Minutes Exhibit D
Minutes Exhibit D
Port Commission Special Meeting
of April 10, 2018
@433?
Northwest Mountain Region 163' Lmd Avenue. s. w.
_ F U S Department A
Colorado, Idaho. Montana newton Washington 98055-4050
of Transyoooflon'
' Oregon. Utah. Washington
Federal Aviation Wyoming
Administration
December 13, 1995
Mrs. Debi L. DesMarais
24322 22nd Ave. 5.
Des Moines, WA 98198
Dear Mrs. DesMarais:
This is in response to your letter of November 13, 1995. I will address
your questions in the order asked.
as part of
1. This is the type of question that should have been asked
to answer
your cements on the draft EIS.
I believe it would be improper
this question since the draft EIS cement period has long since closed.
time, would be viewed by many as
Addressing this type of question, at this
preferential treatment or selectively re-opening the comment period.
The following
2. through 5: Are general technical questions about EDMS.
and Energy in our
answers have been provided by the Office of Environment
Washington, D. C. Headquarters office:
EPA? If not, were previous rates
Have the emission rates contained within the model been approved by
approved? When? Is the EDMS model approved by EPA?
EDMS as a "Preferred
On July 20, 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formally accepted
Guideline" model for use at civil airports and military air bases. The emission rates contained within EDMS
the FAA Engine Emission
come from EPA's AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission factors and
Database (FAEED). 4
who exempted aircraft engine mantg'acturers
[f the emission rates come from manufacturers speczcations,
exist? Are
from estimating particulate matter (smoke number)? IfFAA arempted, do manufacturers estimates
they availablefor viewing?
Wilcox at EPA, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
rates? Ifso, can those rates
Does FAA update emission data periodically with newer aircraft engine emission
be substantiated with appropriate documentation?
"
"Expect Excellence
EDMS rates,
emission rates and today FAA
the 1985 EPA AP42 engine
Since there is such disparity between
2/3 be substantiated?
in C0 and HC by approximately
can the reduction
how
f Ms DeMarais can specify
look at the cause of any
calculate the emission rate, then we would be willing to
she used the EDMS model to
disparities.
Diana Liang at 2022673494.
contact for EDMS questions is Ms
A further
Sincerely,
0441M: [Q/w/M/
Dennis Ossenkop
Environmental Protection Specialist
W
As indicated on page D38, a separate analysis also conrmed that even if the average annual eet
(i.e., all aircraft types in use) and the highest peak hour level of departures, maximized peak hour
minimal.
departure queue time could occur at the same time, the change in pollutant levels would be
This analysis was also conducted for the future annual aircraft eet. Except at South 154th Street,
all pollutant concentrations would still be below the AAQS.
The test case analysis indicated that increased departure queue time would result in increased CO
levels, while increased aircraft departures would result in increased NO; levels. However, as
observed by historic FAA data, peak hour departures and peak hour queuing are mutually exclusive
and do not occur at the same time. Nonetheless, the analysis indicates that all concentrations except
at South 154th Street would be below the AAQS.
Comment 14: Commenter questioned the time-in-mode/taxi and requested a clarication of these
assumptions.
Response: Appendix D, page D-5 discusses the determination of taxi-in and taxi-out times. Actual
eld observations were used to estimate the amount of time an aircraft spends in different modes,
such as apron idling, taxiing, and idling at the end of the runway. Taxi-in and taxi-out times were
based on a determination of existing aireld taxi distances and aircraft speed for seven different
points on the aireld. The addition of the South Aviation Support Area (SASA) and the proposed
terminal improvements were modeled in combination with the proposed third parallel runway. The
rture runway end use based on
average taxi distance was then calculated by applying the existing or
a constant aircra taxi speed of 15 knots.
The use ofthe proposed new parallel runway for departures is expected to be limited for the reasons
discussed in the Final EIS. Accordingly, taxi times are not expected to be substantially di'erent over
existing conditions (i.e., taxi times take into consideration runway use). For the existing conditions,
each aircraft operation is expected to experience approximately 8.11 minutes of taxi-time (for both
arrival and departure operations).
Comment 15: Commenter stated that the EDMS writeup in the EIS should have noted that all
particulate data for jet aircra had been removed.
