Flow Control

ATC provides IFR aircraft separation services for NAS users. Since the capabilities of IFR operators vary from airlines operating hundreds of complex jet aircraft to private pilots in single engine, piston-powered airplanes, the ATC system must accommodate the least sophisticated user. The lowest common denominator is the individual controller speaking to a single pilot on a VHF voice radio channel. While this commonality is desirable, it has led to a mindset where other opportunities to interact with NAS users have gone undeveloped. The greatest numbers of operations at the 20 busiest air carrier airports are commercial operators (airlines and commuters) operating IFR with some form of ground-based operational control. Since not all IFR operations have ground-based operational control, very little effort has been expended in developing ATC and Airline Operations Control Center (AOC) collaboration techniques, even though ground-based computer-to-computer links can provide great data transfer capacity. Until the relatively recent concept of Air Traffic Control-Traffic Flow Management (ATC-TFM), the primary purpose of ATC was aircraft separation, and the direct pilot-controller interaction was adequate to the task. Effective and efficient traffic flow management now requires a new level of control that includes the interaction of and information transfer among ATC, TFM, AOCs, and the cockpit. [Figure 1-17]

Flow Control Restriction

As the first step in modernizing the traffic flow management infrastructure, the FAA began reengineering traffic flow management software using commercial off-the-shelf products. In FY 1996, the FAA and NASA collaborated on new traffic flow management research and development efforts for the development of collaborative decision making tools that will enable FAA traffic flow managers to work cooperatively with airline personnel in responding to congested conditions. Additionally, the FAA provided a flight scheduling software system to nine airlines.

Ground Delay Program

Bad weather often forces the reconfiguration of runways at an airport or mandates the use of IFR arrival and departure procedures, reducing the number of flights per hour that are able to takeoff or land at the affected airport. To accommodate the degraded arrival capacity at the affected airport, the ATCSCC imposes a ground delay program (GDP), which allocates a reduced number of arrival slots to airlines at airports during time periods when demand exceeds capacity. The GDP suite of tools is used to keep congestion at an arrival airport at acceptable levels by issuing ground delays to aircraft before departure, as ground delays are less expensive and safer than in-flight holding delays. The FAA started GDP prototype operations in January 1998 at two airports and expanded the program to all commercial airports in the U.S. within nine months.

Ground Delay Program Enhancements (GDPE) significantly reduced delays due to compression—a process that is run periodically throughout the duration of a GDP. It reduces overall delays by identifying open arrival slots due to flight cancellations or delays and fills in the vacant slots by moving up operating flights that can use those slots. During the first two years of this program, almost 90,000 hours of scheduled delays were avoided due to compression, resulting in cost savings to the airline industry of more than $150 million. GDPE also has improved the flow of air traffic into airports; improved compliance to controlled times of departure; improved data quality and predictability; resulted in equity in delays across carriers; and often avoided the necessity to implement FAA ground delay programs, which can be disruptive to air carrier operations.

