total Ratio c. Benefit/Cost Screening. MLS candidates identified by the criteria specified in paragraph 20a will be scree ned in FAA headquarters using the benefit/cost technique described in Report FAA -AP0-83-10 , Establis~ent and Discontinuance Criteria for Precision Landing SyStems . FAA regional offices shall submit data required for sc reen ing purposes as specified in the Annual Call for Estimates. Establishment of MLS also may be justified when documented benefits exist. The justification and expected benefits of operations ba sed on the following additional capabilities must be documented for each location : (1) Resolve airspace conflicts be~een two airports dur i ng IFR operations.

(2) Reduce delays encountered in approach and/or d epartur e operations under IFR conditions.

(3) Provide different approach p at hs for various aircraft weight classes to re l ieve Qake vorte x restrictions.

(4) Provide for other operations which may increase airport capacity or significantly reduce noise impact.

(5) Provide , by establishment of MLS networks, demonstrabl e improvement in us er operating reliability or operating efficie ncy.

Chap 2 Page 13 Par 20 '·· 7031. 2C CliG 1 2/10/86 * d. Supple~~~ental MLS Criteria for Commercial Service Ai rporu.

(1) Establishment . A run w ay at a commercial service airport (defined by th e A irp ort and Airway Impro ve ment Act of 1982 to mean " .•• a public airport which ic determined by the Secretary to enplane annually 2,500 or more passengers and receive scheduled passenger serv ico of aircraft.") wich meets the technical considerations of paragraphs 20a( l) , 20a(2), and 20a(3) but vhich fails to satisfy paragraph 20c ~~ay qualify for an initial MLS establisbllent under the conditions whi ch follow .

(a) A commercial service airport is a candidate for KLS (meets Phase I Supplementa.l Criteria) wben th e runway on which che MLS is co be installed meets or exceeds the following requ~rements: 1 The commercial serv ice airport has co nnecting scheduled passenger service to an associated major hub airport (small, medium, or large hub). Such servi ce should have existed for at least the previous 3 consecutive years and be reasonably oxpect:ed to continue.

2 Agency fo re casts for the commercial service airport should indicate that total annual enplaned passengers (in scheduled and nonscheduled service) are not: expected to fall below 2,500.

3 The commercial se rvice airport does not have a precision landing system and has not been programmed for one.

~ The comme rcial cervice airport and its associated major hub a~rport have a combined Phase I total ratio greater than or equal to 1. To determine the combined total ratio: (aa) Determine the Phase I total ratio fo r th e commercial service airport according to paragraph 20b.

(bb) Determine the Phase I total ratio for th e primary runway--runway with the most instrument approaches--at the associated major hub airport according to paragraph 20b.

(cc) Sua the ratios for the co~ercial service airport and its associated major hub airport and divide by 2.

(b) A commercial service airport identified in paragraph 20d(l) is qualified for an MLS (meetc Phase II Supple mental Criteria) when the com:aercial service airport and tbe priiiUiry run'ilBy of its a ceocia ted major hub airport have a combined Phase II tota l ratio greater than or equal to 1, w here the combined ratio is defined as the sum of the benefits at the two airports (as calculated in Report FAA-AP0-83-10, Establishment and Discon tinuance Criteria for Precision Landing Systems) divided by the sum of their life cycle costs.

( 2) Discontinuance. An ML S established under this pa ragraph shall be

considered for discontinuance as follows. *

Chap 2 Par 20 Page 11.

2/10/86 7031. 2C CBG 1

* (a) An KLS at an airport continuing to receive connecting

scheduled passenger service to an asaociated aajor hub airport shall be a candidate for discontinuance if the combined Phaca t benefit/ cost ratio drops below .3 for 3 consecutive years. The decommissioning of an KLS shall be justified by a benefit/coat atudy which considers the combined benefits and coste generated by KLS at the commercial service airport and the primary instrument runway of its associated major hub airport.

(b) An KLS at a n a irport which baa not received schedul ed passenger service for the pa1t 3 yeara ahall be a candidate for discontinuance as prescribed in paragraph 20g.

e. Supplemental KLS Criteria for Reliever Airporta.

(1) Establishment. A runvay at a re liever ai rport (as identified in the National Plan of lntegnted Airport Systems) which meets the te chn ical condderatiou of paragrapha 20a(l), 20&(2), and 20&(3) but fails to satiety paragraph 20c may qualify for MLS provided that the benefits of the propoaed est ablishment exceed the costs. For purposes of this paragraph, benefitQ will be deemed to include not only those enumerated in Report FAA • AP0 -8 3- 10 , Establishment and Dhcontinuanee Criteria for Precidon tanding Systems, but also the value of reduced congestion and improved safety at the relieved major airport. Establishment& under this paragraph shall be supported by a staff study baaed upon quantitative and qualitative analyses and conducted according with established FAA procedures.

(2) Discontinuance. An MLS ectab liab ed under this paragraph shall be qualified for discontinuance Yhen the op erations and maintenance costs of providing the aervice exceed the benefits derived including the value of reduced congestion and improved safety at the relieved airport. The

decommissioning of an MLS ehall be justified by a benefit-cost study. *

!. tLS Replacement with MLS. All required cervices which are satisfied by the ILS Yi ll continue to be· provided after an MLS has rep laced the ILS and for the duration of the requirement. ILS replacement with MLS wil l be accompliShed in accordance with proviaions aet forth in Report AP0-81-1, Microwave Landing System Transition Plan . Specific quantitative criteria are not provided at this time. BoYever, the Transition Plan recommends imp lementat ion in user netv or ka of city bub airports a cco rdi ng to hub enpl anements.

g. MLS Discontinuance. The new MLS program must have sufficient opportunity tor implementation and growth that w ill not be hindered by a premature imposition of discontinuance criteria. The MLS program ohould be fully operational (i.e. , a significant number of HLS's are in operation and 98 percent of the general aviat ion fleet that flies IFR is equipped with HLS avionics) before MLS discontinuance criteria are enforced. I t is recogni:ed that in the earlier atagea of the program, avionics equ ip age wou ld be mi~ imal.

However , as the number of MLS'a increa s es, the vi ll ingness of users to purchase the necesaary . avionica sh ould increase as w ell. The general aviation community Chap 2 Par 20 Page 14- 1 .... ..

7031. 2C 11/15 / 84 is usually alo""r about acquiring nev avionics than are co -ercial user groupe. Given tbia point, it appears more useful to observe the general aviation equipage rate in evaluating widespread ayatem use. Once the program becomes fully operational 1t is then o:ore valid to put discontinuance criteria in force. The following discontinuance criteria w ould then appl y.

(1) At a runway where s cheduled turbojet operations are condu cted , the MLS s hall not be decommissioned, At a runway w here turbojet operations are discontinued and are not expected to resume, the discontin uance criteria in paragraph 20g(2) shall apply.

(2) Runways having no scheduled turbojet operations are candidates for MLS decommissioning when instrument approach activity falls below 30 percent of the qualifying level (i . e . , Phase I sue ot ratio value leas than 0.30) and remain• below this level for 3 consecutive yeara. The decommisaioning of an MLS shall be justified by a benefit/coat study aa docUIIented in Report NUIIber FM-AP0-83-10, Establi shment and Discont-inuance Cr iteria for Precis ion Landing Systems, and by a review and assess~ent of operational and envi ronment al fact ors pertinent to the affected locality or local! t1 es • h. RVR wit h KLS. The c riter i a of paragraph 2lc(l) ahall a pply to MLS.

i. HLS Training lnstallationa. Regulations require pilots to conduct flight training on the KLS . to achieve and maintain a high level of proficiency.

An air por t vit h in or convenient to a geographical area eerved by one or more airports r ecording 200,000 or more annual tot al operations and 50,000 or more annual instrUIIIent operations aay be sele ct ed as a candidate for a train ing ML S provided the a irpor t is capab l e of a cco mm od ating the types of ai rcr a ft uaed to conduct MLS training. Approach lights w ill not be estab li shed until the airport qualifies for an MLS in ac co rdance vith the criteria specified in paragraph 20a.

j, MLS for Noise Abatement. Noioe a batement problems at aome airports, usua],ly . 1et tenDinals, may sometimes be alleviated by an MLS to localize and minimize tbe noise created by arriving and departing air c raft. The problem varies at diff e rent l oca tions. Tbe j ustification and expe c ted benefits aust be documented in a separate study for each loca t ion.

k. KLS for Categorz II/III Operations . Reserved.

21. IN STRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS) WITH AP PRO ACH LIGHTS.

a. Establ is hmen t. Reeerved.

b. Discontinuance. At a runway servi ced by ceheduled turbojet aircraft ,

an n.s will not be decommiasioned unless it 1s to be replaced by a Microwave

Landing Syste m OILS) in ac co rdance with Rep ort AP0-81-l, Microwave Landing Syst em transition Plan. Otherwise, a runway is a candidate for ILS decommi&cioning vhen instrument approach activity on the runway fai ls to meet any combina ti on of the fol lo w ing conditions: Chap 2 page 14-2 Par 20 7031.2C 11/15/84 ILS Discontinuance Minimum AlA Count for Stated Nonerecision Aeeroach Minima Category 30()-,-3/4 . ,, 4UD-3/4 400-1 50D-l 600-1 80D-l User Air Carrier Hub 200 100 80 50 40 20 Non Hub 400 200 170 120 85 40 Air Taxi 225 200 190 170 150 llO General Aviation 1100 950 850 700 600 400 Military 500 400 375 325 275 200 NOTE: These AIA levels apply only when the ILS gives minimums of 200-1/2 or the equivalent; if le sse r minimums are achievable, consult with the Office of Aviation Policy and Plans to determine procedures (criteria) that are applicable.

(1) To determine whether a runway is a candidate for ILS discontinuance based upon Annual Instrument Approach (AlA) criteria: (a) Determine the lowest nonprecision approach minimums currently authorized for the largest aircraft using the runway in question, e.g., 500-1.

(b) Reference the above table to select the required minimum number of AlA's on the candidate runway for each user category , e.g . , Air Carrier Rub-50 , Air Taxi-170, Gene ral Avlation-700 , Mi!itary-325.

(c) Estimate the number of AlA's recorded on the candidate runway.

(d) Enter the recorded and required AlA's for the candidate runway as indicated below. The contributions of each user category toward meeting tbe criteria are summed. A runway with a total ratio below 1.0 is a can didate fo r discontinuance.

Chap Z Par 21 Page IS 3/2/87 7031. 2C CHG 2 User Category Air Carrier AlA's Q x.xx •. Recorded ' . Required AlA's Air Taxi Recorded • x.xx AlA's Required AlA's ; General Aviation Recorded AlA's x.x:x Required AIA' s Mllitary Recorded AlA's c x.xx Required AlA's Total Ratio x . xx (2) Recommendations to decommission an ILS shall be justifie d by a benefit/cost study similar to that documented in Report Number AP0-83-10, Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Precision Landing Systems, and by a review and assessment of operational and environm e ntal factors pertinent to the affected locality or localities.

c. Supplemental ILS Facilities.

