Chapter
3
OPTIONS
3.0
INTRODUCTION
This element of the Jackson Hole Airport Operational Enhancement Study identifies a range of options
available that may enhance the safety of airside systems at the Jackson Hole Airport. These options were
selected in a preliminary review meeting conducted with the study’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG).
The purpose of this element is to identify a short list of options that have the greatest potential to reduce
the risk of runway excursion incidents, and to mitigate their potential catastrophic consequences.
The options were selected for their potential application to and enhancement of takeoff and landing
operations conducted in specific conditions, including nighttime and seasonal conditions. Some were
selected for their potential to increase flight crew awareness of the role of human factors in runway
excursion incidents. The selection of options for review had a focus on options that may enhance
landing operations, as all recent runway excursion incidents at the Jackson Hole Airport have occurred
on landing. The options fall into several categories, and are presented in the following sections.

Lighting Options

Pavement Options

Pavement Marking Options

Airfield Signage Options

Approach and Departure Procedure Options

Weather Monitoring Options

Aircraft Ground Control Options

Next-Generation Technology Solutions
Based on the analysis contained in this element of the study, and feedback from the TAG, eleven of the
options presented will be carried forward for further analysis. Some of the options presented herein
have already been implemented at the Airport and are so noted. Other options are presented for
subsequent analysis and possible realization.
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page 3-1
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
3.1
LIGHTING OPTIONS
3.1.1
Runway Centerline Lighting Systems (RCLS) and Touchdown Zone Lighting (TDZL)
RCLS and TDZL systems are lighting systems designed to facilitate landings, rollouts, and takeoffs. A
TDZL system is used primarily for landings, while an RCLS is used for both landings and takeoffs. RCLS
and TDZL systems both provide visual horizontal guidance to aircraft when touching down and braking,
over and above what is provided by runway edge lights. Once an aircraft is over the threshold, the
runway edge lights are on each side of the pilot’s peripheral vision. Without an RCLS and/or TDZL
system, the pilot is “flying blind” once over the threshold at night or in reduced visibility conditions.
According to the most recent Airport Layout Plan, Runway 1/19 is not equipped with either an RCLS or
TDZL system (see Table 3-1).
A RCLS consists of in-pavement, steady-burning, bi-directional lights spaced along the runway centerline
at 50-foot intervals. A RCLS not only provides horizontal guidance to pilots, but also provides positive
visual identification of the remaining runway length when braking or accelerating. When viewed from the
landing threshold, the runway centerline lights are white until the last 3,000 feet of the runway, then begin
to alternate with red lights for the next 2,000 feet, and are all red for the last 1,000 feet (see Exhibit 3A).
A TDZL system consists of 2 rows of in-pavement, steady-burning light bars located symmetrically about
and perpendicular to the runway centerline. Each light bar consists of 3 unidirectional lights facing the
landing threshold. The rows of light bars extend to 3,000 feet from the landing threshold, or one-half the
runway length for runways less than 6,000 feet, with the first light bars located 100 feet from the
threshold (see Exhibit 3B). TDZL systems reduce the potential for landing incidents by giving the pilot
visual guidance as to the location of the desired touchdown area on the runway.
According to AC 150/5340-30D, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids, RCLS and TDZL
systems are required for CAT-II and CAT-III runways, and for CAT-I runways used for landing operations
below 2,400 feet runway visual range (RVR). An RCLS is required on runways used for landing
operations below 1,600 feet RVR. Runway 19 has a CAT-I ILS system with a visibility minimum of ¾-mile,
or 4,000 feet RVR. As a result, RCLS and TDZL system are not required at the Jackson Hole Airport,
given the instrument approach procedures (IAPs) currently in place. Although not operationally required,
runway centerline lights are recommended for CAT-I runways greater than 170 feet in width, and CAT-I
runways expected to be used by aircraft with approach speeds over 140 knots.
RCLS and TDZL systems have traditionally utilized incandescent or xenon-based lighting fixtures, but
recent advances in light emitting diode (LED) technology have made LED an attractive alternative.
However, a moratorium was issued in September 2010 on the installation of LED lighting fixtures for
RCLS and TDZL systems. The moratorium is expected to be lifted once the industry addresses issues
related to regulating the intensity of LED fixtures.
Table 3-1: Runway Centerline Lighting System
Condition
TDP without RCLS
TDP with RCLS
Difference
Day visibility to 10 miles
1,500 feet
Night visibility to 10 miles
1,700 feet
1,300 feet
400 feet
Night 200 feet 3/4 mile
2,100 feet
1,600 feet
500 feet
Day 200 feet 3/4 mile
1,900 feet
1,300 feet
600 feet
Night 1,000 feet  3 miles
1,900 feet
1,500 feet
400 feet
1,400 feet
400 feet
1,600 feet
100 feet
Day 1,000 feet  3 miles
1,900 feet
1,700 feet (had to dive, exceeded
Night 200 feet 1/2 mile
VREF by 12 knots, used entire runway
 In every case RCLS improved a pilot’s ability to land the aircraft.
 Average improvement 400 feet shorter touchdown point (TDP).
Page 3-2
Control
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
Exhibit 3A: Runway Centerline Lighting System Configuration
Source: AC 150/5340-30D, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-3
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
Exhibit 3B: Touchdown Zone Lighting System Configuration
Source: AC 150/5340-30D, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids
Page 3-4
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
3.1.2
Chapter 3
Options
Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (RAILs)
RAILs are a series of sequenced flashing lights installed in combination with an approach lighting system
(ALS). An ALS is a configuration of lights arranged symmetrically around the extended runway centerline,
starting at the landing threshold and extending into the approach area. An ALS provides visual
information on runway alignment, height perception, roll guidance, runway end identification, and
reference to the horizon. The system used for precision approaches, in conjunction with an electronic
aid such as ILS, is normally 2,400 feet in length when the glideslope angle is 2.75 degrees or greater.
According to the most recent Airport Layout Plan, the Jackson Hole Airport has 1,400 foot long medium
intensity approach lighting systems (MALS) on both ends of Runway 1/19, which do not include RAILs,
even though the Runway 19 ILS procedures have glideslope angles of 3.0 degrees.
A MALS is beneficial where the surrounding terrain is unlighted and does not provide the necessary
visual cues for aircraft attitude control. A MALS consists of a threshold light bar and seven five-light bars
located on the extended runway centerline with the first bar located 200 feet from the runway threshold,
and the remaining bars at each 200-foot interval out to 1,400 feet from the threshold (see Exhibit 3C).
Two additional five-light bars are located 1,000 feet from the runway threshold, one on each side of the
centerline bar, forming a crossbar 66 feet long. All lights in the system are white, except for the threshold
lights which are green. The threshold lights are a row of lights located coincident with and within the
runway edge lights near the threshold, extending across the runway threshold.
The Jackson Hole Airport does not have RAILs associated with its two MALS systems. A MALS
equipped with RAILs is referred to as a MALSR (Medium intensity Approach Lighting System with
Runway alignment indicator lights). RAILs consists of five sequenced flashing lights located on the
extended runway centerline beyond the steady burning portion of a MALS, the first being located 200
feet beyond the MALS with successive units located at each 200-foot interval. The RAILs flash in
sequence toward the threshold at the rate of twice per second. RAILs provide earlier runway end
identification and runway alignment information to pilots on approach in reduced visibility conditions.
FAA Order 8260.3B, The United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), classifies a
MALS as an intermediate ALS, and classifies a MALSR as a full ALS. FAA Order 6850.2A, Visual