IFR Slots

During peak traffic, ATC uses IFR slots to promote a smooth flow of traffic. This practice began during the late 1960s, when five of the major airports (LaGuardia Airport, Ronald Reagan National Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Newark International Airport, and Chicago O’Hare International Airport) were on the verge of saturation due to substantial flight delays and airport congestion. To combat this, the FAA in 1968 proposed special air traffic rules to these five high-density airports (the “high density rule”) that restricted the number of IFR takeoffs and landings at each airport during certain hours of the day and provided for the allocation of “slots” to carriers for each IFR landing or takeoff during a specific 30 or 60-minute period. A more recent FAA proposal offers an overhaul of the slot-reservation process for JFK, LaGuardia, and Reagan National Airport that includes a move to a 72hour reservation window and an online slot-reservation system.
The high density rule has been the focus of much examination over the last decade since under the restrictions, new entrants attempting to gain access to high density airports face difficulties entering the market. Because slots are necessary at high density airports, the modification or elimination of the high density rule could subsequently have an effect on the value of slots. Scarce slots hold a greater economic value than slots that are easier to come by.
The current slot restrictions imposed by the high density rule has kept flight operations well below capacity, especially with the improvements in air traffic control technology. However, easing the restrictions imposed by the high density rule is likely to affect airport oper ations. Travel delay time might be affected not only at the airport that has had the high density restrictions lifted, but also at surrounding airports that share the same airspace. On the other hand, easing the restrictions on slots at high density airports should help facilitate international air travel and help increase the number of passengers that travel internationally.
Slot controls have become a way of limiting noise, since it caps the number of takeoffs and landings at an airport. Easing the restrictions on slots could be politically difficult since local delegations at the affected airports might not support such a move. Ways other than imposing restrictions on slots exist that could diminish the environmental impacts at airports and their surrounding areas. Safeguards, such as requiring the quietest technology available of aircraft using slots and frequent consultations with local residents, have been provided to ensure that the environmental concerns are addressed and solved.

Flight Management System

A flight management system (FMS) is a flight computer system that uses a large database to allow routes to be preprogrammed and fed into the system by means of a data loader. The system is constantly updated with respect to position accuracy by reference to conventional navigation aids, inertial reference system technology, or the satellite global positioning system. The sophisticated program and its associated database ensures that the most appropriate navigation aids or inputs are automatically selected during the information update cycle. A typical FMS provides information for continuous automatic navigation, guidance, and aircraft performance management, and includes a control display unit (CDU). [Figure 1-15]

FMS Control Display Unit. This depicts an aircraft
established on the Atlantic City, NJ, RNAV (GPS) Rwy 13
instrument approach procedure at the Atlantic City
International Airport, KACY. The aircraft is positioned at the
intermediate fix UNAYY inbound on the 128 degree magnetic
course, 5.5 nautical miles from PVIGY, the final approach fix.

Avionics and Instrumentation

The proliferation of advanced avionics and instrumentation has substantially increased the capabilities of aircraft in the IFR environment.

Precision Runway Monitoring

Precision runway monitor (PRM) is a high-update-rate radar surveillance system that is being introduced at selected capacity-constrained U.S. airports. Certified to provide simultaneous independent approaches to closely spaced parallel runways, PRM has been operational at Minneapolis since 1997. ILS/PRM approaches are conducted at Philadelphia International Airport. Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach (SOIA)/PRM operations are conducted at San Francisco International and Cleveland Hopkins International Airports. Since the number of PRM sites is increasing, the likelihood is increasing that you may soon be operating at an airport conducting closely spaced parallel approaches using PRM. Furthermore, St. Louis Lambert International Airport began SOIA/PRM operations in 2005, and Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport will begin PRM operations in 2006. PRM enables ATC to improve the airport arrival rate on IFR days to one that more closely approximates VFR days, which means fewer flight cancellations, less holding, and decreased diversions.

PRM not only maintains the current level of safety, but also increases it by offering air traffic controllers a much more accurate picture of the aircraft’s location on final approach. Whereas current airport surveillance radar used in a busy terminal area provides an update to the controller every 4.8 seconds, PRM updates every second, giving the controller significantly more time to react to potential aircraft separation problems. The controller also sees target trails that provide very accurate trend information. With PRM, it is immediately apparent when an aircraft starts to drift off the runway centerline and toward the non-transgression zone. PRM also predicts the aircraft track and provides aural and visual alarms when an aircraft is within 10 seconds of penetrating the non-transgression zone. The additional controller staffing that comes along with PRM is another major safety improvement. During PRM sessions, there is a separate controller monitoring each final approach course and a coordinator managing the overall situation.

PRM is an especially attractive technical solution for the airlines and business aircraft because it does not require any additional aircraft equipment, only special training and qualifications. However, all aircraft in the approach streams must be qualified to participate in PRM or the benefits are quickly lost and controller workload increases significantly. The delay-reduction benefits of PRM can only be fully realized if everyone participates. Operators that choose not to participate in PRM operations when arriving at an airport where PRM operations are underway can expect to be held until they can be accommodated without disrupting the PRM arrival streams.