(l) RVR with ILS.

* (a) Establishment. A Category I precision instrumented runway

(i.e., equipped with a Category I Instrument L anding System or Microwave Landing System) qualifies as a candidate for establishment of a Touchdown RVR System provided the following requirements are met: 1. An acceptable method is available for immediate dissemination of RVR value data to pilots (e . g., airport traffic control tower, combined station/tower, or where appropriate, a remote approach control facility); and 2. The provisions of Order 6560.10B, Runway Visual Range, and the siting and Installation standards of FAA-STD-008 can be met; and 3. A Phase I value, computed using t he methodology outlined

1n Table 2lc(l)(a),-equals or exceeds 1.00. *

Chap 2 Par 21 Page 16 3/2/87 7031. 2C CRG 2 Table 2.1 c( 1 )(a)

*

Phase I Criteria F or Touchdown RVR System at Cate go ry I Precision Instrumen ted Runway User Class Contribution Air Ca rrier: ACU ACITN + 145 6,500 x .xx • Air Taxi: ATA P ATITN x.xx + • 10,000 73,000 General GAAP x.x:x Aviat i on : 8,900 Military: · e. + x.xx MILAP 1,900 Subtotal x.xx x RVR System Design Fac tor X X.XX x.xx Subto tal X .xx x Run w ay Util i zatio n Factor Phase I Va l ue x .xx For each of the first 3 yea rs of operation: ACAP, ATAP, GAAP , and MILAP are the numbars of annual instrument approaches by user cl ass ; ACITN and ATITN are t he numbers of annual itinerant operations of the air carrier and air taxi user cla sses; the RVR system design factor is from Tab le 2lc( l){b) ; and the runway utilizat i on factor is the per cen tage of total airpo rt operations that can be ex:pected to use the cand.idat e runway during instnm ent w eather conditions . If a site-spec.ific runway utilization factor is unavailabl e and cannot be estimated, the appropriate n at.ional average defa ul t value from Table 2lc(l)(c) may be substituted.

*

Chap 2 Page 16-1 Par 21

7031. 2C CHC , :z

3/2/87 TABLE 2lc(l)(h)

*

' RVR System Des ign Factors System Design N o . of Cur re n tly of Proposed Existing RVR Systems* RVR In vestment of · this Design Type Factor

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

"New 0 : 1. 00 Generation" ~ 1 : 3.17 1

------- ---- ----------------------1

I I I I Tasker 500 ~ 0 : 0.60 : * Category I, II, or III.

TABLE 2lc(l}(c) Default Runway Utilization Factors {Use only i f site-spec i fic value is unavailable and cannot be estimated) Total Number of Precis i on Runway Utilization Instrumented Runways Factor per Runway {%) at Airport (All Categories)

_1_ L ..1.... .....L 2._

2 61 39 3 45 35 20 42 32 18 8 ) 5 41 31 17 8 3 For examp le, if tbe airport has three precision instrumented run w ays vith one being Category II and two being Category I , the default runway utili zati on factor s for the f ir st and second Category I runways w ould be 35 aod 20 percent, respectively.

(b) Discontinua nce . An exis ting Touchdown RVR System installation at a Cate go ry I precision instrumented runway qua lifies fo r discontinuance wh en the Phase I value, compu ted using the methodology outlined in Table 2lc(l)(a), falls beneath 0 . 40. Discontinuance of a Touchdown RVR ' Sys t em installation must be justified by a bene-fit/cost analysis (as provided in parasraph 21e(l){e)) and an assessment of operationa l and en vironmental factors pertinen t to the affected runway.

* Chap 2 Page 16-2 Par 21 7031. 2C CHG • 2 3/2/87 (e) Benefit/Cost Screening. Candidate . ~ways which meet

*

the requirem e nts of paragraph 2le(l)(a) or 2lc(l)(b) will'be screened under the Phase 11 benefit/co~t criteria developed and outlined in Report Number FAA - AP0-87- , ·Establisliinent and Discontinuance Criteria for Runway Visual Rangeat Cat~gory I Precision · 4nding System R~way . · ·rn .

cases where unique site-spec i fic operational factors exist that may ' .

• I . .

warrant special consideration . (e,g., tro~bles~~e terrain features, significant remoteness of the runway from the tower, e~c,), narrative an~ explanatory reference should be incl uded in' the Annual Call for Estimates .

~· . . *

22. NONl'RECISION IN'STRUMENT APPROACH SYSTEMS.

a. Establishment. An airport a~ which no scheduled air carrier .

turboj~t operations are conducted on a sustained basis which records 200 or 'more annual instrument approaches or 1;825 or more scheduled arinual passenger originations (~ recorded in validated counts acceptable 'co the FAA) is a candidate for one of the two following nonprec1s1on in strument approach systems (single equipment) when the existing instrument approach procedure and associated navigation aids do n ot provide landing minimums of a 400-foot minimum decision altitude (MDA) and one-mile visibility (400 MDA/1) or better.

(1) Localize r Direction Aid (LDA) System. The bas ic IFR approach system consists of a localizer and a 75 HRz marker beacon. A basic IFR approach sys tem may be established when: (a) The existing instrument approach procedure is based on an adjacent VHF navigation aid.

(b) An adjacent VHF navigation aid can be used for transition to the localizer.

(c) A DME (single equipment) may be substituted for the marker beacon provided an individual justification indica tes that th~ DME is necessary to achieve the 400 MDA/t minimums or to provide opposite direction approach capability Yhere needed because of wind or traffic considerat ions . L/MF facilities should not be considered for this requirement.

· (2) TVOR . A TVOR may be installed when: (a) An instrument approach procedur e is not possible from an adjacent VHF navigation aid.

(b) The exis~ing instrument approach procedure is based on an L/MF navigation aid.

Chap 2 Par 2l Page 17 1 1/15/84 7031.2C (c) An adjacent VFR naviga~ion aid would not provide transition to a localizer.

(d) A 75MHz marker ba~con may be co nsi dered at new or existing TVOR locations provided an individual JU$ tification indica t es that it is nece ssary in order to achieve 400 MbA/1 minimums. A DKE (si n gle equipment) may also be concidered fo r new or existing TVOR locations provided that an individual j ustif icatio~ indicates that i t will provide more efficient handling . of traffic, or a reduction of the . adverse effect of obstructio ns on l anding miminums , or an otherwise tangible improvement in the IFR capability of the airport.

(3) DKE wit h Localizer/Marker Beacon . . A runway having a localizer and marker beacon but no gl ide slope is a candidate for DME establishmen t (single equipment) when the annual instrument approach activi ty on the runway satis~ieo the ac tivity formula below with a total ra tio value of 1.0 or greater.

Chap 2 Par 21 Page 18 11/15/84 7031. 2C (a) Tabl e 2'2a(3) contains the qualifying nl11llber of AlA's for the candidate runvay for each user category. Instructions are given below on how to use the table and the following activity formula .

User Cat:egory Activity Ratio Air Carrier: AIA' s on Run<l8y • x.xx Qualifying AlA's Air Taxi: AlA's on Runway = x.xx Qualifying AIA ' s General Aviation/military: AlA's on Runway = x.xx Qualifying AlA ' s Total Ratio Value x.xx To determine w hether a runway meets activity criteria: 1 ~pute the nbmber of AlA's on the candida~e runway fo r each user category by site survey or by estimating the percentage of airport AIA activity on the runway.

2 Determine: (a) the lowest approach localizer minimums currently authorized, and (b) minimums projected fo r use with DME for the largest category of aircraft (i.e., A, B, C, D, or E) consis;ently using the runway .

3 Select hub des i gnation as c:Jetermined by enplanements at the candidate airport .

4 Table 22(a)(3) contains the qualifying number of AIA's on the candidate runway for each user category using the locnliier minimums and localizer/DME minimums developed'in paragraph . If appr oach minimums do not coincide with the values listed in the table, round off to th e nearest entry.

5 Enter the computed and qualifying AlA's for the candidate runway in-the formula in parag r aph. The total ratio value is determined by summation. An ILS runway having a total rat:l,o value of 1 . 0 or greater meets the activity criteria .

(b) DHE candidates identified under this subparagraph will be evaluated in F AA Headquarters using the benefit/cost technique described in Report FAA- ASP-78 - 7, Establishment Criteria for Distance Measuring Equipment with Instrument Landing System and/or Localizer Approach Aids •.

Chap 2 Par 22 Page 19 ..., .....

..

T•ble 22a(l) .., ....

,_.

Qua1Jty1n9 ~ IA ' a et LOCal1%or Runways

"'

N N 0 (") HUb Local1%er K i nta& uacr 401 1 ~oo I12 soo 1 60 0 l/2 600 1 600 1-1/2 'loo 1l 2 7 00 1 70 0 -2 c;roc2 Siz.e 400 ll2 100 · 1 -ll4 70 0 l-ll2 LOC/OME Kin - 300 1/2 67 34 30 21 18 14 10 . l1 10 8 7 s AC t..tr9e 92 46 u 29 24 19 14 lS 13 12 10 7 A C Me4i ...

36 30 24 18 19 17 15 ....u 116 58 5l u 9 AC

,.,. 17 '

lS6 78 u 33 24 AC 69 48 26 22 20 l2 ..; 1,105 342 289 232 168 186 158 139 AT All 55 4 488 123 ' 1,227 s,e .c s %,580 1.8t2 1,527 903 736 OA/ Mi 1 All 2 .931 838 6$2 4 60

•••

LOC/Dttll M in - 300 1 AC Large 81 l4 20 u 12 10 9 46 27 AC MediUD 111 18 17 14 AC .... u 139 58 34 22 21 10 16 11 A C 188 45 30 26 24 21 1,327 5$6

.... All 122 215 201 172 150

OA/Mil All 7,020 2,940 l, 702 1,1]7 1,062 911 793 . , MorE< Localizer .Unim. a re c e ~ i ng a n4 prevailing v1e1bi l1ty aatoc!ated v lth the Height A bove Toueh~own (HATl.

-

.....

-

-

9 ~ .....

... "' .

.,.

N

"'

N N . .

....

Table 22a(S)4Cont1nued) -

~9 -....

.....

Qualifylnq AIA't et. LOCalizer ttur.way• "d

-

-....

"'

"'

"'"'

~

"'

user Uub t.oe.aHr.t~r Miniaa 70 - ,,- ~2 croup (au 40 0 _ 1/ 2 __ 4 90 1 5 _ 00 l/2 soo 1 600 1/ 2 600 1 _ 600 1 .. 1;.2 100 11~ ~ -- :?' _ 00 _ )~ _ ?O() 1 - 1/4 700 1- l/2 LOC~ Kin - 400 1/2 71 56 32 2S u u 14 12 10 AC L.at9• 6

'

77 44 34 26 17 20 AC HediUift 98 16 14 12 8 .

12) 96 ss u n 22 25 20 18 15 10 AC -u Non 16, uo 58 30 33 28 24 A C 21 14

••

••

.