Guidance Lighting Systems, classifies a MALS as an “economy type lighting system for non-precision
approaches,” and classifies a MALSR as an “economy type system used as the FAA standard for CAT-I
precision runways.” Runway 1/19 is a CAT-I precision runway, and should be equipped with a MALSR
system.
The current MALS systems at the Jackson Hole Airport extend approximately 1,400 feet from each end of
the runway. The addition of RAILs to the MALS systems at the Jackson Hole Airport would create
MALSRs with minimum lengths of 2,400 feet.
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-5
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
Exhibit 3C: MALSR Configuration
Source: FAA Order 6850.2A, Visual Guidance Lighting Systems
3.1.3
Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs)
REILs consist of two synchronized flashing lights, one on each side of the runway landing threshold.
The function of REILs is to provide rapid and positive identification of a runway end during landings.
REILs are most beneficial in areas having a large concentration of lights and in areas of featureless
terrain. The FAA recommends these lights at airports with only a circling approach, or a circling and
non-precision straight-in approach. Both ends of Runway 1/19 were equipped with REILs in the past, but
the REILs were removed when the runway was shifted 300 feet to the north in the year 2000. REILs
cannot be installed with an approach lighting system such as a medium intensity approach lighting
system with sequenced flashing lights (MALSF), or a medium intensity approach lighting system with
runway alignment indicator lights (MALSR).
REILs can be either unidirectional or omnidirectional. Omnidirectional REILs provide good circling
guidance and are the preferred system. Unidirectional REILs face the approach area, and must be
installed where environmental conditions require that the area affected by the flash from REILs be greatly
limited. The optimum location of the lights is 40 feet from the runway edge, in line with the existing
runway threshold lights (see Exhibit 3D). When possible, the lights should be installed equidistant from
the runway centerline.
Page 3-6
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
Exhibit 3D: REILs Configuration
Source: FAA Order 6850.2A, Visual Guidance Lighting Systems
3.1.4
Overrun Lighting
Overruns are paved areas adjacent to the approach side of a runway threshold intended to prevent
erosion beyond paved runway ends expected to be used by jet aircraft. According to the most recent
Airport Layout Plan, each end of Runway 1/19 at the Jackson Hole Airport currently has an overrun 300
feet long and 170 feet wide. Despite consisting of full-strength pavement comparable to the usable
Runway 1/19 pavement, these overruns are not defined as stopways, and are therefore not considered
usable by aircraft. As a result, these overruns are not required to be lighted by the current high-intensity
runway edge lighting system (HIRL) as defined by AC 150/5340-30D, Design and Installation Details for
Airport Visual Aids. The overruns at each end of Runway 1/19 are not lighted by the HIRL system.
However, AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, indicates that newly constructed overruns should be
accompanied by base mounted edge lights. Exhibit 3E shows the typical runway edge light pattern for
a runway end with an overrun unusable by aircraft.
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-7
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
Exhibit 3E: Lighting for Runway End with Overrun Unusable by Aircraft
Source: AC 150/5340-30D, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids
If all obstacle clearance criteria are met, one of the overruns could be classified as a stopway or
clearway. This would allow longer takeoff and/or accelerate-stop distances, utilizing declared distances.
A stopway may be feasible beyond Runway End 19, but not beyond Runway End 1, as this would create
sub-standard runway safety areas (RSAs) and object free areas (ROFAs). Overruns classified as
stopways require additional runway edge lighting, as shown in Exhibit 3F.
Exhibit 3F: Lighting for Runway End with Overrun Usable as Stopway
Source: AC 150/5340-30D, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids
Page 3-8
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
3.1.5
Chapter 3
Options
Relocate High Intensity Runway Edge Lights (HIRLs)
A runway edge lighting system is a configuration of lights that defines the lateral and longitudinal limits of
the usable landing area of the runway during periods of low visibility and at night. Two straight lines of
lights installed parallel to and at equal distances from the runway centerline define the lateral limits of the
usable landing area. Straight lines of lights installed parallel to the runway threshold define the
longitudinal limits.
Runway edge lighting systems are classified according to the intensity or brightness produced by the
lights. Runway 1/19 at the Jackson Hole Airport currently has high intensity runway edge lights (HIRLs),
which are required for precision instrument runways. Runway edge lights in an HIRL system emit whit
light, except in the caution zone, which is the last 2,000 feet of runway or one-half the runway length,
whichever is less. In the caution zone, yellow lights are substituted for white lights; they emit yellow light
in the direction facing the landing threshold and white light facing the opposite end.
According to FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5340-30D, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual
Aids, runway edge lights are located at least 2 feet, but no more than 10 feet, the edge of the full strength
pavement designated for runway use. The HIRLs for Runway 1/19 are located 2 feet from the edge of
the pavement. Relocating the HIRLs to 10 feet from the edge of the pavement would make the runway
appear slightly wider and slightly shorter from the perspective of an approaching flight crew. The
benefits of relocating the HIRLs would be minimal and difficult to quantify.
3.1.6
TAG Lighting Option Determination Summary
Between 2007 and 2010, all runway excursion incidents at the Jackson Hole Airport occurred on landing.
New lighting facilities that reduce the risk of destabilized approaches and long touchdowns have great
potential for addressing runway excursions. For this reason, the Operational Enhancement Study
Technical Advisory Group (TAG) determined that Runway Centerline Lighting Systems (RCLS),
Touchdown Zone Lighting Systems (TDZL), Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (RAILs), and overrun
lighting will be carried forward for further assessment and analysis.
The TAG eliminated Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) and High Intensity Runway Edge Lights
(HRILs) relocation from further consideration for the following reasons.
Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs). REILs were previously installed at the Jackson Hole Airport, but
have since been removed. According to FAA guidance, REILs should not be installed in combination
with a medium intensity approach lighting system (MALS), which are currently installed on both ends of
Runway 1/19.
Relocate High Intensity Runway Edge Lights (HIRLs). The benefit of relocating the HIRLs is minimal
and difficult to quantify. In addition, relocating the HIRLs would require a large amount additional
conduit installation, the cost of which is difficult to justify. HIRL relocation is under consideration by the
FAA working group on runway excursions at the Jackson Hole Airport, but will not be carried forward by
this study for further assessment and analysis.
3.2 PAVEMENT OPTIONS
3.2.1 Runway Extension
The final element of the Operational Enhancement Study contains a detailed discussion of the need for
and benefits of a runway extension at the Jackson Hole Airport.
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-9
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
3.2.2 Declared Distances
Declared distances are the runway length distances declared by the airport owner as available and
suitable satisfying an aircraft’s takeoff run, takeoff distance, accelerate-stop distance, and landing
distance requirements. These distances must be FAA-approved and published in the Airport/Facility
Directory. Pilots take these distances into account during flight planning to determine whether they are
sufficient for their airplane’s performance characteristics given the atmospheric and runway conditions at
the time of the flight. The definitions of the four distances are:

Takeoff run available (TORA): The length of runway declared available and suitable to satisfy
acceleration from brake release to lift-off, plus safety factors. This shall not exceed the length of
the runway.