Air Route Surveillance Radar

The long-range radar equipment used in controlled airspace to manage traffic is the air route surveillance radar (ARSR) system. There are approximately 100 ARSR facilities to relay traffic information to radar controllers throughout the country. Some of these facilities can detect only transponder-equipped aircraft and are referred to as beacon-only sites. Each air route surveillance radar site can monitor aircraft flying within a 200-mile radius of the antenna, although some stations can monitor aircraft as far away as 600 miles through the use of remote sites.

The direction and coordination of IFR traffic in the U.S. is assigned to air route traffic control centers (ARTCCs). These centers are the authority for issuing IFR clearances and managing IFR traffic; however, they also provide services to VFR pilots. Workload permitting, controllers will provide traffic advisories and course guidance, or vectors, if requested.

Air Route Surveillance Radar

The long-range radar equipment used in controlled airspace to manage traffic is the air route surveillance radar (ARSR) system. There are approximately 100 ARSR facilities to relay traffic information to radar controllers throughout the country. Some of these facilities can detect only transponder-equipped aircraft and are referred to as beacon-only sites. Each air route surveillance radar site can monitor aircraft flying within a 200-mile radius of the antenna, although some stations can monitor aircraft as far away as 600 miles through the use of remote sites.

The direction and coordination of IFR traffic in the U.S. is assigned to air route traffic control centers (ARTCCs). These centers are the authority for issuing IFR clearances and managing IFR traffic; however, they also provide services to VFR pilots. Workload permitting, controllers will provide traffic advisories and course guidance, or vectors, if requested.

Airport Surveillance Radar

The direction and coordination of IFR traffic within specific terminal areas is delegated to airport surveillance radar (ASR) facilities. Approach and departure control manage traffic at airports with ASR. This radar system is designed to provide relatively short-range coverage in the airport vicinity and to serve as an expeditious means of handling terminal area traffic. The ASR also can be used as an instrument approach aid. Terminal radar approach control facilities (TRACONs) provide radar and nonradar services at major airports. The primary responsibility of each TRACON is to ensure safe separation of aircraft transitioning from departure to cruise flight or from cruise to a landing approach.

Most ASR facilities throughout the country use a form of automated radar terminal system (ARTS). This system has several different configurations that depend on the computer equipment and software programs used. Usually the busiest terminals in the country have the most sophisticated computers and programs. The type of system installed is designated by a suffix of numbers and letters. For example, an ARTS-IIIA installation can detect, track, and predict primary, as well as secondary, radar returns. [Figure 1-13]

ARTS-III Radar Display

On a controller’s radar screen, ARTS equipment automatically provides a continuous display of an aircraft’s position, altitude, groundspeed, and other pertinent information. This information is updated continuously as the aircraft progresses through the terminal area. To gain maximum benefit from the system, each aircraft in the area must be equipped with a Mode C altitude encoding transponder, although this is not an operational requirement. Direct altitude readouts eliminate the need for time consuming verbal communication between controllers and pilots to verify altitude. This helps to increase the number of aircraft that may be handled by one controller at a given time.

The FAA has begun replacing the ARTS systems with newer equipment in some areas. The new system is called STARS, for Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System. STARS is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

GPS-Based Helicopter Operations

The synergy between industry and the FAA created during the development of the Gulf of Mexico GPS grid system and approaches is an excellent example of what can be accomplished to establish the future of helicopter IFR SATNAV. The Helicopter Safety Advisory Council (HSAC), National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), helicopter operators, and FAA Flight Standards Divisions all worked together to develop this infrastructure. The system provides both the operational and cost-saving features of flying direct to a destination when offshore weather conditions deteriorate below VFR and an instant and accurate aircraft location capability that is invaluable for rescue operations.