1,111 921 525 ' U 3 310 209 236 196 169 100' AT All 141 6,197 4,874 2,77S 2,18.$ 1,107 1,035 00>/ KH All 1,642 1,250 991 777

-

LOC/DNE Kin - 4 00 1 61 16 15 13 AC Laq:o 11 7 .., 31 22 21 ... .u .... 83 17 15 10 S.all 104 46 26 22 18 lZ •c ..,

..... Ul 63 38 35 29 25

All ,998 269 248 207 177 At us

• ••

5,281 2,152 1,421 1,31.0 1,096 , ..

GMUl All ll6 • • tKn'Et LOC:alher cdntaa are cetli.ng an4 prevailing vJ t 1bUJty eaaoebte<l ,Jttl the Hei.9ht Above Touch~ovn (HAT).

..

"'

" 0

w ..

....

.... N

"'

('> 7031. 2C C"d C 3 10/20 / 89 .

(4) Visua1 Approach Slope Indicator ( VASt) for Straight-in Nonprecis1 on Approach Proc ed ure. A F.our-Box VAS! 1113Y be inGt olled as a component to an existing straight-in nonpreci sion approach facility when the candidate runway satisfies the foll owing criteria: La ndl " ngs + AlA' a • 1. 0 or n ora 1 4.000 120 Where Landings • Recorded annual landings on the c andidate runvay.

Al A' • • Annual instrument approa ches on t he ca ndida t e runway.

(a) to deter= ine the number of l andings and AlA's on the candi date runway, uae ac tu al runway util i zation of the run vay utilization table ehovn in paragraph 3lc(3) .

(b) To accommodate regular uae by long-bod i e• or jumbo air c raft such as the B-747 or C5A v hich are unable to use a standard Four-Box VASI becaus e of their gr eater v heel -t o-coc kpit height , a t hird bar may be added, provided Four-Box criteria are aatiafied.

(5) Other Lighting Aid s fo r Nonpr ec i sion Approa ch.

(a) An airp ort a t w hic h no s ched uled air carrier turbojet operation s ar e conducted on a sustai ned ba sis v ith a nonpr ecision approac h sysrem ins talled or programmed whi ch records 300 or more annual instrument approach es, or 2,725 annual passe ng er originations, i s a candi date for a Kedium Inten sity App roac h Light System (HALS) provided the instaLlation Y il l reduce landing visibil it y minlmwns.

(b) Alt ernativ es. An Om ni Dire ct i onal Ap proach Light System (ODALS) may be installed in lieu of HALS if the nonprec i sio n approach ai d does not permit a str aight-in approach or operati onal condition s require a curved flight path to a specific ru nw ay.

(6) RVR for Nonprecision Instrumented Run w ay .

* (a) Establishaent. A nonpre cieion instrumented runway (i.e . , not equipped v ith an Instrum ent Landing System or Kicrovave Landing System) quali fies as a candidate for establishment of an RVR provided the following requiremen ts are met: ·

l· The airport has one or more RVR-equipped precision

. instrum ented runways . To the extent that this include s Category I runways, th e f ir s t and (if applicable) cecon~ Category I rnnvays m ust be equipped vit h an d satisfy the criteria fo r RVR at Category I ru nYays, as outlined in paragraph 22c(l).

The provisions of Order 6560.10B, Runway Visual Bange, and the siting and install at ion sundards of FAA-STD-008 can be ae t.

Chap 2 Page 22 Par 22 4/25/94 7031. 2C OlG 9 The ratio of life-cy cle benefits co life-cycle costs equals or exceeds one , based on the benefit/cost methodol ogy outlined in Report PAA -AP0-88-14, "Esta blish m ent Criter ia for Runway Visual Ran ge ( RVR) Sys tem at Nonprecision Ins trumented Runway."

(b) Discontinuance. Reserved.

* (7) LQEAN -C Nonprecision Approach.

(a) Establis hmen t. Establishmen t cr iteri a have been promulgated th rough admin istrative regulation. The Final Ru l e , publi shed in che Federal Register on Augu~t 11 , 1993 , is reproduced in Appendi x 5, Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for LORAN-e Nonpreciaion App roa ches - -Fin al Rule . The benefit/cost anal ysis underlying the Final Rule is presented in Report FAA-AP 0 - 90 - 5, " E stablishment Criteria for LORAN -e Appro ach P roc edure s. " the regi ons sh all submit sit e-sp ecific data required to apply the criteria and

validate candidacy with their response to the annual Call for Est im ates. *

* (b) Discontinuance. A LOR~-C nonprecision approach is a cand ida te

for discontinuance as specified in administrative regula tions published in the

Federa l Regis t er on August 11, 1993, and reproduced in appendix 5. *

b . Disc . ontinuance.

(l) An UDA (p aragraph 22a( l )), TVOR · (p a ragraph 22a(2)), or lighting system for nonprec i sion approach (parag rap h 22a(5 ) ) at an airport recording less than 100 annual instrument approaches and 1,095 scheduled passe nger originations is a cand idate for discon t inuance.

(2) A DME wi th loca lizer/ marker beacon i s a candid ate for discontinuance when the total ratio value formula of paragraph 22a(3) is less than 0 . 6 and when just i fied by a benefit/cost analy sis.

(3) A VASI , established as a component of a straight - in non precisio ~ approach fa c ili ty, is a candidate for decommissioning when t he ratio value computed thr ou gh use of the formula in paragraph 22a(4) is less than 0 . 50 fo r one annual count period .

c. Improvements and New faci l ities. Existing terminal instrumen t approach systems freq uently require improvement s and/or additional facilities. s~ch improvements ar e usually m ade only whe n there Gxists a reasonable rel ations hip between the operational benefit:s to be realized and che costs invo lved i n acco rdance with the following provisions: Chap 2 Page 23 Par 22 703l.2C 11/15/ 84 (1) A ter m inal i nstrumen• app roach system wi th 500 or more annual instrument appr oaches or 4,500 or more scheduled annual passenger originations qualifies for those improve&ents and/or new facilities tha t satisfy an operational requirement or facilitate the flow of IFR traffic at t he airport . A level of 500 or mo r e annual i n strumant a pproach es or 4,500 or more schedul ed annua l p asseng e r originations normally assures a cost per instrument approach that is commensurate with the benefit derived from the imp rovement and/or additional facility.

(2) A terminal i nstrument approa ch system with 200 t o 499 ann u al ins trument approaches and 1,825 to 4,499 or more scheduled annua l passenger originations is a candidate for improvements and/or additional facilities that satisfy an operational requirement or fac i litate the flow of IFR tra ffic at the airpor t provided that the additional cost do es not res ul t in a cost per inst r umen t approach that exceeds the benefit derived from the imp r ovement and/or addit ional facilicy.

(3) A terminal instrument approach s ystem with less than 200 annual instrume nt approaches and less than·l,82S scheduled annua l passenger originations is not a candidate for improvements or additional facilities .

At that activity level, the additional cost per instrument approach resulting from the improvement or additional facility is not commensurate wit h the be nef it der iv ed. A ny improvements to terminal instrument approach systems at a i rports i n this category will be l i mi t ed to the correct i on of a criti cal situat ion and shall be justified by an individual staff study.

d. Dualization of lQca l i z er/Marke r s or Terminal VORs. Dual equipment m ay be pr ovid ed when a study c onfirms an operational req u irement supported by cost versus benef i t analys i s.

23 . VOR TEST SIGNAL <VQTl.

a. Establishment . Inst a llation of a VOR Test Signal (VOT) p roviding service to one or more airports is aut horized when there is no other re asona ble means of comply ing with subparagraph b or c of Federal Aviation Regulation 91 .25. The re loc ation of a VOT is authorized when consolidation (are a concept) of ex is t i ng V OT 's can be achieved. However, this consolida .t ion sha ll not deprive lo ca tions that continue co have a requireme nt for VOT signals.

b. Dis continu an ce . The VQR Test S ignal ( VO T) shall be disco n tinued when the installation of a new V OR eli m inates t he need for a VOT.

24.-25. RESERVED.

Olap 2 Par 23 P age 24 ( thru 26) 11/15/84 7031.2C SECTION 2. RADAR SERVICES 26 . AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR WITH AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL RADAR BEACON SYSTBM AND AUTOMATED RADAR 'l'ERMINAL SYSTEM (ASR/ATCRBS/ARTS) .

a. Establishment. ASR establishment criteria for FAA approach contro l towers are two-phased. Phase I is a set of simple generalized criteria designed to initially identify potential candidates . under Phase I an airport ratio value is computed by summing the r elative co ntr ibutory benefits of ASR.

If the airport rat i o value obta i ned i .s equal to or greater than 1.0, the location satisfies the Ph ase I criteria for ASR/ATCRBS/ARTS establishment. If radar cove ra ge will be provided at or below in itial approach altitude at secondary or satellite airports, an area ratio value is computed by summing the airport · ratio values of the airports making up the radar serv i ce area .

The Office of the Associate Administr ator for Air Traffic will determ i ne eligible locations under the area concept on a c~se-by-case basis. ASR coveraqe encompassing two or more ai~orts may dictate changes in the oper a tional responsibi l ~ties within the radar serv i ce area . PrUdent management of resources may r equire that radar service ultimately be provided fro m that location; regardless of its current faci l ity status, which can be st rve the area. · · se ( l ) Phase I establishment criteria and nomenclature are outlined low. be Ratio Value Contributing Benefit Delay Reduction: ACPRIM 3,400- ( . 0013 X PRIM) • A 'l' PRIM

-

26,000- (.0096 x PRIM) = GAPRIM 53 , 300- (.0196 x PRIM) = 8,600 - ( . 0032 x PRIM) Safety : ACITN 107 ,4 00 lO(lO( = ATITN 539,600 = GAITN + GALCL 847,200 Chap 2 Pa<Je 27 Par 26 7031. 2C 11/15/84 = MLITN + MI.LCL x.xxx 376,200 If 1 or greater, location Sum of Ratio Values satisfies Phase I criteria If the denominator for any user class Tesults in a value equal to or less than ~ero, disregard all denominators and use all of the following instead . For the air carrier user class: 9 ,3 00 - ( . 0034 x PRIM); for the air taxi user class: 71,200 - ( . 0262 x PRIM); for the general aviation user class: 146,000- ( . 0538 x PRIM); and for th~ military user class: 23,400- ( . 0066 x PRIM) .

(a) ACPRIM, Al'PRIM, GAPRIM, and MLPRDI, for a primary ~~oirpor t, are the numbers of annual primary instrument operations of the air carrier (FAR 121, 127, and 129), air taxi (F~ 135), general aviation (PAR 91), and military (FAR 91) user classes, respe~tively . For a qualified secondary airport , these terms are the numbers of annual primary instrument operations of the secondary airport by user c1ass, or the respective numbers of secondary instrument operations by user class of the primary airport associated with or allocable to the secondary airport, wh icheve r are greater.