Takeoff distance available (TODA): The TORA plus the length of any remaining runway or
clearway beyond the TORA declared available for acceleration from brake release past lift-off to
start of takeoff climb, plus safety factors. This shall not exceed the length of the runway plus the
clearway.

Accelerate-stop distance available (ASDA): The length of runway plus stopway declared
available and suitable to satisfy acceleration from brake release to takeoff decision speed (V 1), and
then deceleration to a stop, plus safety factors. This shall not exceed the length of the runway plus
the stopway.

Landing distance available (LDA): The distance from the threshold to complete the approach,
touchdown, and deceleration to a stop, plus safety factors. This shall not exceed the length of the
runway.
According to AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, the use of declared distances is limited “to cases of
existing constrained airports where it is impracticable to provide the runway safety area (RSA), the
runway object free area (ROFA), or the runway protection zone (RPZ)” in accordance with design
standards. This applies to the Jackson Hole Airport, as a road extends into the OFA beyond Runway
End 1.
The only declared distances that increase the available length for aircraft operations without increasing
the runway length are the TODA and ASDA. These distances apply only to takeoff operations. Increases
in the TODA and ASDA can be achieved by designating stopways or clearways. AC 150/5300-13, Airport
Design, establishes FAA requirements for stopways, and clearways. This section discusses these
requirements, and their effects on the declared distances available for takeoff operations. First, however,
FAA blast pad requirements and the existing blast pads at the Jackson Hole Airport are discussed, as
these may have the potential to be designated as stopways.
Blast Pads
Blast pads prevent erosion beyond runway ends during jet aircraft takeoffs (see Exhibit 3G). The
required blast pad dimensions for an airport are based on the airport’s ARC, which is C-IV for the
Jackson Hole Airport. According to the most recent Airport Layout Plan, each end of Runway 1/19
currently has a blast pad 300 feet long and 170 feet wide. For C-IV airports, the required blast pad width
is 200 feet, and the required blast pad length is 200 feet. The widths of the existing blast pads at the
Jackson Hole Airport are sub-standard and should be widened.
Page 3-10
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
Exhibit 3G: Blast Pad Diagram
Source: AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design
The existing blast pads at the Jackson Hole Airport are not currently designated as stopways or
clearways. Blast pad pavements of sufficient strength may be designated as stopways and used for
takeoffs utilizing declared distances. The blast pads beyond each end of Runway 1/19 both consist of
full-strength pavement, stressed for use by aircraft with dual tandem landing gear and a gross weight of
up to 380,000 pounds.
Stopways
A stopway is an area beyond the takeoff runway threshold designated by the airport as usable by
decelerating aircraft during an aborted takeoff (see Exhibit 3H). The stopway must be at least as wide
as the runway and able to support aircraft during aborted takeoffs without causing structural damage to
the aircraft. The addition of a stopway to a runway end increases the ASDA for takeoffs in which an
aircraft accelerates towards the stopway. The limited use and high construction cost of stopway
pavement, when compared to full-strength runway pavement usable in both directions, makes them less
cost-effective. Where a stopway is provided, the stopway length and the declared distances are provided
in the Airport/Facility Directory for each operational direction. As currently configured, the existing RSA
prohibits the designation of a Runway 19 Stopway. Additional easements and land acquisition are
required to expand the RSA to accommodate a Runway 19 Stopway.
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-11
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
Exhibit 3H: Stopway Diagram
Hydroplaning is defined as a loss
of steering or braking control
when a layer of water prevents
direct contact between aircraft
tires and the runway surface
Source: AC 150-5300-13, Airport Design
Clearways
A clearway is an area extending beyond the runway end available for completion of jet aircraft takeoffs
(see Exhibit 3I). The addition of a clearway to a runway end increases the takeoff distance available
(TODA) for takeoffs in which an aircraft lifts off over the clearway. A clearway increases the allowable
airplane operating takeoff weight without increasing the runway length. A clearway must be at least 500
feet wide, with a maximum length of 1,000 feet. The area under the clearway need not be suitable for
stopping aircraft during an aborted takeoff.
The clearway plane slopes upward with a slope not greater than 1.25 percent. Except for threshold lights
less than 26 inches high located off the runway sides, no object or terrain may penetrate the clearway
plane. A clearway should be under an airport’s control, but not necessarily by direct ownership. Airport
control ensures no penetrations to the clearway plane. Where a clearway is provided, the clearway
length and declared distances are provided in the FAA Airport/Facility Directory for each operational
direction.
Exhibit 3I: Clearway Diagram
Source: AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design
Page 3-12
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
3.2.3 Skid-Resistant Runway Pavements
For heavy jet aircraft with high approach speeds, braking performance on runway surfaces, particularly
when wet, is a significant safety consideration. The most important characteristic of runway pavements
in this regard is surface friction. Insufficient surface friction can result in aircraft skidding, slipping, and
general loss of pilot control of the aircraft. Runway pavement surface friction research has been and
continues to be performed in two major areas, pavement surface design and pavement surface
maintenance and evaluation.
Three factors that contribute to hydroplaning during aircraft operations are high aircraft speeds, shallow
tire tread depth, and water depth on the runway surface. Skid-resistant runway surfaces provide paths
for water and superheated steam to escape from beneath the aircraft tires; reduce the risk of spray
ingestion, fluid drag on takeoff, and impacting spray damage; and have sufficient fine scale roughness
for aircraft tires to break through the water film that remains after runoff.
Runway 1/19 is constructed using hot-mix asphalt (HMA). There are several available methods for
improving the friction of HMA pavement surfaces. These include porous friction course (PFC) overlays
and seal coating with chip seals or aggregate slurry seals. Seal coating is a temporary measure, while a
PFC is a longer term pavement surface friction solution. Runway 1/19 was recently overlaid with a PFC.
A PFC is a thin HMA surface course with a thickness between ¾ and 1 ½ inches, constructed using an
open-graded matrix mix design with mostly crushed stone as aggregate. The open-graded matrix
makes the runway surface water permeable, allowing water to drain to the side of the runway, thereby
preventing water buildup on the pavement surface. The edge of a PFC overlay is shown in Exhibit 3J.
Exhibit 3J: Edge View of a PFC Overlay
Source: AC 150/5320-12C, Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid-Resistant Airport Pavements
According to AC 150/5320-12C, Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid-Resistant Airport
Pavement Surfaces, PFC is not recommended for high traffic runways with over 91 turbojet arrivals per
day. This is because rubber accumulation can plug the holes in the overlay matrix. These plugged
holes cannot be cleared without causing serious damage to the structural integrity of the PFC. Close
monitoring and maintenance of runways with a PFC are required to ensure this condition does not occur.
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-13
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
Another method of improving runway surface friction is the forming or cutting of transverse grooves in
the runway surface. Runway 1/19 does not have runway grooving, as it is not compatible with a PFC
overlay. Runway grooving provides for drainage of the runway surface and escape routes for water and
superheated steam under aircraft tires. The FAA standard groove configuration is ¼ inch depth and ¼
inch width, with spacing of 1 ½ inches between the center of each groove. Runway grooving must be
saw cut for all HMA runways. An example of sawed grooves in HMA pavement is shown in Exhibit 3K.
Exhibit 3K: Sawed Grooves in HMA Pavement
Source: AC 150/5320-12C, Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance
of Skid-Resistant Airport Pavements
A survey of existing runway pavement should be conducted prior to saw cutting grooves to verify that its
structural condition is adequate. Runway grooves must be cleared periodically to remove accumulated
contaminants such as rubber, using high-pressure water, chemical solvents, or high-velocity impact
techniques. Grooved runway surfaces must be closely monitored for signs of structural failure such as
rutting, cracking, or settling.
3.2.4 Paved Runway Shoulders
Paved shoulders are recommended for runways expected to accommodate Airport Design Group III and
higher aircraft. Runway 1/19 at the Jackson Hole Airport is designed as a C-IV runway. According to AC
150/5300-13, Airport Design, the required runway shoulder width for C-IV runway shoulders is 25 feet.
An increase to this standard width is permissible for unusual local conditions. Paved shoulders should
be able to support the occasional passage of the most demanding aircraft using the airport, as well as
the heaviest expected emergency or maintenance vehicle. According to Airport management, the
runway shoulders at the Jackson Hole Airport are 25 feet wide.
3.2.5 Taxiway Configuration and High-Speed Exit Taxiways
AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, establishes standards for taxiway configurations, to meet the safety and