Response: As stated in the EIS in Appendix R, response to comment R-10-2,W
l
Comment 16: Requested an explanation ofwhy the aircraft emissions in the Final EIS are less than
those presented in the Draft EIS.
As noted in Appendix D, page D-34, in reevaluating the air quality analysis, all input Response:
assumptions used in preparation of the Draft EIS were re-examined. As part of that review, the
were revised
hourly aircraft temporal factors used in the Final EIS analysis for the existing condition
The revised
to reect hourly departure activity based on the FAA's Capacity Enhancement Study.
A'ppendix'B" an"
AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS RATES 0R TOTAL GSE EMISSION PER LANDING/TAKEOFF
CYCLE
Geomode 1 - Takeoff
Aircraft (kg/hr/eng)
AIRCFT 747 Geomode 2am
Geographic mode (kg/hr/eng)
GEOMODE "Geomode 3 - Touch & Go (kg/hr/eng)
Geomode 4 - Taxi in/out
Fuel (kg/hr/eng)
FUEL.CD 13 Geomode 5 Grnd supp equip
Number of engines (kg/LTD)
ENG.NUM 4 Geomode 6 - Test
(kg/hr/eng)
Geomode 7 - Climb
(kg/hr/eng)
Geomode 8 - Approach (kg/hr/eng)
Time in mode TIMEMOD m
Sum of GSE costs per LTO GSE .00 dollars/hours
Aircraft engine emissions
per unit time (kg/hr/eng) or
emissions from all ground support equipment
per aircraft LTO (kg/LTD)
co 42.575443
HC 20.499287 '
NOX 2.444146
SOx .425754 .
Part .000000
AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS RATES OR TOTAL GSE EMISSION .
PER LANDING/TAKEOFF CYCLE
Geomode 1 - Takeoff
Aircraft (kg/hr/eng)
AIRCFT 747 Geomode 2 - Runway Queue
Geographic mode (kg/hr/eng)
GEOMODE .Geomode 3 Touch & Go (kg/hr/eng)
Geomode 4 -M(kg/hr/eng)
Fuel FUEL.CD 13 Geomode 5 - Grnd supp equip
(kg/LTD)
Number of engines ENG.NUM 4 Geomode 6 - Test
(kg/hr/eng)
Geomode 7 - Climb
(kg/hr/eng)
Geomode 8 - Approach
(kg/hr/eng)
Time in mode TIMEMOD M
Sum of GSE costs per LTO GSE .00 dollars/hours
Aircraft engine emissions per unit time (kg/hr/eng) or
emissions from all ground support equipment
per aircraft LTO (kg/LTD)
C0 42.575443
HC 20.499287
NOx 2.444146
SOx .425754
Part .000000
AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS RATES 0R TOTAL GSE EMISSION PER
LANDING/TAKEOFF CYCLE
Geomode 1 - Takeoff
Aircraft (kg/hr/eng)
AIRCFT 757 Geomode 2 - Runway Queue (kg/hr/eng)
Geographic mode GEOMODE 2 Geomode 3 - Touch & Go (kg/hr/eng)
Geomode 4 - Taxi in/out (kg/hr/eng)
Fuel FUEL.CD 13 Geomode 5 - Grnd supp equip (kg/LTD)
Number of engines ENG.NUM 2 Geomode 6 - Test (kg/hr/eng)
Geomode 7 - Climb (kg/hr/eng) t
Geomode 8 - Approach (kg/hr/eng)
'Time in mode TIMEMOD 2.89 minutes
Sum of GSE costs per LTO GSE .00 dollars/hours
le/IL,/ I KG),
,
I
Plan Update Dra EIS
lSea-TacAimort Master
"
mum. _ QW' .0
/ 7%
PageZon M '
/ J'
.1; - D
. {may V
Envrronmental Impact Statement .,W("I g} b/
. .3
Master Plan Update
We.