(b) PRIM, for a primary airport, is t he number of total annual primar} instrument operations (i . e ., the sum of ACPRIH, ATPRIH, CAPRIN, and MLPRIM • PRIM, for a qualif ie d secondary airport, is tne n~ber of total annual primary instrument operations of tne secondary airport, ~ the number · of total annual secondary instrument operations of the primary airport associated with or allo cable to the secondary airport, whichever is greater.

(c) ACITN, ATITN, CAITN, and MLITN are the numbers· of annual itinerant operations of th e air car r ier, ai r taxi, general aviation, and military user classes, respectively.

(d) GALCL and MLLCL are the numbers of annual local operations of the general aviation and military user classes, respectively .

(2) Phase I1 is a site-speci fic computerized benefit/cost screening process under which candidates identi fied under Phase 1 are · further evaluated . If an airport benefit/cost ratio or an area benefit/cost ratio of 1. 0 or greater is computed, the location sa tisfies the Phase II criteria for ASR/ATCR.BS/ARTS establishment. The ASR subroutine, integra ted into the Te rminal Area Forecast Data System, requires the following manual input data: (a) System acquisi tion and installation costs (F&A Form 2500- 40, F&E Cos t Estimate Sumary) .

Chap 2 Page 28 Par 26 11/15/84 70Jl.2c (b) Percent of time that lFR weather pr evails at the propoeed location, if available . For the purpose at hand, U'R weather is defined as weather in wiU.ch visibility is less than 3 miles and/or th" ceilinq below 1,500 feet.

(c) Fract ion of the air car rier user class represented b¥ each of the following aircraft type categories: TUrbofan , 4-en gine , wide body Turbo jet , 4-en gine Turbofan, 4-ongine, regular body TUrbofan, 3-engine, wide body Turbofan, 3-eng;j.ne , reqular body TUrbofan , 2-enginc, wide body Turbofan, 2-engine, regular body Turboprop P iston If this data is not avai lable from loc al sources , the Official Airline Guide, or the Terminal Area Forecast Data System, national ave ra ges will b& uaod as dofault values in the Phase II screening process.

(d) Fract ion of secondary instrwn ont operations of each user .; clas s (air carrier, air taxi, general av ia tion , and military) of th~ pr~mary .. .

airport allocable to each secondary or sa tel lite airport.

'

NOTE: This data is required only for those sec ondary or sa te llite airports that are provided •qualified" radar coverage b¥ t;he proposed candid ate airpo rt at or below init ial appro ach ~titude.

b . Oiscontinu<UlCe. Lil<e ASR establishment cri te ria, ASR discont . inuancet: crite ri a are t wo-p hased . To determine whethe r an ASR facili ty mootG'".t!l>e ,..

Phase I discontinuanco critCiria, a ratio value is c al culated bf the same sum -of-ra tios approach descri . bed above tor Phase I esta}jlishlllent criteria. If the rati o value so obtained is less than 0.35, the location satisfies Phas e I discontinuance criteria . ThCI 0.35 fiqurc is an appro~i . motion of the leve l where the benefits just offset recurring annual operations and maintenance costs , after allowing for salvage value, relocation costs, etc. Ini tial aoquisit!on and instal lati on co sts arCI ir rel evant when an ASR sy stem is being considered for discontinuance since they are sunk costs. LOcations satisfying Phase I discont inu ance criteria will be further screened under the Phase II be nefit/cost screen ing process. If tho benefit/cost ratio so obtained is less tha n 0.35, the ASR ins tallat ion may be considered for discon tinu ance , Chap 2 Page 29 Por 26 '·

1 2 / 19 /24 7031.2C CHG 13 c. Improvements. Existing FAA approach control facilities equipped wi th ASR systems frequently require i m provements (e.g., ARTS implementation, relocation of facilities to correct siting problems, component replacement, etc.). Such improvements are normally made when the operational benefits expected to be realized exceed the costs involved. Based on current practice: (1) An FAA radar approach control facility recording 25,000 or more annual instrument operations qualifies for those improvements that satisfy an operational requirement and/or facilitate the provision of terminal area radar service. A benefit/cost study may be required for "major" improvements to terminal radar facilities in this category.

(2) An FAA radar approach control facility recording between 15,000 and 25,000 annual instrument operations may be a candidate for improvements. It qualifies for those improvements that satisfy an operational requirement and/or facilitate the provision of terminal area radar service. A benefit/cost study may be required for "major" improvements to terminal radar facilities in this category.

(3) An FAA radar approach control facility recording less than 15,000 annual instrument operations is not a candidate for improvements. Any improvement to terminal radar facilities in this category will be limited to the correction of a critical situation and shall be justified by an individual staff study.

NOTE: Improvements to FAA - staffed RAPCON's/RATCF's may be considered on an individual basis but the above criteria shall remain a major determinant in considering FAA civil facilities for improvement.

d. Remoted Radar Bright Display Scope. An FAA VFR control tower at an airport, which is a satellite of the primary airport of a radar approach control facility, is a candidate for a remoted radar display scope in the tower cab when: (1) At least 15,000 annual itinerant operations are recorded; and (2) Operationally adequate low altitude coverage is assured at the satellite airport.

11/ 1 5/ 84 7031. 2C e . Termin a l Radar Approa c h Control in Tower Cab (TRACAB) and Terminal Radar App ro ach Cont ro l (T RACON).

(1 ) Establishment . An in it ia l ASR/ATCRBS/ARTS installation shall be a TRACAB facility co nsis ti ng o f approp ri ate dis plays placed i n th e tower cab eKcept when any of th e fol l ow~ng si tuations prevai l: (a) If t he of f icial age nc y fo r ecas ts indicate an ASR/A TCRB S/ARTS candidate locati on w ill eKceed 125, 000 annual i t inera nt opera t i ons or 60,000 annual i ns trument op erations within 2 years of t he yea r of bud g et s ub missi on for the facili t y, th e initial instal la tion shou ld be planned a~ a TRACO N rat he r than a TRACAB, s u bje ct t o an operational de~e~nation by t he A ssociate Administra to r for ~r T ra ffic Se rv ices .

I nst rument operations at secondary airports may be included in this forecast p rov ided radar coverage at th ese locati o ns is expected to exist at or be low i n itia l approach a l t itude.

(b ) I f an ASR/A TCRBS /AR TS cand i date location cannot ph y sicall y acc ommod at e r a dar approach control in the to>~er ca b, then in d i vi dua l.

j u stification shall be re q uired t o go d irectly to a TRACON facil it y.

(c) When t he comp lexi t y of t he fa c il ity o pe ra tio n wa rrants , individ ual j ustification and consideration sha ll be given t o locatin g the ~SR/ATCRBS/ARTS in a TRACON r ather than a TRACAB .

( 2) D isco n ti nua n ce . ~ TRA CAB wil l be discon tinu ed when the ASR system is decomrnd ssioned or when the ra d ar appro ach contro l f unctio n is transferred t o a TRACON.

( 3 ) Conversion to TRAC ON . ~ T RACAB locat ion is a TRACO N candidate wh en the fac ili ty has at least 125 , 000 annua l itinerant operations or 60 , 000 an n ual ins t rume nt ope ra tion s. In strument operations a t s e con dary a irp o rt s that receive ra da r s erv ice at or below initi a l ap p roach alt i tude may be inc l u ded in t h is count. Al so, when the compl exit y of the faci l ity warrants, individ ua l j ustif i cation an d consi de r a tion sh ould be given to relocat i ng from a T RACAB to a T RACON.

27. PRECISION APPRO~CH RADAR (PAR). Reevaluation of the usefulness an d uti l iz a tion of exist ing PAR facilities in d icates that the b enefits being de r i ved by civi l avi a tion at some air p orts are not commensurate w it h th e cost of p~ovi ding the s er vice. No stated requ ir e~nt exis t s for P~ serv i ce in f ut ure r e duc ed minima l inst rum ent lan ding systems. T herefo r e, PAR f a cil ities l-t ill be retaine d or est ab li shed only a t t h ose a i rp orts where p e culiar ci r cumstances or a mi1it ary req uixe ment j us ti fies the need for PAR ser v ices. This determina t i o n w ill be based on ind ivi d ual evalu a tion of requir emen ts peculiar to a s pe cific location. Suc h an evaluation wi ll cons id er airpor t complexity, military requirements , and the need for a back up or s uppl ement to t he primary in strument approach systems.

Page 31 Chap 2 Par 26 7031 . 2C CHG 12 8/17/99 • 28. NON-FEDERALLY Ol'iNED AIRPORT SURVEIL l.J\NCE RADJ>.H {ASR) .

a . The Fl'.J>. wi l l co nsider m aking capital and staff ing i nv estments at Fl'.l'. a ir traffic control fac ili ti es to f a cilitate a non - Federal radar installa tion if t he follo wi ng criteri a in p arag raphs 26a(l) through 26a(3) are sat isfied : (1) The non - F ederal ASR meets recognized aviation sta n da rds and complies with current FAJ>. design a nd performance specificati ons.

(2 ) The benefits to airspace users equal or ex ceed FAA investmenc costs, quantified in accordance with the logic and proc ed ure s outlined in Report Number FAA-APo-83 - 5, Investment Criteria for Airport Surveillance Radar.

(3 ) The release and use of radar daca to outside interests comply with the policy/procedures contained in Order 1200.228, Use of Na tional Airspace System (NAS I Computer and Rad ar Dat a or Equipment by Outside Intere sts.

b . Satisfact ion of these candidacy criteria do es no t e ntail automatic qualification or co mmitment of Federal funding . Benef it/co st analysis and screening is but one of several considerati ons in the FAA dec is ionmaking pxoceco relative to inv estment in ASR faci l ities . I nv e~tment decisions wi ll be rnade on t he basis of al l pertinent co ns i de rations (e . g ., current policy o n consol idation of air traffic services and/or facilities, availability of fun ds, and extent to which beneficiaries are dominated by specific commercial interests) . T 29. RESERVED .

Chap Page 32 (thru 3 4) Par 26 11/15/84 7031 . 2C CHAPTER 3 • AERONAUriCAL LlGHTING AND AIRPORT I'.ARJCING AIDS 3 0. RUNWAY END IDENT:LFICA'I'IOO LIGHTS ( REIL) • a . £stablishment . A runway is a candidate for REIL if: (1) It is not currently equipped with or p rogrammed for an ap p roa ch light system.

(2) I t is lighted and ap prov ed for ni gh t o perat i ons.

(3) The Ragional Plight Standards Division !lanager detexm.ines tha t it hac a runway end identification problem which will be corrected or imp roved by REIL , as described in Order 8260.18A, Establishing Requirements for Visual Approach Aids, or as deteDO.ined by the Director of Flight Opera tion s .

(4) Either paragraph 30a( 4 ) (a) or 30a( 4)(b) ic saeiaf'ied.

(a) RUnw a ys sh a ll be REIL cand i dates if the runway ratio value, as defined below, equals or exceeds 1.0.