operational requirements of specific airports. Taxiway configuration standards are based on the Airport
Reference Code (ARC) for an airport, which is currently C-IV for the Jackson Hole Airport. According to
the most recent Airport Layout Plan, Runway 1/19 at the Jackson Hole Airport has a 75-foot wide full
parallel taxiway and four connector taxiways. The taxiway dimensional standards for ARC C-IV airports
are shown in Table 3-2.
Page 3-14
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
Table 3-2: ARC C-IV Taxiway Dimensional Standards
Taxiway Width
75 ft
Does JAC meet FAA
Standards?
Yes
Taxiway Edge Safety Margin*
15 ft
To be confirmed
Item
Dimension
Taxiway Shoulder Width
25 ft
No
Taxiway Safety Area Width
171 ft
Yes
Taxiway Object Free Area Width
259 ft
Yes
Parallel Taxiway Centerline to Runway Centerline Separation
Required for Right-Angled Connector Taxiways
400 ft
Yes
Parallel Taxiway Centerline to Runway Centerline Separation
Required for Acute-Angled Connector Taxiways**
600 ft
No
Taxiway Wingtip Clearance
44 ft
Yes
Source: AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design
* The taxiway edge safety margin is the minimum acceptable distance between the outside of the airplane wheels and the
pavement edge.
** Separation required for right-angled connector taxiways is sufficient for acute-angled connector taxiways if taxiway traffic
flow is in the direction of landing.
The Jackson Hole Airport’s taxiway system does not meet FAA standards for taxiway shoulders.
According to Airport management, the taxiway system does not have any taxiway shoulders. Taxiway
shoulders should be provided to ensure that aircraft wheels do not enter non-paved areas during taxiing
and to minimize ingestion of foreign objects (e.g., gravel, grass, dirt, etc.). Taxiway shoulders do not
need to be paved as long as they are stabilized, although paved shoulders are preferred.
The Jackson Hole Airport also does not meet standards for parallel taxiway centerline to runway
centerline separation for acute-angled connector taxiways. This is not a problem, however, as the
Airport does not currently have any acute-angled connector taxiways. An acute-angled connector
taxiway – also known as a high-speed runway exit or high-speed exit taxiway – is a connector taxiway
with a longer radius than a right-angled connector taxiway. It is designed to expedite aircraft turning off
the runway after landing, thus reducing runway occupancy time. A high-speed exit taxiway is usually
angled from the preferred direction of the primary runway, making it usable only by aircraft landing in
one direction. It includes lighting or marking to define the path of aircraft, traveling at speeds up to the
manufacturer’s maximum design taxi speed, from the runway centerline to the taxiway centerline.
The primary purpose of a high-speed exit taxiway is to increase airport capacity during peak periods.
When the peak hour traffic for a runway is less than 30 operations (landings and takeoffs), a properly
located right-angled taxiway will achieve an efficient flow of traffic. The purpose of high-speed exit
taxiways is not to reduce runway excursions.
The number and location of high-speed exit taxiways corresponds to the specific operational parameters
associated with the aircraft expected to utilize the runway during peak periods, including their approach
speeds, deceleration rates, and initial turn-off speeds. Final design of high-speed exit taxiways also
depends on factors such as runway gradient, airport elevation, and reference temperature. Appendix 9
of AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, provides guidance on locating high-speed exit taxiways. AC
150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay, provides guidance on the effect of high-speed exit taxiway
location on runway capacity.
Research indicates, but has not conclusively shown, that the capacity enhancement potential of highspeed exit taxiways is not typically realized due to low utilization rates. Low utilization rates may occur
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-15
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
because high-speed exit taxiways are only used when an immediate need exists to expedite runway
clearance, and because airlines wish to avoid unnecessary risks and passenger discomfort during
landing.
3.2.6 Taxiway Fillet Dimensions
The standard taxiway markings associated with runway operations are shown in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: ARC C-IV Taxiway Fillet Dimensional Standards
Dimension
Does JAC meet the
standard?
Radius of Taxiway Turn
150 ft
Yes
Length of Lead-in to Fillet
250 ft
Yes
Fillet Radius for Tracking Centerline
85 ft
Yes
Fillet Radius for Judgmental Oversteering Symmetrical Widening
105 ft
Yes
Fillet Radius for Judgmental Oversteering One-Side Widening
97 ft
Yes
Item
Source: AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design
3.2.7 Heated Runway Ends
A heated pavement system melts snow and ice as it falls, eliminating the cost and operational
disadvantages of mechanical and chemical snow and ice removal methods. Heated runway and taxiway
pavement also circumvents potentially harmful environmental effects associated with anti-icing and deicing chemicals. There are two methods for heating pavement surfaces that may have cost and efficiency
advantages: electrically conductive asphalt pavement systems, and geothermal heating systems.
A demonstration section of a patented, electrically conductive asphalt pavement system called Snowfree
was installed at Chicago O’Hare Airport in 1994. The pavement section was approximately 7,000 square
feet in size and located in a high-traffic area of parallel Taxiway M near the passenger terminal. The
conductive pavement layer of the Snowfree system utilized an asphalt pavement mix containing
approximately 25% synthetic graphite. Graphite was selected due to its combination of high conductivity,
hardness, and durability. The conductive pavement layer was laid in between the aggregate base course
and the regular asphalt surface course, and was electrically charged by copper cables laid on top of the
base course. The amount of electrical current was regulated automatically by a group of sensors which
monitored pavement and weather conditions. The pavement section was removed during reconstruction
in 1998. The Snowfree system has not been implemented at any other airports, and has not been tested
as a runway pavement section.
Geothermal heating systems harness stored thermal energy below the earth’s surface using geothermal
heat pumps. These systems are currently used on a small scale in the United States, Argentina, Japan,
and Europe to heat sidewalk, roadway, and bridge pavements. The pumps in these systems collect
geothermal energy through a series of looped pipes installed underground. The system circulates a
heated fluid glycol solution, hot water, or steam through plastic tubing installed within or below the
pavement, thereby heating the pavement and melting snow and ice. This type of system works better
with concrete pavements than with asphalt pavements, as asphalt must be laid at very high
temperatures and compacted, which may cause damage to the tubing. Geothermal heating systems are
only feasible in geographic areas with adequate underground heat flow. Geothermal pavement heating
systems have not yet been implemented at any civil airports in the United States.
Page 3-16
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
3.2.8
Snow Removal Considerations in Graded Runway Safety Areas and Extended Overrun
Pavement
The question has been raised as to whether or not the removal of snow from graded RSAs and/or
extended overrun pavement mitigates aircraft damage and/or injury in the event of an aircraft overrun
event. It has been suggested that by not removing the accumulated snow, the snow could act as a kind
of EMAS – further slowing and cushioning the overrunning aircraft. In addition, the snow has the
potential to inhibit fire (associated with overheated brakes, aircraft/surface friction, spilled fuel, etc.).
Balanced against this proposition are the advantages of removing the snow. Removal of the snow
facilitates ARFF access/response and passenger evacuation, permits easier pilot identification of
potentially usable surface remaining, and speeds the eventual clearing/drying of the top surface. The
costs of snow removal include the personnel and equipment required, an increase in the runway closure
period, increased operational complexity, and the potential to cause some pilot confusion as to the
definition of the runway threshold/departure end of pavement.
Whether unplowed snow aids or hinders aircraft overrun events has not, to our knowledge, been
scientifically evaluated. We recommend that further analysis be conducted as to the impact of snow
removal within RSAs and overrun areas on aircraft overrun events.
3.2.9
TAG Pavement Option Determination Summary
Additional pavement for landing operations will provide a greater margin for accommodating long
landings. For this reason, the Operational Enhancement Study TAG determined that runway extension
will be carried forward for further assessment and analysis.
The TAG eliminated stopways, skid resistant runway pavements, paved runway shoulders, high speed
exit taxiways, taxiway fillets, and heated runway pavement from further consideration for the following
reasons.
Stopways. Stopways only increase the available accelerate-stop distance associated with takeoff
operations, and do not increase the landing distance available. Landing distance is the critical distance
with regard to runway excursions at the Jackson Hole Airport. As a result, the enhancement value of
stopways is negligible. In addition, a runway shift to the north would be required to accommodate the
required safety areas for the stopways. This runway shift would have similar environmental impacts as a
runway extension without the commensurate benefits.
Skid-Resistant Runway Pavement. Runway 1/19 currently has a porous friction course (PFC) overlay
in place. Changing the runway surface to a grooved concrete surface would not provide any
enhancement over the existing PFC overlay.
Paved Runway Shoulders. Runway 1/19 currently has 25-foot wide paved shoulders that meet FAA