ANALYSIS
PRELIMINARY AIRSIDE SCREENING 690/541
Ma_s_tr Plan Updarg Airside 0m_ns_
4A 4c .5 6
.m. .13 3
,
Air Inventory (tons per day in year 2020) 5.86 4.86 4"
13.86 13.86 10.18 6.82 6.82
Carbon Monoxide 6.02
6.82 6.49 6.19 6.19 6.11
Oxides 6.82
_
p
0.33 o 28 o 23 023 012
o 33
Sulfur Omdes
5.4 27.7
0 0 4.2 5.4 5.0
Wetland Impacts (acres)
l 7 2 7 30
0 0
loo-Year Floodplain Impacts (acres)
2,760 2,970 12,240
0 0 2,760 2,970
Stream Relomtion (linear feet)
17 28
0 0 12 17 13
Earth Impacts (million cubic yards)
Construction Impact (units displaced): ' 420 700
p; 400
0 0 330 410
Properties 300 320 500
0 0 260 330
Homes 0 0 1
0 0 0 0
Parks 1 1 1 3
0 0 1
Historic/Culnual sites 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
Schools
Aswasnotedin
Impactspreeentedinthismblewaeprepueduapmofapmlhninmysqemmgbasedoninialdataoollection.
laterupdatedbythisEnvironmentalhnpact Statement.
the baseinformationwas
presentingthisdata inJuly 1994,
units using 1990 census.
and Gambrell Urban - Population and dwelling
Source: Landmm & Brown, Shapiro & Associates,
Option IAIB - Do-Nothing
its similarity to Option 3.
this option was not evaluated due to
Option 2 - Commuter Close Spaced -
Option 3 Commuter Dependent
Chapter II
-
- 11.373
"3
Purpose & Need and Alternatives
"0'
TABLE D-3
Page 1 of 4
Seattle - Tacoma International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
EMISSION INVENTORY
1994 EXISTING CONDITIONS
TONS/YEAR
I904 "ii-Nothing
S(.)lJ|{(.SlS CO VOC'S N0); 8.011 PM") TOTAL
.._-._
16,676.00 1,402.50 2,163.70 1.37 9.12
Roadways N
20,252.69
/ / ,
502 \ 37A ' '0'
14.07 23-"3 12.30 '34 /\ "5' 4
,'\ 175.78 0.01 - 0.05 202.21
':\\ 'cM" 5 Parking Lots
Healing Plants 5 3 (.9 3.25 52:77 0.53 .010 13.00 .0133) 0.06 :3 71 0.28 17.12
.
42.72 24.48 0.32 9.79 0.08 77.38
Training Fires
Surf. Coating 0.00 3.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.58
Tank Farms 0.00 .001." 27.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.51
Gmd. Sup. Equip/ 548.35 120.78 105.85 2.30 - 6.67 783.95
'
Aircraft at z 1,365.10 11"740639 181/ 1,378.30- 10.1 54.67 v~
1
" .371" 3,205.19
[I'CI' TOTALS 18,81 1.20 2,000.34 3,673.47 68.20 I6 42 74,569 m
'
Source: Emission Dispersion Modeling Syslcm (EDMS) Version 944
l.11111l1111111\'z llmwn I111:
,
Mulch. 1005
['t'ix EDMS
.E;, $71M) 7"
Various Air Pollution Sources
in King County
30.000
_ E Carbon Monoxide D NOxl
25.000
ear
20.000
Tons/Y 5'oOO
Metric
o!' 009
Mr? so": Vec'" V699"
ac
563;: 03'"
L"? we?"
Pollutant Source
In". ld ta Dwain-It d Inky
PIGURBZ
constitute a small source compared to motor vehicle and aircraft
emissions. The boiler, which is powered with natural
gas, is also a
minor source. The rest of the figures pertaining
to emissions will
include only the major sources: aircraft and motor vehicles.
TABLE 1. AIR POLLUTION SOURCES AT SEA-TAG AIRPORT a, %
-. .-'.