The expansion of helicopter IFR service for emergency medical services (EMS) is another success story. The FAA worked with EMS operators to develop helicopter GPS nonprecision instrument approach procedures and en route criteria. As a result of this collaborative effort, EMS operators have been provided with hundreds of EMS helicopter procedures to medical facilities. Before the GPS IFR network, EMS helicopter pilots had been compelled to miss 30 percent of their missions due to weather. With the new procedures, only about 11 percent of missions are missed due to weather.

The success of these operations can be attributed in large part to the collaborative efforts between the helicopter industry and the FAA. There are currently 289 special use helicopter procedures, with more being added. There are also 37 public use helicopter approaches. Of these, 18 are to runways and 19 are to heliports or points-inspace (PinS).

Global Positioning System

The FAA’s implementation activities of the Global Positioning System (GPS) are dedicated to the adaptation of the NAS infrastructure to accept satellite navigation (SATNAV) technology through the management and coordination of a variety of overlapping NAS implementation projects. These projects fall under the project areas listed below and represent different elements of the NAS infrastructure:

• Avionics Development - includes engineering support and guidance in the development of current and future GPS avionics minimum operational performance standards (MOPS), as well as FAA Technical Standard Orders (TSOs) and establishes certification standards for avionics installations.
• Flight Standards - includes activities related to instrument procedure criteria research, design, testing, and standards publication. The shift from ground-based to space-based navigation sources has markedly shifted the paradigms used in obstacle clearance determination and standards development. New GPS-based Terminal Procedures (TERPS) manuals are in use today as a result of this effort.
• Air Traffic - includes initiatives related to the development of GPS routes, phraseology, procedures, controller GPS training and GPS outage simulations studies. GPS-based routes, developed along the East Coast to help congestion in the Northeast Corridor, direct GPS-based Caribbean routes, and expansion of RNAV activities are all results of SATNAV sponsored implementation projects.
• Procedure Development - includes the provision of instrument procedure development and flight inspection of GPS-based routes and instrument procedures. Today over 3,500 GPS-based IAPs have been developed.
• Interference Identification and Mitigation - includes the development and fielding of airborne, ground, and portable interference detection systems. These efforts are ongoing and critical to ensuring the safe use of GPS in the NAS.

To use GPS, WAAS, and/or LAAS in the NAS, equipment suitable for aviation use (such as a GPS receiver, WAAS receiver, LAAS receiver, or multi-modal receiver) must be designed, developed, and certified for use. To ensure standardization and safety of this equipment, the FAA plays a key role in the development and works closely with industry in this process. The avionics development process results in safe, standardized SATNAV avionics, developed in concurrence with industry. Due to the growing popularity of SATNAV and potential new aviation applications, there are several types of GPS-based receivers on the market, but only those that pass through this certification process can be used as approved navigation equipment under IFR conditions. Detailed information on GPS approach procedures is provided in Chapter 5–Approach.

RNAV IFR Terminal Transition Routes

The FAA is moving forward with an initiative to chart RNAV terminal transition routes through busy airspace. In 2001, some specific RNAV routes were implemented through Charlotte’s Class B airspace, allowing RNAV- capable aircraft to cross through the airspace instead of using costly and time-consuming routing around the Class B area. The original RNAV terminal transition routes have evolved into RNAV IFR terminal transition routes, or simply RITTRs.

Beginning in March 2005, with the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Charlotte, North Carolina, RITTRs, the FAA advanced the process of establishing and charting the first RITTRs on IFR en route low altitude charts. The five new RITTRs through Charlotte's Class B airspace took effect on September 1, 2005, making them available for pilots to file on their IFR flight plans. Additional RITTRs are planned for Cincinnati, Ohio, and Jacksonville, Florida.

The RITTRs allow IFR overflights through the Class B airspace for RNAV-capable aircraft. Without the RITTRS, these aircraft would be routinely routed around the Class B by as much as 50 miles.