Ratio Va lue

1 TYP" of 9peration

Annual Ai.r car r ier Landings at Airport -= x.xx + Annual Ai.r Taxi (Includ i ng C""""uter) Landings at Airport

··= x . xx

+ Annual General Aviation + Military = x. xx Land in gs at Airport Airport Ratio value = x.:xx RUnway Ratio Val ue • Aizport Ratio Value x Runway Utilization (REIL' eAJldidate if runway ratio value equals or exceeds 1.0.)

Chap 3 Page 35 Par 30 11 / 1 5/84 7031 . 2C 2 I f actual runway utilization is not available, the runway utilization may be-taken from the following table. In the row corresponding to the number of active lighted runways at the a i rport, the busiest runway is assigned the first percentage of total landings , the next busiest runway is a ssi gned the second percentage, and so on. After all airport runways have been ra nked accord i ng to activity, the percentage obtained from the table for the REIL candidate ru n way can be used as the runway ut i lizat i on factor.

Ru n way Util i zation (for use if actual data i s not available) Percentage of T otal Landings Number of lif?ted Busiest Least Busiest Runways=.

Runway Runway 2 70 30

4 so 25 15 10

6 30 1 5 15 10 10 30 20 15 10 8 10 5 5 5 15 10 10 10 10 25 10 5 5 5 5 10 , 12 20 15 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 11 Number of runways refers to the ends of all active hard - surface runways .

(b) Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 8b, runways not meeting the above conditions in paragraph 30a(4)(a) shall be eligible for REIL >:> h en exceptional safety requir ements dictate. This determination shall be made by the Director of Flight Operations upon wr i tte n reco mm end atio n and justification by the ,r egional di re ctor.

b. Di scontinuance. A runway shall be a candidate for decommissioning if the runway ratio value falls below . 5. This provision sha~l not apply to REIL sys t ems established in response to exceptiona l safety requiremenfs. Such systems s hal l become candidates for decomm i ss i oni ng when ~he ruaway ratio va l ue is less than . 5 and exceptiona l safety requirements no longer indicate the need for REI L.

c. Benefit/Cost Analysis. Candidates identified by the above procedure f or either establishment or discontinuance will be evaluated in F AA Headquarters using the benefit/cost tec hnique described in Report No.

FAA-ASP-79-4, Establishment Criteria . for Runway End Identification Lights (REIL). This provision does not appl y to runways that qualify u nder paragraph 30a(4)(b). FAA regional offices sha l l submit data required for evaluation p urposes with their responses to the · annual Call for Estimates or with reprogramming request~ for REIL esta b lishment. Required data consist of: annual operations fo~ ai r carrier, air taxi, general av iation, and Chap 3 Pa.r 30 Page 36 7031. 2C 11/15/84 Dilitary users; certification that the proposed runway is not equipped with or programmed for an approach light system; the runway utilization (estimate by table of paragraph 30a(4)(a)2 if data not available); fraction of time that IFR weather--visibility less-than 3 miles and the ceiling below 1,500 feet - -prevails, 1f available; fraction of ope ra tions occurring at night by user type, if available; and certification by regional Flight Standards Division Manager t hat a P~IL correctable runway end identification preble~, as described in Order 8260.18A, Establishing Requirements for Visual Approach Aids , exists for the runway. · 31. VISUAl. APPROACH SLOPE tNDIC.UOR (VAS!) VFR ONLY. No reduction of IFR (instrument flight rules) visibility minimums is authorized for VASI · installations. Because of tt~ possibili t y for confusion and conflict between an electronic glide slope and a VAS! glide elope, no runvay which bas or is programmed for an elect ro nic glide slope is eligib l e for any Walker Three-Bar V ASI system. The Two-Bar VASI may be established on runways with electronic glide slope as provided herein.

NOTE: Criteria in th is paragraph do not apply to VASls included as part of the Nonp reci sion Instrument Approach Procedures.

a. Est ablishment.

(1) Two-Bar VASI.

(a) Four-Box VAS!. When operationally justified any runway is a candidate for a Four-Box VASI provided that the runway has a net ratio value greater than 1.0, as computed by use of th e methodology outlined in paragraph 3lc.

(b) Twelve-Box VASI. Any runway at an international al.rport where there is a stated plannine requirement listed in ICAO (In tern ational Civil Aviation Organization) documents 8733, Ait: Navigation Plan for the Caribbean and South American Regions and 8755, Air Navigation P!an fo r the Cat:ibhean and South American Regions is a candidate for a ~lve-Box VASl provided that the runway is eligible fo r, or has installed , a Pour-Box VASI.

(2) Walker Three-Bar VASI.

(a) Walker Six-Box VASI. Any runway 11ay be a candidate for a llallter Six-Box VASI provided that the runway: 1 ls eligible for, or bas installed, a Four-Box VAS!, 2 Does not have an clec tronic gHde slope installed or programned, and Chap 3 Page )7 Par 30 11/iS/84 703 1. 2C 3 Is ~egu la~ly used by B-747, C5A, o~ simila~ aircraft unable to use a standard Four -Bo x VASI because of their greater wheel-to-cockpit height.

(b) Walker Sixteen-Box VASI. Any runway at an international airport where there is a stated planning requirement listed in ICAO docum ents 8733 and 8755, may be a candidate for a Walker Sixteen-Box VASI provided that the runway: 1 Is eligi ble for, or has installed, a Twelve-Box VASI, 2 Does not have an electronic glide slope instailed or programmed, and 3 Is regularly used by B-747, C5A, or similar aircraft unable to use a standard, Twelve-Box VASI because of their greater w h eel-to-cockpit he igh t.

b. Discontinuance.

(1) Two-Bar . VASI (a) Four-Box VASI. A Four-Box VASI is a candidate for decommissioning when it · has a net ratio value less than 0.5, as computed by use of the methodology outlined in paragraph 31c. The decommissi oning shall be justified by a benefit/cost study.

(b) Twelve-Box VASI. A Twelve-Box VASI is a candidate for reductio n to a Four-Box VAS! when the stated ICAO requirement is withdrawn.

(2) Walker Three-Bar VAS!.

(a) Walker Six-Box VAS! . A Walker Six-Box VAS! is a candidat~ for reduction to a Four-Box VASI ~hen ~perations using B-747, C?A, or similar aircraft are discontinued on that runway and not forecast · to be resumed, or when an electronic glide slope is installed on that runway.

(b) Walker Sixteen-Box VASI. A Walker· S ixt een-Box, Three-Bar VAS! is a candidate for reduction to a Twelve-Box, Two-Bar VAS! when op erations with the B-747, DC-10, L-1011, stretch DC-8, and C5A are discontinued on that runway a nd .not fo rec as t to be resumed, or when an electronic glide slope is installed on that runway.

NOTE : Criteria for Twelve-Box, Two-Bar VASI and the Halker Sixteen-Box, Three-Bar VASI are .incorporated in Airway Planning Standard Number One to meet ICAO commitments.

Chap 3 Page 38 Par 31 ll/ 15/84 7031.2C c . Net Rat io Value Criteria . A runway having any combination of air carrier, air taxi and gen er,a l. aviation activity is a candi&te for a VASI it it satisfies the net ratio value crite ri a described below: ( 1) A ratio value for each user class is computed for the airport as a whole, and the three ratios are added to obtain a total ratio value . This total ratio value is then ~ultiplied by the runway ut iliza tion (percentage of all operations accounted for by the particu lar runway) to obtain a net ratio value . If the net ratio value is equal to or greater than 1, then the location is a candidate.

user Cl.ass Ratio Value Air Ca rr ier : Recorded (AC) Landings - x.xx Qua.lifying (AC) Landings Air Taxi1 Recorded (AT) Lan dings - x .xx Qualifyinq (A'l) Landinqs General Aviation: · Rec ord ed (GA + Mill Landings s x.xx Qualifyinq (GA + Mil) Landings Total rat io value x runway utilization ~ Net Ratio V alue. Sec pa rag raph 3lc(2), c(3)and c(4) for determination method.

(2) The number of recorded landings refers to the airport's tota l n~er of landings by user clas s. · If this traffic info~ation is not actually recorded, the JOOSt accurate ava ilable estimate should be used . 'rhe followi.ng sources arc exnmples (source must be cited with data): FAA traffic survey, Te~nal Area Forecast, regional estimate, or reasonable FAA Form 5010- l entries .

..

(3) To d eterm ine the n~er of qualifying land1pgs seiect from the following table th e non- II.S (J:nstrUIRent Landing System) or U.S runway activity that is app ro priate to deten>i.ne eligibilicy for a Four-Box VASI syscem .

R!JNWliY ACTIV ITY ~ Qu al ifyi.ng Landings Oncr Class Non - u .s ~ 6,000

Air carrier (AC) y

8 ,50 0 28,000 Air Taxi (AT) 18,500 Genera l Aviation 14 , oo .o (GA) & Military (~IL) 11 On an ILS equipped runway, the air carrier ratio value is zero. Air carrie rs · are ILS equipped and the VASI serves only as a vi . sual backup for the pilot during final approach.

Chap 3 P<>r 3 1 Page 39 11/ 15( 84 7031. 2C (4} If actual run~ay utilization is not recorded, and no better estimate is available, thE> runvay util ization percentage should be take n from the folloviog t able. In the rov cor respondill8 to the number of active runvays at the ai rports, the busiest runvay is assumed to have th e first percentage of all landings, the next busiest runvay is assumed to have the second perc entage, and so on .

Run~ay Utilization (for use if actual data is'not available) Percentage of Total Landings Number of . l7ghted Busiest Least Busiest Runways=: Runvay Runvay 2 70 30 4 50 25 15 10 6 30 20 15 15 10 10 8 30 20 15 10 10 5 5 5 . 10 10 10 10 10 25 15 5 5 5 5 12 20 15 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1/ Number of runways refers to the ends of all active hard-surface runvays.

d. Benefit(Cost Analysis. VASI candidates identified under paragraphs 3la or 3lb above vill be validated using the benefit versus cost technique described in re port number FAA-ASP-76-2 , Establishment Criteria for Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI), · Office . s, services, and regions vill subaoit the folloving data for every VASI candidate with their response to the Annual Cal l for Estimates: (1} Recorded number of operations by user · class (AC, AT, GA, MIL}.

(2) Number of . wnvays at the airport.

(3) Whetper an ILS is install ed or prog rammed for the candidate runway.

(4) Number and type of VASl'a already installed or prog ramm ed for other runways at the same airport.

(5) Ruaway utilization if available.

e. Speci al Operational Considerations. Offices , services, and regions can nominate special locations for the. installation of ~ VASI in order to

satisfy a spec i al safety requirement. Each special location must be justified

by a specific staff study at the time of nomination . The staff s tud y fo rmat should be in accordance vith Order 1800.7A, Staff Studies.

Chap 3 Par 31 Page 40 11/15/84 7031. 2C 32. RETROFIT OP RUMlAY APPROACl! L IGHTING SYSTEMS .

a. Background. FAA's Approach Lighting Syatcm Improvement (AlS1) Program modifies ru nway lighting systema huil t before 1975 to meet current

ins tal lation s tand ard s . A major fe a ture of thi s program is the' retrofitting

of rigid light support st ructures with l ow-impact resistant (LIR) s up ports .