Source
TSP
Tank Farms-" 0 0.006 0
Motor' 502 37.2 0.018 0.118
Vehicles,
Aircraft? 3121 1874 162
Boiler 3.36 0.012 0.003 0.371
Totalf 3628 1897 163 62
Units - metric tons per
, - -
I
{AUTUI'B
ALKUEAET nL:>LUN:
Geo'nodc 1 m
' z 1'10
Geomode 2 - Runway Queue
AIRCFT 747
Aircraft_ Geomode 3 Touch 0 co
GEOHODE i
Geomode 4 - Taxi in/out
Geographic mode 'parxin
- Aircraft
-
Geomode s
13
Fuel FUEL.CD Geomode s - Engine Testing
ruc.uun 4
- Aircraft
Climb
Number of engines Geomode 7
- Aircraft Approa
.70 minutes
Geonode a
Time in mode
Trurnoo in the runway screen)
in mode, Geomode 2, are entered
(NOTE: Queueing Times for
(it has meaning only
Takeoff speed TOSPEED .00 meters/sec
geomode #1, it is ignored otherwzr
Emission rates in kg/hr (per engine)
CO 1.470000
"c W
NOX .
50x 7.320000
Part
Geomode 1 - Takeoff
' Geomode2 -
. AIRCFT 747
Aircraft. Geomode 3 Touch A Go
0205002 2
Geographic mode Geomode 4 - Taxi in/out
' ParkinGeomode5
- Aircraft
Fuel FUEL.CD l3
Geomode 6 Engine Testing
' ENG.NUH 4 Climb
Number of engines Geomode 7 - Aircraft
mGeomode 8 - Aircraft Approa
Time in mode
Tmrnon in the runway screen)
' Geomode2, are entered
for
(NOTE: Queueing Times in mode.
.00 meters/sec (it has meaning only
Takeoff speed TOSPEED
geomode 31. it is ignored otherwis
Emission rates in kg/hr (per engine)
co 00
.
"mN0:
sox .raaeeee'
a.000000""'
Part
Geomode 1 - Takeoff
Geomode 2 - Runway Queue
, AIRCFT 747
Aircraft Geomode 3 - Touch 5 Go
GEOMODE 3
Geographic mode Geomode 4 - TaXi in/out
Parking
Geomode 5 - Aircraft
FUEL.C0 13 Testing
F051 Geomode 6 - Engine
EHG.NUH A Climb
Geonode 7 - Aircraft
Number of engines
Geomode 8 - Aircraft Approach
TIHEMOD 2.00 minutes screen)
Time in mode in the runway
in mode, Geomode 2, are entered only for
(NOTE: Queueing Times (it has meaning
TOSPEED .00 meters/sec
Takeoff speed geomode 01, it is ignored otherwise)
Emission rates in kg/hr (per engine)
CO 64.590000
KC 24.990000
"Ox 2.600000
50x .340000
Part 1.000000
Geomode 1 - Takeoff
Queue
Geomode 2 - Runway
AIRCFT 747 0 Go
3 - Touch
Aircraft Geonode
4
Grouoor Geomode 4 Geographic node - .
Geomode 5 - Aircraft Parking
FUEL.CD 13
Geomode 6 - Engine Testing
Fuel
ENG.NUH 4 Climb
Geomode 7 - Aircraft
Number of engines
a
mGeomode Aircraft
Approach
TIHEHOD screen:
Time in mode in the runway
Geomode 2. are entered for
in mode. only
(NOTE: Queueing Times (it has meaning
TOSPEED .00 meters/sec
Takeoff speed geomode #1, it is ignored otherwise)
Emission rates in kg/hr (per engine)
ad!!!UUUE'
00
HC
NO!
SOx
Part
Geomode 1 - Takeoff
Queue
Geomode 2 Runway
AIRCET 747 & Go
- Touch
Aircraft Geomode 3
GEOMODE 5 in/out
Geomode 4 - TaXi
Geographic mode _
Geomode 5 Aircraft Parking
FUEL.CD 13 Testing
6 - Engine
FUE1 Geomode
4 climb
ENG.NUH Geonode 7 - Aircraft Number of engines Approach
Geomode a - Aircraft
TIHZHOD 3.00 minutes screen)
in the runway
Time in node
in node, Geomode 2. are entered
meaning only for
(noon: Queueing Timon (it has otherwise)
TOSPEED .00 meters/sec
T313011 SPBBd ll, it is ignored
geomode
Emission rates in kg/hr (per engine)
co 64.590000 A1-8
24.990000
ac
'- :nnnnn
III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Results and Conclusions
EDMS calculated emission rates for all the criteria pollutants plus
hydrocarbons for Sea-Tao Airport's typical activity on an annual basis.