Application of Area Navigation

RNAV airways provide more direct routings than the current VOR-based airway system, giving pilots easier access through terminal areas, while avoiding the circuitous routings now common in many busy Class B areas. RNAV airways are a critical component to the transition from ground-based navigation systems to GPS navigation. RNAV routes help maintain the aircraft flow through busy terminals by segregating arrival or departure traffic away from possibly interfering traffic flows.
Further, RNAV provides the potential for increasing airspace capacity both en route and in the terminal area in several important ways.
Strategic use of RNAV airways nationwide is reducing the cost of flying and providing aircraft owners more benefits from their IFR-certified GPS receivers. Several scenarios have been identified where RNAV routes provide a substantial benefit to users.

• Controllers are assigning routes that do not require overflying ground-based NAVAIDs such as VORs.
• The lateral separation between aircraft tracks is being reduced.
• RNAV routes lower altitude minimums on existing Victor airways where ground-based NAVAID performance (minimum reception altitude) required higher minimums.
• RNAV routes may allow continued use of existing airways where the ground-based NAVAID has been decommissioned or where the signal is no longer suitable for en route navigation.
• The route structure can be modified quickly and easily to meet the changing requirements of the user community.
• Shorter, simpler routes can be designed to minimize environmental impact. Dozens of new RNAV routes have been designated, and new ones are being added continuously. In order to designate RNAV airways, the FAA developed criteria, en route procedures, procedures for airway flight checks, and created new charting specifications. Some of the considerations include:
  
• Navigation infrastructure (i.e., the ground-based and space-based navigation positioning systems) provides adequate coverage for the proposed route/procedure.
• Navigation coordinate data meets International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) accuracy and integrity requirements. This means that all of the coordinates published in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) and used in the aircraft navigation databases must be referenced to WGS 84, and the user must have the necessary assurance that this data has not been corrupted or inadvertently modified.
• Airborne systems meet airworthiness performance for use on the RNAV routes and procedures.
• Flight crews have the necessary approval to operate on the RNAV routes and procedures.

In the future, as aircraft achieve higher levels of navigation accuracy and integrity, closely spaced parallel routes may be introduced, effectively multiplying the number of available routes between terminal areas. RNAV can be used in all phases of flight and, when implemented correctly, results in:

• Improved situational awareness for the pilot.
• Reduced workloads for both controller and pilot.
• Reduced environmental impact from improved route and procedure designs.
• Reduced fuel consumption from shorter, more direct routes.

RNAV Departure Routes

For example, take the situation at Philadelphia International Airport, located in the middle of some highly popular north-south traffic lanes carrying New York and Boston traffic to or from Washington, Atlanta, and Miami. Philadelphia’s position is right underneath these flows. Chokepoints resulted from traffic departing Philadelphia, needing to wait for a “hole” in the traffic above into which they could merge. The CAASD helped US Airways and Philadelphia airport officials establish a set of RNAV departure routes that do not interfere with the prevailing established traffic. Traffic heading north or south can join the established flows at a point further ahead when higher altitudes and speeds have been attained. Aircraft properly equipped to execute RNAV procedural routes can exit the terminal area faster — a powerful inducement for aircraft operators to upgrade their navigation equipment.
Another example of an RNAV departure is the PRYME TWO DEPARTURE from Washington Dulles International. Notice in Figure 1-10 the RNAV way- points not associated with VORs help free up the flow of IFR traffic out of the airport by not funneling them to one point through a common NAVAID.

Release Time

ATC uses an IFR release time2 in conjunction with traffic management procedures to separate departing aircraft from other traffic. For example, when controlling departures from an airport without a tower, the controller limits the departure release to one aircraft at any given time. Once that aircraft is airborne and radar identified, then the following aircraft may be released for departure, provided they meet the approved radar separation (3 miles laterally or 1,000 feet vertically) when the second aircraft comes airborne. Controllers must take aircraft performances into account when releasing successive departures, so that a B-747 HEAVY aircraft is not released immediately after a departing Cessna 172. Besides releasing fast aircraft before slow ones, another technique commonly used for successive departures is to have the first aircraft turn 30 to 40 degrees from runway heading after departure, and then have the second aircraft depart on a SID or runway heading. Use of these techniques is common practice when maximizing airport traffic capacity.