The benefit/cost (B/C) formulae lis ted belo w will de ten.ine LIR installation priorities . Rigid lighting systems will be retrofitted acco rding to B/C value for ea ch of three su bprograms of paragraphs 32b (l ) , (2), and (3).

Implementation wi ll conti nue within approved fundi ng l evels fo r each subprogram in accorda n ce with the application of the se c r iter ia.

b. Benefit/Cos t Criteria.

(1) Retrofit ALSF-2 to LIR ALSF-2/SSALR. Conversion of rig id high-inte . nsity approach lighting sy s tems vith seq uenced flashers, .

Category I~/111 configuration (ALSF-2) to LIR.ALSF-2, s witc ha ble to th e simpl ified short approach l i ghting sys tem with runway align=ent indica t or lights ( SSALR), for use when visibility condi t ions pe~t: Annual Fraction airport air carrier air carrier usage on l/ .:o.!:p .::e..:r ;:a..:t::.io::.n::;s;;.,.,,.;x:., ,.:c:.;: a:.::nd::::,:id ~ ~ru~n::_; w:,;a:~.Y ;;;., ~x--:- l:-4.;.• :..:5:..:9;....; a R4t1o Value 'i'a;: t e +-=5 c=2'-" ,.;.7..:0..:0 B/C Was hing ton + Regional F&E Coat {2) Retrofit ALSF-1 to LlR MALSR . Conversion of high -i ntensity approach lighting systems with sequenced flashers, Ca teg ory I configura t ion {ALSF-1), not de si gnat ed for ALSF-2 retr ofi t, to LIR medium-intensity approach lighting systems with runway a lignmen t indicator l ig hts (MALSR).

Annual Frac tio n • airport air carrier ai r ca r rie r usage on operatfpns X candida te tunwax X 14 . 59 + 132,9 0 0 ~ B/C Ratio Value Washington + Regional F&E Cost (3) l!.etrofit MALSR to LlR HALSR. Ret rofi t of rigid HALSR to LIR MALS R vith no othe r impr o vemen ts: Annual Fraction airport air ca rr ier air ca rrie r usage on operations x candida te runQay!! x 1 4. 59 • B/C Ratio Value Washing ton + Regional F&E Cos t l/ Air carrier usage shou ld inc lude act iv i ty at both app r oach and departure ends fo r runways having rigid lighting sy s tens at op posi te ends .

Chap 3 Page 41 Par 32 11/15/84 7031.2C c. Nonstandard Approach Lighting System Conversions. Requests for LIR conversion of approach lighting systems not included as part of the ALSI program trl.U be considered on a case-by-case basis. '11herever possible, the procedure described in Report PAA-ASP-78-5, Installation Criteria for the Approach Lighting System Improvement Program, shall be used to rank nonstandard conve rsions ~th lighting system retrofits approved under ~he program.

d. Exceptions to Benefit/Cost Criteria . Priority consideration shall be given for LIR conversion of rigid 4ppro4ch lig htins sys te cs which fail to comply with obstruction clearance criteria contained in Order 6850. 2, Vi~ual Guidance Lighting Systems, and vhere such obstructions can be eliminated at the time of retrofit . LIR retrofi t shall n~~ conwence at other location s naving in terveni ng structures or topography which may othervise negate safety benefits pr ovided by frangib le l ight ing systems. In such instances, renedin l action oust be initiated before retrofit approval. · e. Regional Data Submission. P~giooal offices shall rank ALSI e~ndidates according t o benefit/cost ratio value in response to the annual Call for Esticates or with repro gramming requests using the formulae in paragraph 32b.

Regions shall consult the Call for Estimates for the typical Washington office or acrvice F&E costs for insertion in B/C formulae when specific Washington office-furnished equipment costs are not available . Regions shall also indicate if there are exceptions to benefit/c ost ranking cr-iteria under the provisions of paragraph 32d.

33 . -39. RESERVED.

Chap 3 Page 42 (thru 46) Par 32 2/5/91 7031.2C CHG 6 CHAPTER 4. AIR TRAr'FIC CONTROL 40. FAA AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER.

* a. Establishllent. Establishment criteria have been promulgated through

a~oistrative regulation. The fiaal rule, published in tbe Federal Register on January 3, 199 1, is reproduced in Appendix 4, Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for AiTport Traffic Control rover Facilities-Final Rule. The benefit/cost analy sis underlying the fin al rule is presented in Report FAA-AP0-90-7, "Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria Por Airport Traffic Control Towers." The regions shall submit site - specific data required to apply the criteria and validate candidacy with their r esponse to the annual Call For Estimates.

b. Discontinuance. Discontinuance criteria have been promulgat ed through administrative regulati on. The final rule , published in the Federal Register on January 3, 1991, is reproduced in appendix 4. The benefit/cost analysis underlying the final rule is presented in Report FAA-AFo-9o-7, "Es tablishme nt and Discontinuance Criteria For Airport Traffic Control Towers." Tbe regions shall submit site-specific data required to apply the criteria and va l idate candida~y

vith their response to the annual Call For Estimates. *

41. APPROACH CONTROL SERVICE .

a. Establishment. Approach control service may be implemented by an FAA control to~er at an airport having a radio navigational aid that is suitable for bolding purposes or an approved approach procedure, or if the airport has an ILS installed or programmed, provided that the service can be implemented vitbin the existing resour c es of the facility. This servi~e may be extended to an adjacent airport with in 30 n.m. using direct or indirect communication• if air/ground coverage exists at the fina l approac h altitude over th e navigational aid serving the adjacent airport. Communications equipment (VHF and/ or UHF, as required) necessary to provide a discrete approach cont r ol channe l ond associated landlinec may be re quested wh en : (l) At FAA Tower Airport . 5,000 or mo r e annual iustru=en t op er ationc are recorded or the airport has an ILS installed or progr ammed.

(2) At Adjacent Non-Tower Airports. 1,500 or more annual instrument operations or 1,825 or more scheduled annual passenger originations (as recorded in Airport A ctivity Statistics, CAB/FAA, or other counts acceptable to the FAA) are recorded and the airport is w ithin 30 n.m . of the approach control facility.

Chap 4 Page 47 Par 40 7031. 2C 11/15/84 b. Disc ontinuance. Approach control service tha t was made available wi thin existing resources may continue to be provided regardless of activity if it facilitates operational safety or efficient ut iliz ation of airspace. Additional facilities required for the provi si on of approach control aervi~ e under paragraphs 41a(l) or 4la(2) are candidates for decommissioning w hen: (1) At FAA Tower Airports. 3,500 or less annual instruoe . nt o peration s and 1,095 or less scheduled a nnual passenger originations are record ed .

(2) At Adjacent Non-Tow er Airports. 1,0 00 or less annual instrument operations and 1,095 or less scheduled annual passenger originations are record ed .

42. COMBINED STATION/TOWER (CS/T).

a. Establishment. CS/T ' s are established at FAA tower locatio ns where there is a requirement for 24 hour staffed , air/ground en route communications services that are normally associated wi th FSS fun c tions. the number of existing and programmed CS/T facilities adequately satisfies that requiremen t.

b. Separation of CS/T's. the stat ion functions of a CS/t will be separated fro~ t he FAA air traffic control tower: (1) in conjunction wit h the estab li shment of radar approach cont rol which will be provided from the cover cab; or (2) when th e air/ground en rou te communications services can be provided remot ely by an adjacent FSS and separation of the facility will result in a positive cost/ be nefit; or { 3) when increased activity, personnel, and equipment at th e CS / T have overcrowded the tower cab to the point where the required operating positions cann ot be accommodated in the space available; or {4) when the air/ground en r oute communications service that are normal ly asso ciated with FSS functions are no longer required for adequate communication s coverage.

Chap 4 Par 41 Page 48 ( thru 50) 6/1/9~ 7031. 2C OiG 10 4 3 . TERMINAL EN RQQTE CONT ROL SI!RVICB.

a. Eptablishment. T ower en rou te co ntrol serv ic e may be escablished bet we-en two adjacent: approach cont.rol faci liti es whose con tro l areas share a common boun dary and w hen t he op erat ional be . nefit will out we igh any pos sible oper atio nal penalties r esulti ng from the alloc ation of alti tude s for the service, provided: (l) T he servi ce can be estab lis hed w ithi n the reso ur ces currently alloc a ted to the facility, and: (a ) Ther e ar e f ive or more IFR peak day fl ights ex c hanged.

{b) Air/g roun d communication coverage ex ists alon g the entire routelsl at the altitude(s) involve d by ei ther direct means from the to w er en route co ntrol fac ilities or by relay through an FSS or company rad i o.

(c) Lan dl ines e xist be t ween tho to wer en rou te c ontrol facilities .

{d) Su ffic iently trained personnel are ava~lab l e to assume the tower en r oute cont rol func tion .

(2) Addit iona l communications and/or landlines required to provide to w er en route control servic e may be requeste d when the vol ume of n·R peak day traffic exchanged between the app roach control fa cilit ies exceeds 25 flights .

b. Discontinuance. Towor en route sarv ice provid ed wi thin exis ting reso urc es as outlined in paragraph 4la( 1 ) may be continued as lo ng as an oper ationAl benefit results. llhen the volume of IFR peal< day t:raffic e xchan ged bet ween th e approach control faciliti es is less than 10 flights, the addit ion al comnunication s equipment and/or lan din gs prov ided unde r paragraph 43a!2l are can dida tes for decommissioning.

44 . AIRPO RT SURFJ\CE DBTECT:ION BOOIPMBN'f (ASDEl .

• a. iBtahlishtpcpt:. An PAA towered airpo rt qualif ies as an estab lishm en t candidate for J\SDB: · (1) i f tho present value of inc;emental life-cycle bene fi ts OJ< ceeds the presen t val ue of in=emenca,l life- cycle costs, using the ben efi t - cost m e thodology outlined in Report N~r FAA· AP0-93 · 12, • Est ablishment Criteria for Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDB) III'; or .

(2) for those loc atio ns w hich do not qual ify under pa ragraph 44a (1), the loca tio~ may still qualify for an ASDB if the Administrator de termin es that an aeronautical requirement exis ts due to opera t ional or safety factoro, such as runway confi gura tion, military ope~ at iono , historical reco rd of h1gh ' incidence of runw ay incursi ons , frequ ent and predictab l e occuren ce of severe clima tolog ical phenomena such as heavy snow, ice, fog, or other · local conditions that can adve rse ly a!tect aircr aft operations or the safety of t he flyin g publ ic .

*

Chap 4 Pa ge 51 PM 43 6/1/94 7031. 2C CRG 10 Discontinuance. .An ASDB will be subject to discontinuance: b.

*

(~) ~f the present value of the continued cost of operation and maint enan ce less the cost of termination of the ASDE exceeds the present value of its remaining life-cycle benefits; or (2) if a previously ident ified aeronautical requiremen t is judged to no longer exist.