dimensional and structural standards. Additional shoulder width may provide mitigation enhancement in
the event of an excursion off the longitudinal edge of the runway pavement. However, most excursion
incidents occur off the ends of the runway and not off the longitudinal edges.
High Speed Exit Taxiways. High speed exit taxiways are capacity enhancements. The Jackson Hole
Airport does not have a capacity issue, nor does Runway 1/19’s configuration or length allow for the
inclusion of high speed exit taxiways.
Taxiway Fillets. The current taxiway fillets meet FAA standards. Increasing the fillet dimensions over
FAA standards will not reduce nor mitigate runway excursion incidents.
Heated Runway Pavement. Pilot projects at other airports have shown that heated pavements offer
little enhancement over traditional snow and ice removal methods, given the high installation costs of
heated pavement. This option would only enhance winter operations, and would not reduce the risk of
runway excursions during the summer months.
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-17
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
3.3
PAVEMENT MARKING OPTIONS
3.3.1
Runway Pavement Markings
AC 150/5340-1J, Standards for Airport Markings, establishes requirements and specifications for runway,
taxiway, and other airfield pavement markings. However, a substantial draft revision to this AC, renamed
AC 150/5340-1K, was open for public comment until July 23, 2009. The required runway markings for
Runway 1/19, as defined by revised draft AC 150/5340-1K, are shown in Table 3-4, and the markings
defined as precision instrument runway markings are displayed graphically in Exhibit 3L.
Table 3-4: Required Runway Pavement Markings for Runway 1/19
Does JAC Meet
FAA Standards?
Type
Purpose
Runway Designation Markings
Identify runway ends by their magnetic azimuths
Yes
Runway Centerline Markings
Identify the physical center of a runway, and provide
alignment guidance during takeoff and landing
Yes
Runway Threshold Markings
Identify the beginning of the runway available for
landing
Yes
Runway Aiming Point Markings
Serves as a visual aiming point for landing
operations
Yes
Runway Touchdown Zone
Markings
Identify the TDZ for landing operations, coded to
provide distance information
Runway Side Stripe Markings
Provide visual contrast between a runway and
surrounding terrain, and delineate width of the
paved area usable as runway
Yes
Runway Threshold Bars
Delineate beginning of runway available for landing
when there is pavement aligned with the runway on
the approach side of the threshold
Yes
Chevrons
Identify pavement areas unusable for landing,
takeoff, or taxiing
Yes
No longer required
at JAC under draft
AC 150/5340-1K
Source: Revised Draft AC 150/5340-1K, Standards for Airport Markings
Under previous requirements established by AC 150/5340-1J, the only required runway pavement
markings at the Jackson Hole Airport that do not meet standards are the runway touchdown zone (TDZ)
markings. However, revised draft AC 150/5340-1K changes runway pavement marking requirements
such that runway TDZ markings are no longer required on either end of Runway 1/19. The AC 150/53401J definition of a precision runway is “a runway having an existing instrument approach procedure
utilizing air navigation facilities with both horizontal and vertical guidance for which a precision approach
has been approved.” This led to the painting of abbreviated TDZ markings on both ends of Runway
1/19, as both ends meet the precision runway definition criteria. Chapter 2 of AC 150/5340-1K changes
to definition of a precision approach to include only those with vertical guidance and lower than ¾statute mile visibility (4000 feet RVR). Under these definitions, both ends of Runway 1/19 would be
considered non-precision runway ends, as the lowest visibility minimum for either end currently is the
Runway 19 ILS minimum of ¾-statute miles. As a result, runway TDZ markings will not be required at the
Jackson Hole Airport once the final AC 150/5340-1K is issued.
Page 3-18
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
Exhibit 3L: Precision Instrument Runway Markings
Source: Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) 2006
Note: Although markings appear black in the exhibit, runway markings are painted white on runways.
Another type of runway marking not included in Table 3-3 is runway shoulder markings, which are not
required. Runway shoulder markings should be used as a supplement to runway side stripes in
identifying pavement not intended for use by aircraft. They consist of 3-foot long diagonal stripes
between the runway side stripes and pavement edge, spaced 100 feet apart. Runway shoulder
markings are needed “where pilots have experienced problems identifying the runway from the
shoulder.” The Jackson Hole Airport does not currently have runway shoulder markings.
Revised draft AC 150/5340-1K contains several strategies for improving runway markings. To increase
the friction coefficient of the marking surface, silica sand should be spread on the marking immediately
after painting. The friction coefficient can also be increased by using paints containing glass beads.
Paints containing glass beads have the added benefit of enhancing visibility of runway markings. The
runway pavement markings at the Jackson Hole Airport were painted utilizing this type of paint.
Another strategy for enhancing marking visibility is to outline the edges of runway markings with a
painted black border of 6 inches or greater in width. Although black borders are not required for the
runway markings in Table 3-4, they are strongly recommended. The runway markings at the Jackson
Hole Airport do not have black borders; however, the recent application of a porous friction course
overlay on the runway creates a comparable visual effect.
3.3.2
Taxiway Pavement Markings
The standard taxiway markings associated with runway operations are shown in Table 3-5.
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-19
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
Table 3-5: Standard Taxiway Pavement Markings Associated With Runway Operations
Does JAC Meet the
Standard?
Type
Purpose
Taxiway Centerline Markings
Provide a visual cue to permit taxiing along a designated path
Yes
Enhanced Taxiway
Centerline Markings
Provide supplemental visual cues to alert pilots of an upcoming
runway holding position marking to help minimize potential for
runway incursions
Yes
Taxiway Edge Markings
Delineate the edge of the taxiway; primarily used when the
usable taxiway edge does not correspond with the edge of the
pavement
No
Runway Holding Position
Markings
Identify location on a taxiway where an aircraft is to stop when
it does not have clearance to proceed onto the runway
Yes
ILS Critical Area/POFZ
Holding Position Markings
Identify location on a taxiway where an aircraft is to stop when
it does not have clearance to enter the ILS critical area or POFZ
Yes
Surface Painted Holding
Position Signs
Provide supplemental visual cues to alert pilots of an upcoming
holding position marking to help minimize potential for runway
incursions, and confirms runway landing designator(s) of
runway immediately beyond the marking
Yes
Source: Revised Draft AC 150/5340-1K, Standards for Airport Markings
3.3.3
TAG Pavement Marking Option Determination Summary
The TAG eliminated runway pavement markings and taxiway pavement markings from further
consideration for the following reasons.
Runway Pavement Markings. Runway 1/19 is currently in compliance with FAA runway pavement
marking standards. Increasing the runway pavement markings over FAA standards will not reduce nor
mitigate runway excursion incidents.
Taxiway Pavement Markings. The taxiway system at the Jackson Hole Airport is currently in
compliance with all FAA taxiway pavement marking standards, except taxiway edge marking standards.
However, the taxiway edge marking standard is an optional standard. In addition, taxiway edge
markings will not reduce nor mitigate runway excursion incidents.
Page 3-20
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
3.4
Chapter 3
Options
AIRFIELD SIGNAGE OPTIONS
3.4.1 Runway Distance Remaining Signs
AC 150/5340-18C, Standards for Airport Sign Systems, establishes specifications for runway distance
remaining signs. These signs provide distance remaining information to pilots during takeoff and
landing, and are not required. Runway distance remaining signs are located along the side of the
runway, between 20 and 75 feet from the pavement edge depending on sign size, aircraft clearance
requirements, effects of jet blast, and other factors. Each sign has a single numeral indicating the runway
distance remaining in increments of 1,000 feet. Runway distance remaining signs are illuminated at all
times that runway edge lights are illuminated.
There are three methods for configuring runway distance remaining signs – the Preferred Method,
Alternate Method #1, and Alternate Method #2 – as shown in Exhibit 3M. The Preferred Method is the
most economical. The advantage of Alternate Method #1 is that the remaining runway distance is more
accurately reflected when the runway length is not a multiple of 1,000. The advantage of Alternate
Method #2 is that runway distance remaining distance information will still be displayed for operations in
both directions in the event a sign on one side of the runway needs to be removed due to clearance
conflicts. The Jackson Hole Airport currently has runway distance remaining signs on the east side of
the runway, configured using the Preferred Method.
Exhibit 3M: Runway Distance Remaining Sign Configurations
Source: AC 150/5340-18E, Standards for Airport Sign Systems
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-21
Chapter 3
Options
3.4.2
Operational Enhancement Study
Taxiway Guidance Signs
AC 150/5340-18C, Standards for Airport Sign Systems, establishes specifications for taxiway guidance
signs. A standardized taxiway guidance sign system is required to ensure safe and efficient operation of
aircraft and ground vehicles in an airport movement area. Standard signage examples for an airport with
a single runway, and a similar layout to the Jackson Hole Airport are shown in Exhibit 3N. Standard
signs for this runway configuration include:

Holding position and taxiway location signs on all taxiways that intersect the runway.

Runway exit signs at all runway/taxiway intersections, with signs on both sides of midfield
taxiways.

Direction signs for the parallel taxiway at all intersections with midfield connector taxiways.

Taxiway location signs along the parallel taxiway for aircraft taxiing from the runway ends to the
terminal.
Exhibit 3N: Taxiway Signage Example for an Airport with a Single Runway
Source: AC 150/5340-18E, Standards for Airport Sign Systems
3.4.3
TAG Airfield Signage Option Determination Summary
The TAG eliminated runway distance remaining signs and taxiway guidance signs from further
consideration for the following reasons.
Page 3-22
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
Runway Distance Remaining Signs. The runway distance remaining signs at the Jackson Hole Airport
are currently installed using the FAA-preferred method. Installation of new signs on both sides of the
runway would provide a very minor enhancement in pilot situational awareness during landings.
Installation of new runway distance remaining signs is under consideration by the FAA working group on
runway excursions at the Jackson Hole Airport, but will not be carried forward by this study for further
assessment and analysis.
Taxiway Guidance Signs. Taxiway guidance signs at the Jackson Hole Airport currently meet FAA
standards. Increasing the taxiway guidance signs over FAA standards will not reduce nor mitigate
runway excursion incidents.
APPROACH AND DEPARTURE PROCEDURE OPTIONS
3.5
3.5.1 Threshold Crossing Heights for IAPs & VGSIs
The threshold crossing height (TCH) prescribed for an instrument approach procedure (IAP) is the height
of the straight line extension of the glide slope above the runway at the threshold. The TCH for a visual
glide slope indicator (VGSI), such as a precision approach path indicator (PAPI), listed in the FAA
Airport/Facility Directory, is “the height of the lowest on-course signal at a point directly above the
intersection of the runway centerline and the threshold.” Landing excursion incidents are more likely if
an aircraft crosses the threshold at a height greater than the TCH. Generally, for every 10 feet excess
height above the TCH for a landing operation, an additional 200 feet of runway is required. This required
additional runway may be even greater, if:

An aircraft lands at greater than the manufacturer’s designated approach speed.

An aircraft lands beyond the prescribed touchdown point for a smooth touchdown.

Appropriate braking is not applied after touchdown.

The runway is wet or contaminated with snow and/or ice.

The runway slopes downhill.