Flight Plans

Prior to flying in controlled airspace under IFR conditions or in Class A airspace, pilots are required to file a flight plan. IFR (as well as VFR) flight plans provide air traffic center computers with accurate and precise routes required for flight data processing (FDP1). The computer knows every route (published and unpub lished) and NAVAID, most intersections, and all airports, and can only process a flight plan if the proposed routes and fixes connect properly. Center computers also recognize preferred routes and know that forecast or real-time weather may change arrival routes. Centers and TRACONs now have a computer graphic that can show every aircraft on a flight plan in the U.S. as to its flight plan information and present position. Despite their sophistication, center computers do not overlap in coverage or information with other Centers, so that flight requests not honored in one must be repeated in the next.

Flight Service Stations

Flight Service Stations (FSSs) and Automated Flight Service Stations (AFSSs) are air traffic facilities which provide pilot briefings, en route communications and VFR search and rescue services, assist lost aircraft and aircraft in emergency situations, relay ATC clearances, originate Notices to Airmen, broadcast aviation weather and NAS information, receive and process IFR flight plans, and monitor navigational aids (NAVAIDs). In addition, at selected locations, FSSs/AFSSs provide En route Flight Advisory Service (Flight Watch), take weather observations, issue airport advisories, and advise Customs and Immigration of transborder flights.

Pilot Briefers at flight service stations render preflight, in-flight, and emergency assistance to all pilots on request. They give information about actual weather conditions and forecasts for airports and flight paths, relay air traffic control instructions between controllers and pilots, assist pilots in emergency situations, and initiate searches for missing or overdue aircraft. FSSs/AFSSs provide information to all airspace users, including the military. In October 2005, operation of all FSSs/AFSSs, except those in Alaska, was turned over to the Lockheed Martin Corporation. In the months after the transition, 38 existing AFSSs are slated to close, leaving 17 “Legacy” stations and 3 “Hub” stations. Services to pilots are expected to be equal to or better than prior to the change, and the contract is expected to save the government about $2.2 billion over ten years.

General Aviation

The tendency of GA aircraft owners to upgrade the performance and avionics of their aircraft increases the demand for IFR services and for terminal airspace at airports. In response, the FAA has increased the extent of controlled airspace and improved ATC facilities at major airports. The safety of mixing IFR and VFR traffic is a major concern, but the imposition of measures to separate and control both types of traffic creates more restrictions on airspace use and raises the level of aircraft equipage and pilot qualification necessary for access.

Corporate and Fractional Ownerships

Though technically considered under the GA umbrella, the increasing use of sophisticated, IFR-equipped aircraft by businesses and corporations has created a niche of its own. By using larger high performance airplanes and equipping them with the latest avionics, the business portion of the GA fleet has created demands for ATC services that more closely resemble commercial operators than the predominately VFR general aviation fleet.

Airliners

Though commercial air carrier aircraft traditionally make up less than 5 percent of the civil aviation fleet, they account for about 30 percent of the instrument operations flown in civil aviation. Commercial air carriers are the most homogenous category of airspace users, although there are some differences between U.S. trunk carriers (major airlines) and regional airlines (commuters) in terms of demand for ATC services. Generally,

U.S. carriers operate large, high performance airplanes that cruise at altitudes above 18,000 feet. Conducted exclusively under IFR, airline flights follow established schedules and operate in and out of larger and better- equipped airports. In terminal areas, however, they share airspace and facilities with all types of traffic and must compete for airport access with other users. Airline pilots are highly proficient and thoroughly familiar with the rules and procedures under which they must operate.

