曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
Using FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) as a Master Plan Forecast
With FAA approval, Sea-Tac Airport used FAA’s TAF as the formal forecast for their planning and
environmental work. In discussions amongst other airports the consensus was that using the TAF as a
formal forecast was appropriate for smaller airports but, that there are too many uncertainties involved
with using it for the hub airports. One of the main concerns was the lack of local input and consideration
of local conditions inherent in the development of the TAF. It was noted that that the “10% rule” (FAA’s
guideline for accepting local forecasts) could be exceeded if there was appropriate justification. Few
airports are consistently involved in reviewing draft TAFs prior to formal publication. Caution and
consideration of local conditions as well as familiarity with a specific airport TAF should be considerations
prior to proceeding with its use.
Airport Communication, Coordination, and Emergency Planning
At most airports, the emergency planning function is a separate and discreet function from the overall
airport planning function. There have been questions as to whether there may be some duplication in
information gathering and that there may be some value in checking in with the appropriate departments
(planning, operations, security, etc.) to identify common information needs. For example, making some
of the information contained on the Airport Layout Plan available on a web site. It has also been
suggested that it would be useful to have a single point of contact for such information. However,
security may be an issue and certain types of information might only be made available through some
form of secured network.
OTHER ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Pending Fish and Wildlife Directives
There may be new latitudes available in a draft internal Fish and Wildlife directive that may ease the
restrictive handling of protected species around airports.
Predicting TSA Directives
Recent events have demonstrated that new TSA directives can dramatically impact airport operations. If
the new security requirements remain in place, they could have substantial impacts on terminal design
and functionality. Particularly on baggage systems that may see an influx of checked baggage and
ticketing lobby areas that have been designed with the assumption that there is some proportion of
passengers traveling with no need to check baggage. In addition, there may be implications to the new
airline kiosk strategies in that more staffing may be required to assist with checked baggage. What have
AAAE OSP Committee Board Report Page 5 of 7
January 7-11, 2007
been the implications to specific airports? Can airports as group make better assumptions about TSA
directives in order to provide more flexible operations?
DOT Act Section 4(f) Ruling at Stewart Airport, NY.
A court ruling on Stewart Airport, NY raises the question as to whether or not airports should lease
airport lands for recreational uses. DOT Act Section 4(f) prevents the Secretary of Transportation from
approving airport projects that affect Section 4(f) lands unless there are no other prudent and feasible
alternatives and that all steps to minimize harm have occurred. Section 4(f) lands include public parks,
recreational uses, and historic sites. Traditionally airports have not considered land that is leased for
recreational purposes as DOT 4(f) if the airport retains a property "take back" provision in the lease. For
example, an airport could lease land to a private operator, that maintains a public golf course, which has
been a golf course for over a decade, but which the lease has a take-back provision. Based on the
Stewart case, FAA is now considering that golf course as Section 4(f) land. This case raises questions
concerning this issue, which could prevent airport development in the future.
Measuring Performance of the National Airspace System.
There are numerous metrics that have or can be used to try to measure airport and airspace
performance in terms of delay - - FAA’s OpsNet database, DOT’s on-time performance data (ASQP),
FAA’s Aviation System Performance Metric (ASPM). Most of the metrics were developed with little
consideration for the performance of an airport. OpsNet was developed to measure ATC staffing and
airspace sector bottlenecks. ASQP was designed to measure airline performance. ASPM was also
originally developed to help airlines assess their performance. Is there a benefit in trying to bring these
metrics together in a meaningful way to better measure true airport performance? Short of full blown
computer simulation, can a better metric be developed?
Land Use Compatibility Around Airports.
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
航空资料23(60)