Those emission reported in figures 2 through 8 and in Appendix 4.
After calculating emission rates, EDMS was used to calculate ambient
concentrations during peak-hour activity. This dispersion output was
contoured with an interpolating and plotting package called SURFER. The
interpolating technique used was Krigning. The results obtained from
the plotting exercise are shown in figures 9 through 22 found in
Appendix 5, and, although they serve the purpose of providing a
graphical illustration of the results, they must be used with caution.
Because of the low density of points in certain data sets, some contours
were not completed. Other contours contain waves and other artifacts
that are not a true reflection of the data, but rather reflect
weaknesses of the interpolating algorithm in handling the steep
gradients in regions with few data points. Practical considerations
relating to computer run time precluded using more calculation points.
2. The emission inventory obtained for Sea-Tao Airport shows that the
boilers, tank farms, and training fire are minor, even insignificant,
sources compared to aircraft and motor vehicles which together comprise
99.9% of the emissions.
Refer to Table l and Figure 3. Note that Figure 3 depicts the airport's
hydrocarbon emissions in a logarithmic scale. Appendix 4 contains Sea-
Tac's emission inventory in more detail.
The tank farms contribute only hydrocarbons from evaporation
loses. The training fires take place quarterly, at night, and
15
19 ppm NO2 in a
particular run EDMSI predicted a concentration of
receptor location right on 154th street. With the wind blowing directly
\-_
.
from the north (0 degrees) the Tyee Golf Course can be getting as much
___-..... -___--..._.'--\..
_ -....---
as-12 ppm N02 one--hour average during worst-~case conditions.
6. Predicted maximum one-hour concentrations of carbon monoxide during
worst-case conditions are about 20 ppm in the terminal area, due almost
entirely to traffic, and range up to 59 ppm at the runway, rapidly
decreasing to about 15 ppm one kilometer downwind of the maximum
concentration. In the case where the wind direction is zero degrees,
the plume spreads out around the queuing area, and 1 km south of the
queue the impact is still about 10 ppm. In figure 9 an island of zero
concentration is located next to the 2 ppm contour. As expected, due to
the meteorology chosen and the nature of the source, there is a steep
gradient in the east-west direction and a more moderate one along the
north-south axis. In the 345 degree case illustrated in figure 11, a
one-hour average contribution to the housing development immediately
east of the Tyee Golf Course, Angle Lake School and Seattle Christian
School of approximately 9-5 ppm was predicted.
The one-hour standard for CO is 35 ppm. It is predicted that the
maximum one-hour concentration of CO due to aircraft alone is about 20
ppm, or 57% of the standard, in an area of public access during a peak
hour and low-dispersive meteorological conditions.
degree case illustrated in figure 22. Note that 154th. Street is
located at the hot spot. At approximately 1 km north of the runway, the
+1 CM\U.X15.
Measurements have shown that all of the $6".
W
particulate matter from aircraft exhaust can be classified as fine,
ranging in diameter from 0.03 to 0.1 micrometers.l7
8. The airport is also a significant source of hydrocarbons contriburing
_"__#~.______
'_'
up to 5 ppm worst--case, ground- level concentrations. The housing
itself may
development around Seattle Christian School and the school. ."_..~_._.___..__. H... _
as
illustrated in figure 14, the 345
get around 4 ppm of hydrocarbons
20
degree case. From a toxics standpoint that may be quite significant
deig"on the actual composition of the hydrocarbons. For example,
assuming that 4% (based on the Radian estimates) of the hydrocarbon
emissions are benzene, the benzene contribution to the hourly average
from the airport would be of about 0.16 parts per million (or 24000
parts per trillion annual average). As a point of reference, the
acceptable source impact level (ASIL) for new sources proposed in WAC
173-460 is 0.063 parts per trillion.
9. The contribution of traffic to sulfur oxide pollution is minimal. A
high of 0.5 ppm 502 was predicted on the runway in the 0 degree case on
figure 18 decreasing to 0.1 ppm 1 km south of the queuing area, in the
vicinity of 200th Street. A one-hour average national standard for 502
does not exist, Washington's one-hour average standard is 0.4 ppm.