There is a tailwind.
If the TCH for a specific procedure or PAPI is unnecessarily high, approaches executed at greater than
the prescribed TCH have even greater risks for landing incidents than they otherwise would.
An aircraft’s required landing distance is prescribed by the manufacturer in the pilot’s operating
handbook (POH), based on a TCH of 50 feet. However, the TCH for precision IAPs can range from 20 to
60 feet, and the TCH for PAPIs can range from 20 to 75 feet. When the TCH is less than 50 feet, the
landing distance prescribed by the POH will typically be greater than the actual landing distance. When
the TCH is greater than 50 feet, the landing distance prescribed by the POH will typically be less than the
actual landing distance.
The current glidepath angles and TCHs associated with the IAPs with vertical guidance at JAC are shown
in Table 3-6.
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-23
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
Table 3-6: JAC IAPs with Vertical Guidance
Approach Procedure
Glidepath Angle
TCH
ILS/LOC Y RWY 19
3.0˚
50'
ILS/LOC Z RWY 19
3.0˚
50'
RNAV (GPS) X RWY 1
3.0˚
50'
RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 1*
3.0˚
50'
RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 1*
3.0˚
50'
RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 19*
3.0˚
53'
Source: FAA Airport/Facility Directory, 7 MAY 2009
* These approaches only usable by A, B, and C category aircraft. Special aircraft &
aircrew authorization required.
The wheel crossing height (WCH) is lower than the TCH because the TCH is measured in reference to
the nose of the aircraft, as shown graphically in Exhibit 3O. The TCH should ideally provide for at least a
30-foot WCH, but can provide a WCH of no less than 20 feet, if necessary, for CAT-I runways without
displaced thresholds. The WCH for a CAT-I runway can be as low as 10 feet if a displaced threshold is in
place, with full strength runway pavement suitable for landing on the approach side of the displaced
threshold. Higher TCH requirements apply to CAT-II and CAT-III runways. This is because the larger
aircraft that typically use these procedures and VGSIs generally have higher glidepath-to-wheel heights.
Exhibit 3O: Threshold Crossing Height and Wheel Crossing Height
Source: FAA Order 8260.34, Glide Slope Threshold Crossing Height Requirements
The allowable TCH for an ILS IAP is determined utilizing FAA Order 8260.3B, The United States Standard
for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), Volume 3, Appendix 5. The TCH for area navigation (RNAV)
IAPs such as RNP and GPS IAPs are determined utilizing FAA Order 8260.54A, The United States
Standard for Area Navigation (RNAV). However, according to TERPS, if a non-RNAV precision IAP such
Page 3-24
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
as an ILS serves the same runway end as an RNAV IAP, the RNAV glidepath angle and TCH should
match the non-RNAV IAP.
The TCH is a function of four variables. These four variables are different depending on whether the
airfield has smooth terrain or rapidly dropping terrain. For ILS procedures at airports with smooth terrain,
the TCH is a function of glidepath angle, distance from the glideslope antenna to the runway threshold,
runway threshold elevation, and elevation of the runway crown at the touchdown point. For ILS
procedures at airports with rapidly dropping terrain, the TCH is a function of glidepath angle, distance
from the glideslope antenna to the runway threshold, runway threshold elevation, and glide slope
antenna base elevation.
The TCH can be decreased by reducing the glidepath angle or reducing the distance of the glide slope
antenna from the threshold. However, the TCH recommended for ILS, RNAV, and LPV procedures
intended to be used by Height Group 3 aircraft is 50 feet, plus or minus 5 feet, as shown in Table 3-7.
Height Group 3 is the largest group of aircraft expected to use the Jackson Hole Airport, and these
aircraft will likely use the available ILS and RNAV IAPs. As a result, the recommended minimum TCH for
IAPs at the Jackson Hole Airport is 45 feet.
Table 3-7: FAA-Recommended IAP TCH
Height
Group
Representative Aircraft
Recommended
TCH +/- 5 Feet
Remarks
Height
Group 1
General Aviation, Small Commuters,
Corporate Jets, T-37, T-38, C-12,
C-20, C-21, T-1, Fighter Jets, UC-35,
T-3, T-6
40 Feet
Many runways less than 6,000 ft long with
reduced widths or restricted weightbearing normally prohibiting landings by
larger aircraft
Height
Group 2
F-28, CV-340/440/580, B-737, C-9,
DC-9, C-130, T-43, B-2, S-3
45 Feet
Regional airports with limited air carrier
service
Height
Group 3
B-727/707/720/757, B-52, C-135,
C-141, C-17, E-3, P-3, E-8, C-32
50 Feet
Primary runways not normally used by
aircraft with ILS glidepath-to-wheel
heights exceeding 20 feet
Height
Group 4
B-747/767/777, L-1011, DC-10,
A-300, B-1, KC-10, E-4, C-5, VC-25
55 Feet
Most primary runways at major airports
Source: FAA Order 8260.3B, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)
Runway 1/19 has two PAPIs, one on either end of the runway. The current glidepath angles and TCHs
associated with these PAPIs are shown in Table 3-8.
Table 3-8: Jackson Hole Airport PAPI Specifications
Approach Procedure
Glidepath Angle
TCH
RWY 19 PAPI
3.0˚
38'
RWY 1 PAPI
3.0˚
50'
Source: FAA Airport/Facility Directory
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-25
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
The allowable TCH for a PAPI is determined utilizing FAA Order 6850.2A, Visual Guidance Lighting
Systems. Like the recommended TCH for an IAP, the recommended TCH for a PAPI varies according to
the height group of the most demanding aircraft expected to use the runway. The minimum
recommended visual TCH for Height Group 3 aircraft is 35 feet, as shown in Table 3-9.
Table 3-9: FAA-Recommended PAPI TCH
Height Group
Representative
Aircraft
Height Group 1
General Aviation,
Small Commuters,
Corporate Jets
Height Group 2
F-28, CV340/440/580, B-737,
DC-9, DC-8
Approximate
Cockpit-to-Wheel
Height
Visual TCH
Remarks
10 Feet or less
40 Feet, +5, -20
Many runways less than 6,000 ft
long with reduced widths or
restricted weight-bearing
normally prohibiting landings by
larger aircraft
15 Feet
45 Feet, + 5, -20
Regional airports with limited air
carrier service
Height Group 3
B-727/707/720/757
20 Feet
50 Feet, +5, -15
Primary runways not normally
used by aircraft with ILS
glidepath-to-wheel heights
exceeding 20 feet
Height Group 4
B-747/767, L-1011,
DC-10, A-300
Over 25 Feet
55 Feet, +2, -4
Most primary runways at major
airports
Source: FAA Order 6850.2A, Visual Guidance Lighting Systems
According to TERPS, the PAPI glidepath angle and TCH should match the glidepath angles and TCHs of
vertically guided IAPs to the runway. The VGSI TCH and vertically guided IAP TCHs for Runway 1 at the
Jackson Hole Airport are identical. However, the VGSI TCH and vertically guided IAP instrument TCHs
for Runway 19 are not, varying by 12 to 15 feet. Instead, the 38-foot TCH for the PAPI matches the 38foot TCH for the VOR/DME IAP to Runway 19, even though the VOR/DME IAP does not provide vertical
guidance. According to TERPS, when the glidepath angles of the PAPI and the vertically guided IAPs
are not coincident by more than 0.2˚, or when the TCHs differ by more than 3 feet, a note should be
published on the approach plate indicating this. The approach plates for the Runway 19 IAPs do not
indicate that these TCHs are not coincident.
3.5.2
Runway 1 ILS
Runway End 19 currently has two CAT-I ILS IAPs. Runway End 1 does not have any ILS IAPs. The only
IAPs available on Runway 1 are one RNAV (GPS) IAP, two RNAV (RNP) IAPs, and one VOR/DME IAP.