4 5 . J\!J1'()MATYC Tl!RMIN!\L INFO!!MATIOil SERVICE !ATIS) .

a. Es tabl isbment . An FAA tower airp ort is a candidate for ATIS if it is a Level II or higher level fac ility , or records 50,000 or more annu al itinerant operations.

N OTE: The Office of Associate Administrator for Air Traffic maintains a current list of fac ility levels tor each tover which is dotermined by a traff ic density measure defined in the air tra£fic control aeries positions c lassification standard.

b. Continued Service. ATIS service may continue to be provided at an air traffic control tower regardless of activity if such service facilitates oper ational sa f ety or efficiency. ATIS will be automatically discontinued if associated air traffic control serv i ces are discont inued.

~6. Alll'OMATED WEl\'Il!RR OBSERVING SYSTEM IAWOSl AND AUI'O~TiD SQRPAC!! Ol!SERVING SYSTJ!M ! ASOS l .

a. FAA Towered Ai rports. ~l FAA towered airports where the surface w eathor obaervation function is the resp onsib i lity of the FAA qual i fy for AWOS/ASOS establishment, except those locat ions iden ti fied as tower discon tinuan ce candidates under the provisions of paragraph 4 0. Priority of AWOS /ASOS estab lishmen t will be given to part-time facilities, followed by full ·t:ime facilities, in recognition of the relative ly greater benefits of AWOS/ASOS when facili ti es are closed. Criter ia for the establishment and discontinuance of AWOS/ASOS at non-Federal towered airporto and lo cat ions i dentified as towe r disco n tinuanco can di dates are outlined in paragraph 46c.

ASOS will be the ayatem employed at the great majority of FAA towers where FAA has th e responsibility for the surface aviation observation.

b. Plight Service Stat;ions. Where an automated flight service station i s obligated to take weather observations, that: location qualifies for AWOS estab lishment. Other locations with flight service stat ions qualify if they satis fy either the provis ion s of! paragraphs 46a or 46c. ASOS may alao be employed at fligh t service stations.

c. Non-TowGrod gnd Non-Pgderal Towered Airports. Establishment: and discontinuance criteria . for AWOS / ASOS at non-cowered and non-Federal towered airports are cwo·phased. Phase I criteria are simple, generalized criteria designed co i dentity potential candidates initially . Under Phase I a rat io value is computed by summing the benefits provided to each user cl ass and divid ing the sum by the life-cycle cost. If t:he ratio value obtaine d Page 52 ll/15/84 703 1. 2C i s equal to or g rea eer than the thresho ld s specifi e d below, t he a irport become s a candidate for Pha se I I screen i ng . Phase II i s a site - spec ific co mputerized l ife - cyc le benefit/cost eva lua t io n of can di dat es identified in Phase I us in g the tec hn i qu es de s cribed in Report Numbe r FAA -AP0-83 -6, Estab li shment and Discontin uance Cr it eria for Au tomate d W eather Obse rv ing Sy stem {AWOS) .

Chap4 Par 46 Page 52-1 (and 52-2) 11/15/84 7031. 2C (1) Phase I Establishment Criteria .

(a) Non-Towered and Non-Federal Towered A1 orte With Exist!

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures S ) Or With Prospective SlAP With AWOS Air Carrier and Air Taxi (Lesser of (ACITN+ATITN) or (3,000)) x $25. 38 • ~xxxx Per Itinerant Per Local General Aviation and Milita~ Operation Operation lUnd Sensor ~ 3.80 ~ 2.28 Temperature/Dew Point Sen~ors • 04

.02

2:16 AJ.tillleter Sensor Ceiling and Visibility Sensors 15.43 Precipitation Sans or(s) • 06 • 04 • 01 Thunderstorm Sensor • 01 (GAITN+MILlT N)xS TOTAL • xxxx ( CALCLffiiLLCL) X STOTA L Total x AR Pha se I Value (If 1.0 or greater, location satisfies Phase I Establishment Criteria) LCC where the terms are as defined below:

1 ACITN , ATITN, GAITN, and MILITN arc the respective

numbers of annual air carrier (AC), air tax i (A T) , general aviation (GA), and military (!ilL) itinerant operations; and GALCL and MlLLCL a re the respective numbers of annual general aviation (GA) and military (MIL) loc~ ope ra tions.

Operations counts may be obtained from tbe "Terminal Area Forecasts" (published annually by FAA -APO), the Airport Master Record ( F AA Form 5010-1), the Airport Master File (maintained by F~ ' s National Flight D3tn Center), the airport manager, or any other generally accepted source. Values for these activity variables in the Phase II criteria described below-will be derived from the Terminal Area Forecast Data: Systetll..

2 LCC is the applicable life-cycle cost from Table 46a.

3 AR ia 3n adjusting proximity penalty or remoteness premium reciprocal. For ca ndi date airports located in non -pre cipitous terrain and less than 10 nautical miles from a full -t ime, non-automated PAA/NWS/INS contract surface Yeatber observat i on sta ti on with homogeneous w eathe r, ·a Chap 4 Page 53 Par 46 11/15/8 4 7031,2C proxiuity penalty reciprocal of .SO applies. For candidate airports that are located 90 or more nautical miles from th e nearest full-time, non-autom ated FAA/NWS/NWS c ontract surface ~eather observation s tati on, a remoteness premium reciprocal of 1. 25 applies . The adjus tment reciprocal for all other cand idate airports is 1.0.

TABLE 46a Life-Cy cle Cost (LCC) LCC ~ Fi xed Cost of $49,617 + Sum of V ar iable Costs Unique to Applicable Senso ring Devices# + $21,535 if System has Longline Communications 8Variable Costs Unique to Sansoring Devices : Wind $ 1,999 Temperatura/Dew Point 1,615 3,974 Altim et er 41,881 Ceiling 28 , 517 Visibility Liquid Precipitati on 1, 367 Fre ezing Pr ecipita tion 3,687 23,175 Thunde rst orm {b) Other Non-Tow ered and Non-Federal Towered Ai rpo rts Air Carrier and Air Taxi { Lesser of (ACITN+ATITN) or (3, 000)) x $25. 38 • ~~~ Per Itinerant Per Local .

Ope,ration' Ceneral Aviation and Hllitary Operation ~ 3. 80 ~ 2. 28 Wi nd Sensor .04 .02 TemperatureiDew Point Sens ors

Alti meter· sensor .oo

Ceiling and V i sibil i ty Sensors . 00 Prec ipita tion Senaor(s) . 06 • 04 Thunderstorm Sensor . 01 .01 (GA ITN+MI LITN)xS TOTAL (GALCL+MILLCL)X SXOTAL

. =

Total X AR Phase I Value (If 1.0 or greater, loc atio n satisfies LCC Phase 1 Establishment Criter ia) w here the terms are ae defined in pa r~gra ph 46e(l) (a ).

Chap 4 Pa r 46 Page 54

•

11/15/84 703l . 2C (2) Phase I Di scont i nuanc e Criteria. To det ermi ne whether an AWOS installation at a non-towered or non-Federa l to w ered airpo rt meet s Phase 1 discontinuance criteria, a ra tio value is calculated by the same procedure for establishment criter ia described in paragraph 46c(l) , If the ratio value so obtained is l ess than 0 . 45, the sy stem meets Ph ase I discontinu a nce criteria .

(3) Phase II Crit er ia. Candidat e airpor ts for · AWOS iden ti fied by the above criteria will be eval uated by the eo mputerized benefit/cost subroutine developed in Repor t Number FAA-APQ-83-6. If a ben efit/cost ratio of 1 .0 or greater (for estab li shment) or les• than . 45 (for di sco ntinuance) is computed , the airport becomes a candida te . The subroutine req uires the follo wing supplemental si te-specif i c data : ( a) System acquis ition and installation co sts (FAA Form 2500-40, F &c Cost Est ima te Su mm a ry).

(b) Wheth er or not optional lonaline comMunications are pro posed , and if requi red , the annu al coat .

d. Sensor Configuration. The typical AWOS con figuration includes sensors for wi nd direc tion and speed , temper ature, dewpoin t, altimeter , ceiling, vis ibility, and liqu i d precipi tati on . Ho w eve r, AWOS install ations may inc lude addition a l or few er sensors . For example, a clou d he ight ( c eiling) s en sor may n ot be justifie d at certain l o cation s in cl os e proxim i ty to another obs e~ vation site, while additional sensors , su ch as for freezing pre cipi tation and thunderstorms, may be added if cost effecti ve.

e . Non-Federal AWOS . The re wi ll be no takeover of AWOS pur chased and in stalled by part i es o ther tha n th e F edera l Gover ncent . This provision is an except ion to the general po licy of paragrAph 8 vhich provides eligibi lity for inclu sion of non-Federal ter m inal faci liti es in the National Airspace System with FAA assump tion of oQQe rahip , operation, main tenance, and logist ic support.

Chap 4 Page 55 Par 46 \ ..

4/29/91 7031.2C CHG 7 47, ~OLICY ON ADMINlST!ATIVE COM81NATION OF TERM I NAL FACILITIES.

a. Background, A study of the efficiency of administratively combined terminal air traffic control facilities revealed that certain type s of combinations derogate rather than improve service to the user. Air traffic control personnel can be placed in a difficult ~siti on when the~ apply multiple fields of speciali~ation on a part- time rotating oasis . This is reason t o consider decombining certain air traffic control facilities.

b. Policy, Terminal air traffic control faci lities shall not be administrat1vely combined , c, Separation, All combined facilities shall be separated except as follows: ( 1) Tower-RAPCON/RATCC facilities at specific locations designated by t he regional administrator as exceptions to this policy .

(2) One tower of a three - facility conplex shoul d be operational l y and administratively separated. The remaining tower-RAPCON/RATCC combinations should be reeval uated as in paragraph 47c(l) , No further "tri-complexea" are authori~ed.

(3) The station functions of a Combined Station/Tower (CS/T) combined with a RAPCON/RATCC shall be physically separated, even though the tower RAPCON/RATCC combination continues as an excep tion as in paragraph 47c(l) .

*48, LOW-LEVEL WINDSHBAR ALERT SYSTEM (LLWAS), a. Establishment. Provided that a si te does not qualify for more than one system under paragraphs 48, 49, 50, and 51, an FAA-towered airport qualifies as an establishment candidate for LLWAS if the present value of incremental life-cycle benefits exceeds the prese nt valu e of incremen tal life - cycle costs, u sing the benefi t -cost methodology outlined in Report Number FAA-APG-90-13, "E stablishmen t Criteria For Integrated Windshear Detection Systems: Lo w -Le ve l Windshear Alert System (LLWAS), Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR), and Modified Airport Surveillance Radar .· If the site meets t he criteria for more than one system , t hen the one with the highe s t (positive) net present value is the qualifying system.

b. Discontinuance. Reserved.

*

. : .. .. .