Some airlines are looking toward the use of larger aircraft, with the potential to reduce airway and terminal congestion by transporting more people in fewer aircraft. This is especially valuable at major hub airports, where the number of operations exceeds capacity at certain times of day. On the other hand, the proliferation of larger aircraft also requires changes to terminals (e.g., double-decker jetways and better passenger throughput), rethinking of rescue and fire-fighting strategies, taxiway fillet changes, and perhaps stronger runways and taxiways.

Commuter airlines also follow established schedules and are flown by professional pilots. Commuters characteristically operate smaller and lower performance aircraft in airspace that must often be shared by general aviation (GA) aircraft, including visual flight rules (VFR) traffic. As commuter operations have grown in volume, they have created extra demands on the airport and ATC systems. At one end, they use hub airports along with other commercial carriers, which contributes to growing congestion at major air traffic hubs. IFR-equipped and operating under IFR like other air carriers, commuter aircraft cannot be used to full advantage unless the airport at the other end of the flight, typically a small community airport, also is capable of IFR operation. Thus, the growth of commuter air service has created pressure for additional instrument approach procedures and control facilities at smaller airports. A growing trend among the major airlines is the proliferation of regional jets (RJs). RJs are replacing turboprop aircraft and they are welcomed by some observers as saviors of high-quality jet aircraft service to small communities. RJs are likely to be a regular feature of the airline industry for a long time because passengers and airlines overwhelmingly prefer RJs to turboprop service. From the passengers’ perspective, they are far more comfortable; and from the airlines’ point of view, they are more profitable. Thus, within a few years, most regional air traffic in the continental U.S. will be by jet, with turboprops filling a smaller role.

FAA and industry studies have investigated the underlying operational and economic environments of RJs on the ATC system. They have revealed two distinct trends: (1) growing airspace and airport congestion is exacerbated by the rapid growth of RJ traffic, and (2) potential airport infrastructure limitations may constrain airline business. The FAA, the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD), major airlines, and others are working to find mitigating strategies to address airline congestion. With nearly 2,000 RJs already in use—and double that expected over the next few years—the success of these efforts is critical if growth in the regional airline industry is to be sustained. [Figure 1-8]

IFR Operations in the National Airspace System

Today’s National Airspace System (NAS) consists of a complex collection of facilities, systems, equipment, procedures, and airports operated by thousands of people to provide a safe and efficient flying environment. The NAS includes:

• More than 690 air traffic control (ATC) facilities with associated systems and equipment to provide radar and communication service.
• Volumes of procedural and safety information necessary for users to operate in the system and for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees to effectively provide essential services.
• More than 19,800 airports capable of accommodating an array of aircraft operations, many of which support instrument flight rules (IFR) departures and arrivals.
• Approximately 11,120 air navigation facilities.
• Approximately 45,800 FAA employees who provide air traffic control, flight service, security, field maintenance, certification, systems acquisitions, and a variety of other services.
• Approximately 13,000 instrument flight procedures as of September 2005, including 1,159 instrument landing system (ILS), 121 ILS Category (CAT) II, 87 ILS CAT III, 7 ILS with precision runway monitoring (PRM), 3 microwave landing system (MLS), 1,261 nondirectional beacon (NDB), 2,638 VHF omnidirectional range (VOR), and 3,530 area navigation (RNAV), 30 localizer type directional aid (LDA), 1,337 localizer (LOC), 17 simplified directional facility (SDF), 607 standard instrument departure (SID), and 356 standard terminal arrival (STAR).
• Approximately 48,200,000 instrument operations logged by FAA towers annually, of which 30 percent are air carrier, 27 percent air taxi, 37 percent general aviation, and 6 percent military.

America’s aviation industry is projecting continued increases in business, recreation, and personal travel. The FAA expects airlines in the United States (U.S.) to carry about 45 percent more passengers by the year 2015 than they do today. [Figure 1-1]