10. It is important to mention the conclusions that the FAA/EPA team
reached in their 1980 report Impact of Aircraft Emissions
on Air Quality
in the Vicinity of Airports mentioned earlier. This report compiled
both monitoring and modeling analyses of airports throughout the
country: Washington National, Los Angeles International, Dulles
International, Lakeland, John F. Kennedy, and Chicago O'Hare. They
summarized their conclusions in the following manner:
" * Maximum hourly
average CO concentrations from aircraft are
unlikely to exceed 5 ppm in areas of public exposure and are thus small
in comparison to the NAAQS of 35 ppm.
* Maximum hourly HC concentrations from aircraft can exceed 0.25
ppm over an area several times the size of the airport.
* While annual average NOZ concentrations from aircraft are
estimated to contribute only 10 to 20 percent of the NAAQS limit level,
these concentrations, when averaged over a one hour time period are
estimated to produce concentrations as high as 0.5 ppm if one assumes
that all engine produced NO is converted to NO2 by the time these
emissions reach public exposure. This value is at the upper end of the
concentration range being considered for the short term NO2 standard
presently under review and cannot be ignored."
The above excerpt identifies nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons as two
pollutants to be concerned about at airports; however,w
5mg-
21
TABLE II- I-7 (CON'l'lNUEI))
08/3 c Total "C
NO .
CO I ..
Fuel R010 ... 04/1" 113/1"
'. Mode . lb/hr 115/11: 113/11: kg/hr
' Model-Sede- 1111/11: 0.10"
'3 b b lb/hr 0.455
56.51 1.01 0.46
.
Mtg. Typo
1.01 114.6 4.51 0.15 3.1
63.01 1.13 9.96
140.0 51.34 4.90 1.16 0.5 3.9
1013 459.5 4.06 116.4 0.19 3.11
11116 4516 0.96 35.65 3.10 1.49
11313-1 9956 1.06 10.6 3.00 1.40 _'0.0 _3_.6__
Takeou 15.56 6.40 1.94 0.167h 9610 111' , 0100 3114 1.41
. 0.36'3-h
(1111110601 60.14 11.10 16.35
"Ln-("6.6T 1.15 0.51
3004 1399 10.10 4.50 3.1 1.1
Approach 11.14 3.91 1.11
0.111 9.90 4.53
3', 511.6 39.10 91.90 .50 1.1
1150 3.59 1.6
K 1016 6.99 3.11 101.6 0.101 1.91
.40 1.5 0.60
3100-11 4511 113.4 55.91
9900 3.59 0.640 1.01 1.10
Takeoff 1.91 0.00 1.41
puw 1'5" 1910 3500 ml 'w
D'\
Cllmbout 10.13 9.10 19.39
"(J1 .130 1010 1115 1,05 "3'
55.10 f 3.15 1.1
1.31
u: -..
3'; '1:- 2,'-1'1
Appronch 5.13 '? 16.14
141.4 q 0.01 61
. 4.0 1.0 h
15.3
K 1049 030.1
1. 414.6 0.599 13.19 5.90
__ 1010 3.13 1.31 1.0
11913-1 . 1311 110.0 4.65 1.11 1.3
101.3
': 5 Takeou 16141 6.60 1.99
16.44 4.65 1.11
Puw TF
., c11mbou1 13193 5904
10.14 36.15 0.01 'b
44.61 1.00
:. VIM41:10 4640 1100 0.55
:1 1.61 11.14 0.19 ".,
~ ~0F' Approach 11.16 5.16 3191'
1.31 19.30
E 1000 016.5 61.10
600.0 111.5 1.91 1.15 (3"""'
; 1016 3.00 1.16 1.40 1.09 15.90 :15) .
