1. Airport Approach Simulation
PROJECT FINAL REPORT
DSES Spring 2002
Airport Approach Simulation
Scott Munro

2. Precision vs. Non-Precision Approach
Overview
Simulation of IFR Approach at Small Commercial Airport
Object: Assess the Benefit of Non-Precision vs. Precision Approach
Metrics of Interest:
- Number of Landings
- Number of Diverts
- Average Delay

3. Precision vs. Non-Precision Approach
Instrument Approach
Allows Aircraft to Land in Weather which Precludes VFR Flight
Operates based on RF equipment which provide:
- Course (VOR, ILS Localizer)
- Range (DME)
Glide slope (ILS)
Position (Marker Beacon)

4. Non-Precision Approach Description
VOR Rwy 2
Course via VOR Radial
Range via DME
Limits
- Visibility: 1 mile
- Minimum Descent Alt: 380 ft

5. Precision Approach Description
ILS Rwy 2
Course via ILS Localizer
Range via DME
Glide Slope
Limits
- Visibility: 3/4 mile
- Minimum Descent Alt: 257 ft

6. Simulation Methodology
The following elements must be considered…
Element
Impact
Approach Procedure
Time and weather required to successfully execute the approach. Time required to execute the missed approach procedure.
Air Traffic Control
Minimum separation between aircraft, and aircraft arrival rate.
Federal Aviation Regulations
Fuel on board for each aircraft on an instrument flight plan.
Weather
Current ceilings, visibility, and winds at any given time during the simulation.
Aircraft Performance
Approach speeds, landing distances and maximum crosswind limits for landing.

7. Weather US National Climatic Data Center Surface Weather Observations
Over hours of Weather Observations Used
Application “weather.exe” Created to Decode SWO’s and Build Weather Database
Model Weather Database
- Visibility
Ceilings
Wind Speed and Direction

8. Weather
Out of Limits

9. Aircraft Performance Piper PA-28 Single Engine Fixed Gear
Landing Performance
- w/ Head Wind
- w/ Tail Wind
Maximum Crosswinds
Speed
- 70 KIAS Approach
- 63 KIAS Final
- 90 KIAS Missed Approach

10. Air Traffic Control and FAR
Maintain IFR Separation Between Aircraft
3 nm or 2.0 minutes at 90 knots
Federal Aviation Regulations – Fuel Requirements
Fly to the Destination Airport, then…
Fly to the Alternate Airport, then…
Fly 45 minutes longer

11. Air Traffic Control and FAR
Maintain IFR Separation Between Aircraft
3 nm or 2.0 minutes at 90 knots
Federal Aviation Regulations – Fuel Requirements
Fly to the Destination Airport, then…
Fly to the Alternate Airport, then…
Fly 45 minutes longer

12. Approach Model

13. Approach Model Weather Data Playback via UpdateWeather()
IFR Separation via Single Capacity Queue Segments
Fuel via FuelRemaining Entity Attribute
Transit Time via Triangular Distribution

14. Results Average Non-Precision Approach Delay : 4.43 minutes
Table 1 – Total Airport Approach Performance
Table 2 – Airport Approach Performance Per Hour
Average Non-Precision Approach Delay : 4.43 minutes
Average Precision Approach Delay : 3.55 minutes