... :: ... . .: ' : Chap 4 Page S6 Pat< 4 7 7031.2C CHG 7 4/29/91 * 49. TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR (TDW!t).

a . Establishment. Provided that a site does not qualify for more than one syst em under para graphs 48, 49, 50, and 51, an FAA -tower ed airport qualifies as an establishment candidat e for TDWR if the present value of incremental life-cycle benefits exceeds the present value of incremental li fe-cyele costs, using the benefit-cost methodology outlin~d in Report Number FAA-AP0-90-13, "Establi&hment Criteria For Integrated Windsbear Detection Systems: Lo w- Level Win dshear Alert System (LLWAS), Terminal Doppler W eather Radar (TDW!t), and Modifi ed Airport Survei ll ance Radar . · If the site meets the criteria for more than one system, then the one with the highest (positive) net present value is the qualifyi ng system.

b. Discontinuance. Reserved .

50. AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR (ASR) MODIFICATION FOR WlNDSHEAR DETECTION.

a. Establishment. Provided that a site does not qualify for more than one system under paragraphs 48 , 49, 50, and 51, an ASR site qualifies as a candidate for ASR codification for w ind shear detection if the present value of incremental life-cycle benefits exceeds the present value of incremental life-cycle costs , us ing the benefit-cost methodology outlined in Report Number FAA-APD-90-13, "Establishment Criteria For Integrated Windshear Detection Systems: Lo w- Level WindsheGr Alert System (LLWAS), Terminal Doppler Weath er Radar (TDWR), and Modified Airport Surveillance Radar." If the site meets the criteria for more than one system, then the one vitb the highest (positive) net present value is the qualifying system.

b , Discontinuance. Reserved.

51. INTEGRA TE D WINDSHEA.R. DETECTION SYSTEMS: LLWAS, TDWR AND MODIFIED ASR .

a. Establishment . Provided that a site does not qualify for core than one system under paragraphs 48, 49, SO, and 51, an FAA-towered airport qualifies as an establishment candidate for an integrated windshear detection system if the preoent value of incremental life -cycle benefits exceeds the present value of incremental life-cycle costa, using the benefit-cost methodology outlined in Report Number FAA-APD-90-13, "Establishment Criteria For Integrated Windshear Detection SyateDS: Low-Level Windsbear Alert System (LLWAS), Term inal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR), and Modified Airport Surveil lance Radar. " lf the site ueets the criteria for more . than one system, then the one with the highest (po&itive) net present value is the qualifying system .

b. Discontinuance. Reserved .

*

Chap 4 i'ar 49 Page 57 (thru 60)

' .. . , _

9/2~/93 7031. 2C CHG 8 • 52. HETROPLEX CONTROL FACILITY (KCF).

a. Establisbment. An MCF may consist of a single terminal ra~ar approaCh control facilitY ITRACON) but, more commonly, an KCF will consist of a consoli~ation of several TRACONs. Fo r the purpose of this criterion, a TRACON ' or set of TRACONs, will be considere~ to be a candidate to become an KCF onlY (1) if airspace WhiCh wil l be under control of the KCF will be restructured from current TRACON and/or en route airspace, (2) if establishing an HCF improves traffic management, or (3) if establishing an KCF results Umproved air traffic control procedures. The regions shall submit the naaes of TRACONs which they believe will make Hkely candidate s for b ecom ing an HCF.

The regions shall assess MCF candi~ates according to an operational screen, Phase I and Pbase II Criteria.

(1) operational screen. Details of the Operational screen may be found i n Report FAA-AAT - 93- 2, "Operational Requirements and FacilitY Investment Criteria for Hetroplex control Facilities (MCF) and Terminal Radar Approach control (TRACON) Facilities,• available from ATR-31 0. The Operational screen is summarized below: I a) The proposed candidate MCF consists of a single TRACON or the consolidation of · two to seven tRACONs . If more than seven TRACONs are proposed for consolidation i nto an HC F, the proPOsed candidate HCF do es not qualifY.

{b) The proposed candidate HCF will generate benefits to the National A irspac e System bY the restructuring of terminal or terminal an~ en route airspace, improved traffic manas~nt, and/or improved air traffic control procedures . If it cannot be demonstrated that at lea st one of these three types of efficiencies will be realized, the proPOsed candidate MCF does no t qualifY.

12) Phase I criteria. Phase I Criteria ar e simple tests for iden ti fying possib l e candida te sites for KC Fs: (a) A proposed candidate MC F passes Phase l Cr iteria if the previous fiscal year's Ai r carrier Instrument Operations or Air ca rri er Enplanements are g reater than specific numbers (which vary t>y fiscal year ) .

See Report Numb er FAA - AP0 - 93 -7, "Establishment criteria for Metroplex control Facilities (KCFs)" for the specific values to be used. For decision year FY 1993, the respectiv e values are 432 ,000 Instrument Operations in FY 1992 for Air Carrier Instrument Operations or 23.3 million p ass engers enplaned in FY 1992 for Air carrier Enp lanement s. • Chap 4 Par 52 Page &1 7031.2C CBG 8 9/24~93 • (b) If a proposed candidate M CF does n ot have the volume of Instrument Operations or Enplanements needed to quality under Phase I Criteria as identified in paragraph ~a(2)(a), it still may qual1fY in accordance w ith the test in this paragraph:~ Let Air carrier Instrument Operations AC

"

Air Taxi and commuter Instrument Operations ATC0!1 = General A viation Instrument Operations GA = M ilitary Instrument Operations HI = Then, using the previous fiscal year's actual data on instrument operations as reported in " FAA Air Traffi c Activity• Report; (e.g., Table 9, Instrument Operations bY F AA-Opera ted ATCT's, TRACONs, CERAPS, 6 RAPCONS by State) calculate the Phase I £stabl1sbment Ratio sum is:

((a * AC ) +{3 • ATCOM ) + ly * GA) + e • M IJJ I ~3,600,000

Wh ere the specific values of a, {3 , 'Y , and 8 , vary bY fiscal year. see Report Num . ber FAA- A P0-93-7 , for the specific values to bo used in the Pha se I Establishment Ratio sum. For decision year FY 1993, the Phase I Establishment Ratio Sum is: ( (100.96* AC) + (11.39• ATCOM ) + (3.31 * GA) + (9.84 * HIJ) I ~3,600,000.

If this ratio sum Is g reater than or equal to one, then the proposed site becomes a candidate Cor K CF establishment. Tbere is an alternative to · tne Phase I Establishment Ratio Sum based on enplanements. (See RePOrt N umber FAA - AP0-93-7, for th e specific number of enplanements to us e .)

~ : Canaidate facilities for MCFs w hich have already accomplished a study comparing the benefits and costs of consolidating airspace w hich will be controlled by the candiaate MCF should go dir ectlY to Phase II criteria.

(31 Benefit/Cost Criteria (Phase II). Phase II criteria, detailed in Report N umber FAA -AP0-93-7, compare the prese nt value of KCF benefits w ith the present value of costs over a 20 year time frame, using site-specific analYses to develop the benefits and the costs. A location rtee ts H CF establishment criteria whe n the ratio of benefits to costs is 1.0 or greater.

(4 ) Phase I is used to identi fy a potential candidat e and Phase II verifies its economic Justification . • Chap 4 Page 62 Par 52 • "-·.

7031 .2C CHG 8 9/24/93 • b. Waive r . A location may be exempted from meeting Phase I Criteria .

and be considered an estaDlisnment candidate because of other special factors.

In these cases a site-specific analysis must be performed and adequate Justification presented to the Associate Aamtnistrator for Ai r Traffic (AAT - 1 ) for approval . The s i te specific analysis should include, but not be limited to: (1) Factors unique to the location such as airspace restrictions, w eathe r, seismic conditions, topogr aphY , and impact on adjacent facilities .

(2) specific trend analYsts and/ or forecast data that predict significant changes in traffic activitY attribut able to un ique local conditions, thus necessitating replacement or re furbishment of an existing facility .

(3) Military requirements.

c. Discont inuance . Approach control ser v ice that was available within existing resources may continue to be provided regardless of act i vity if tt facilitates operationa l safety or efficient utilization of airspace . Based on the history for the formation of these fa cilities, it is hiBhlY unlikely that it w ill be more operationally or economica ll y advantageous for an MCF to cease rather th an continue operation. In the event tha t unique circumstances exist , t he regions w il l identifY any M CF candi da~ e for discontinuance of service or decommissioning based on a si~e - specific operational and economic anal ysis . • Cha p 4 Par 52 7031.2C CBG 8 912'ol93 * 53. TER!!INAL RADAR APPROACH CON'IROL (TRACON) FACILITY.

a. Iden~ificat i on and evaluation of requirements to modernize or relocate TRACON facilities will be accomplished in accordance w ith Order 648 0.17, Terminal FacilitY Hodern12at1on1Relocat1on Survey and Evalua~ion Handbook. Al~ernativ es anaLYses w ill consider the operational and cost benefits or combining airspace and co - loca~ion with adjacent terminal, or terminal capable facil itie s as outl1ded in FAA-AAT -93-2, • operational Requirements and FacilitY Investaent criteria for K etroplex control Facilities (HCF) and Terminal Radar Approaeb Control (TRACON) Facilities•.

b. FAA Restonal Offi ces will identify their operational needs and jus tificat ion during submi ssion of the annual F&E budget call response to FAA Headquarters. Order 6~80.17 wi ll be used to determine tbe proper classification of faci lity based on cost-effectiveness. Upon approval DY th e Asso ciate Ad ministrator for A ir Traffic (A A T- 1) , proposed proj ec ts w lll be con sid ered for inclusion in tbe Capital Investme nt P la n (C IP ) and FAA budget requ est . TRACONs approved £or funding wil l normally bY included in existing CIP project s . TRACONs wh ich meet tbe MCF crit eri a requireme nts ~ ill be in cl uded in existing or new ClP proj ect s. The provi sions of order 1810.1F, Acquisition Polle y, w ill be applied wh en a ppli cable . • Chap~ Page 65 {and 66) Par 53 7031.2C CHG ll 3/17/97 • 54 . PRl!CISION RUNWAY MO.'IITORS ( PRM ) .

a . Establishment . An FAA cowered airport qualifies "" an eseablisbment candidate for PRM, ( 1) i f the pr e sent va lu e of incre mental life-cycle b enefits exceed s the p resent v alue of incr e m ental life-cycle costs. us in g t he benefit- cost methodo logy outli ned in Report Number FAA· AP0-97-S, " Establ ishment criteria for Precision Runway Monieor (PRM)"; or (2) tor those locatio ns which do no t qual ify under paragraph 54a (1) • th e locatio n may still qual i fy for a PRM i f th e Admini strator de te rmines that an aer onautical requi rement exis ts du e to operational or s afet y factors. such as runway configuration, terminal approach procedure~, or dolay at feeder or receiver airports or el sewhere in the Nacional Ai rsp ace Syst em (NAS) which can be related to delay at the PRM candidate airpo r t.

*

Chap 4 P ar 54 Page 67 ( and 68)