31913-10 19300 0191 306.1 115.4 5.05 1.65
1.11 1.19
3;.'4 K6
11* Takeon 4.19 11.50 1.63 _
MW 1140
1;; 41.39
Cllmboul 15900 1.61 3.45 0.11 0.10
l..- 1654 339
, g Approach ___050 0.54 0.145 1.40 064
t:- ____" 19.46 0.03 0 0 1.41
' E' 115 91.51 6.44 1.15 0.51
1010 631.3 1.41 0.640 14.19
5.15 0 0
0.11
7; 31150-1 11.35 0.40 __
Taken" 1405
565.6 1.15 0.561
1.11 1.59 0.111 k
ch 151 1.45
E. c11m1aou1 1141 5.19 0.05
401 110.1 11.45 0.11
5.11 1.6 1
: Approach 0.10 0.111 0.43, 0.19
51.16 1.36 3.34 0 0
1.51 0.10
- F11 115 3.31 0.40
0.43 0.195 0 0
121611-11 1016
415 191.0 1.00 1.11 0.11 0.10
= le60" 0.40 0.110 0.41 0113 '1;
PM: TP 0.016
'13. cumbom 400 101.4
1.14 100
4.95 0.01
' 91.51 14.94 6.10 0.15
115
= Approuch 0.19 0.131
1.69 0.404 0.51 0.13
~. 66.63 16.95 1.05 0.09
1'41 1.10 4.01 0.435 0.41 0.11
{' PTbA-
Idle 131.3 1.60
3.50 1.61 0.96
510 0.11 0.11
Takeo '114.6 3.01 1.39
WHO 111 1.11 0.516 6.10 zg_1_
413
:: (2111116601 4.31
113.0 9.50 43.5 0.91 0.41
:3 113 06.0 0.1 1.60
.. Approach 1.6 5.13
03.1 31.1 13.4
if 415 109.1 49.5 19.5
i 915 1.1 4.60 1.11 \
555.15l 101. 6.5 3.0
31.1 2.5
Spay 5134 1600 60.1 0.19
Takoou 0.0 0.0 14.3 6.5 1.14 .
1111111 4611 1111 4.6 0.011 Q
Cllmbout 34.0 15.0 10.1
0.95 0.43 0.11
1144 191 00.03 36.30 16.0 1.3
Approach 0.105 0.356 1.06 3.10
6.34 Q
104.4 41.36 13.91 10.0 4.5
946 419.1 156.1 11.00 5.15 1.61
MKSHE" 1111. 16.16 1.33 0.0 0.0 0.60
511w 1051 3101
Taken" 00 116.0 51.90
9.33 1.10 1.00 1._
1111111 0.0 1.16 10 56 \L
Cllmbout 5151 1609
12.09 16.00
40.11 513 0.31 0.11
',(/._L/u.'~ 999.1 11.53
Approach 1104 0611 0.101
15.13 3.59 1.61
55.63 14.66 0. 0 0.316
366 166.0
3.16 31.31 3.16 1.43
104511.01I 1016 1.10 0.101
1610 15.10 11.41 0.632
3590 4.30 3.00 1.01 0.40
1111 (1311161611 Tnkeo 9.40 6.61
3160 1433 3.51 1.61
Cllmboul 53.56 24.19 _.
_ T!" _ __1061 404.0
Approach _..
H __
H
._._
1
51'v1:'\~7.\';-:. .
T' h.'
W] o.\,._-\,\.?
C
LTO CYCLES
TYPICAL DURAIION FOR CIVIL
able 1113.
AIRPORTSa
CONGESTED METROPOLITAN
AT LARGE
/. Mode
Total
EEEEEEE Climbout Approach Taxi]
Taxi/ Takeoff
Idle in
Idle out
/
ommercial
carrier
Jumbo, long
' 32.9
and medium 4.0
0.7 2.2
jetb "
range 4.5 7.0 33.5
0.5 2.5
Turbopropc 19.0
;
6.5 23.2
Transport 5.0 4.6
6.5 0.6
piston
General
aviation 1.6 6.5 15.5
6.5 0.4 0.5
Business jet 7.0 33.5
0.5 2. 4.5
Turbopropc 19.0 27.3
5.0 6.0 4.0
Pistond 12.0 0.3
'
6.5 3.5 20.0
6.5
-'
3.5
Helicopter
minutes
3. Data given in Table 11-1-5).
:Reference T3 and T4 (Note b,
Classes T2
times as EPA Table II-lrS).
CSame P2 (Note b,
Classes T1 and
times as EPA
dSame Table II- l-S)..
Class Pl (Note b,
Same times as EPA
'11- l-S
Snurm's
lnlc-rmil (:()l11bll.~lil)ll Enuim'
22/80
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.