The VOR/DME IAP does not provide the vertical guidance of Runway 19 ILS IAPs, the RNAV (GPS) and
RNAV (RNP) IAPs have higher minimums than the Runway 19 ILS IAPs, and the RNAV (RNP) IAPs are
only available for use with special aircraft and aircrew authorization. As a result, aircraft do not have as
many IAP options when landing on Runway 1 in the event Runway 19 is unusable due to tailwinds or
other factors.
The installation of an ILS on Runway End 1 would enhance the operational safety of the airfield at the
Jackson Hole Airport by providing more IAP options and greater precision to landing aircraft. It would
Page 3-26
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
also allow aircraft landings during periods of low visibility when winds are adverse to landings on
Runway End 19, thereby minimizing Airport closures.
3.5.3 Satellite-Based Approach Procedures
Over the past decade, great advances have been made in the design and implementation of instrument
approach procedures that utilize spatial information provided by global positioning satellites and
augmented by ground-based augmentation systems (GBAS). Such procedures include Localizer
Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures.
These procedures offer visibility and cloud ceiling minimums similar to those provided by traditional
precision instrument landing systems, without requiring that localizer or glideslope antenna equipment
be installed on an airfield. LPV and RNP procedures are already in place at the Jackson Hole Airport,
and plans are underway for providing GBAS augmentation to possibly lower existing approach
minimums. Future installation of a GBAS at the Jackson Hole Airport would strongly enhance the ability
of flight crews to identify the appropriate touchdown point on the runway.
3.5.4
Runway 19 CAT-II/CAT-III Instrument Landing System
Runway 19 is currently equipped with a CAT-I ILS. Installation of additional equipment on the airfield
may allow for the ILS to be upgraded to CAT-II or CAT-III status. This upgrade would make the airfield
more accessible in periods of low visibility and cloud ceiling. However, a benefit cost analysis (BCA)
would have to be conducted to determine whether the benefits of CAT-II or CAT-III minimums outweigh
the costs of installation and maintenance. Forthcoming satellite-based procedures may have greater
potential for operational enhancement than traditional ILS equipment, at lower installation and
maintenance cost.
3.5.5
Infrared Enhanced Vision System (EVS)
An infrared EVS is a cockpit head-up display system (HUD) that is modified to display forward-looking
infrared imagery in the center of a pilot’s view. The infrared imagery is intended to supplement the pilot’s
ability to detect and identify visual references for the intended runway, to continue an approach below
the prescribed decision height. For example, the infrared imagery can accentuate the preferred
touchdown point on a runway. In its certification documentation, the FAA refers to an infrared EVS as a
“novel and unusual design feature.” A limited number of civilian aircraft are equipped with infrared EVS
due to its novelty and high cost. Use of infrared EVS is at the discretion of corporate and commercial
aircraft operators.
3.5.6
Flight Crew Best Practices Literature and Training
As part of this study, The Boeing Company was contracted to provide best practices literature for use by
flight crews. This literature describes the unique challenges associated with operating at the Jackson
Hole Airport, and provides proactive risk management strategies for use by flight crews in planning and
executing aircraft operations at the Airport. The Boeing literature identifies numerous unique challenges
at the Jackson Hole Airport, including:
 High Density Altitude
 High Terrain
 Noise Abatement Procedures
 Weather
 Mix of Air Traffic
 Mix of Available Approaches
 Runway Length
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-27
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
 Runway Lighting
 Circling Approaches
The Boeing literature indicates that all of these unique challenges increase the potential for destabilized
approaches and runway excursions. Recommended best practices for addressing these challenges
include specialized training for several phases of flight, including pre-flight planning, in-flight cruise,
descent, approach, and landing. The best practices literature will be made available to airlines and
corporate operators on the Airport’s website.
3.5.7
Instrument Departure Procedures
An instrument departure procedure is a preplanned instrument flight rule (IFR) departure procedure
published for pilot use, in graphic and textual format, that provides obstruction clearance from the
terminal area to the appropriate en route structure. The Jackson Hole Airport currently has two
instrument departure procedures. Instrument departure procedures would not enhance the safety of
aircraft on the ground, and, as a result, would not reduce the potential of runway excursion incidents.
3.5.8
TAG Approach Procedure Option Determination Summary
Satellite-based procedures have great potential for increasing the precision of available approach
procedures at a reduced cost. Flight crew best practices literature and training will enhance awareness
of the unique challenges present at the Jackson Hole Airport, and effective strategies for addressing
them from the cockpit. For these reasons, the Operational Enhancement Study TAG determined that
satellite-based procedures and best practices for large turbojet operations will be carried forward for
further assessment and analysis.
The TAG eliminated threshold crossing height (TCH) adjustment, Runway 1 instrument landing system
(ILS), Runway 19 CAT-II AND CAT-III ILS, and infrared enhanced vision system (EVS) from further
consideration for the following reasons.
Threshold Crossing Height (TCH) Adjustment. Reduction in TCH may increase the probability of
runway undershoots. It may also increase the potential for longer touchdowns. However, further
investigation is required to determine why differences exist between the Runway 19 ILS and PAPI TCHs.
Runway 1 Instrument Landing System (ILS). Approximately 94% of landings during instrument
meteorological conditions at the Jackson Hole Airport are conducted on Runway 19. In addition, all
runway excursion incidents have occurred during landings on Runway 19. As a result, a Runway 1 ILS
would enhance only a small portion of landing operations, and would not be likely to reduce or mitigate
runway excursion incidents. Moreover, satellite-based procedures have the potential to offer similar
performance to an ILS at a reduced cost.
Runway 19 CAT-II/CAT-III ILS. The TAG determined that forthcoming satellite-based approach
procedures have greater potential for operational enhancement than the traditional ILS equipment, at
lower installation and maintenance cost.
Infrared Enhanced Vision System (EVS). A limited number of civilian aircraft are equipped with
infrared EVS due to its novelty and high cost. The Airport has no control over use of infrared EVS, as it is
at the discretion of corporate and commercial aircraft operators.
Instrument Departure Procedures. Runway 1/19 already has two instrument departure procedures in
place. New or revised instrument departure procedures would not reduce the potential for runway
excursion incidents on either takeoff or landing.
Page 3-28
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
3.6
Chapter 3
Options
WEATHER MONITORING OPTIONS
3.6.1 Low-Altitude Wind Shear Detection Equipment
Wind shear is a sudden, drastic shift in windspeed, direction, or both over a small area. Wind shear can
subject an aircraft to violent vertical and horizontal movements. Pilots must be prepared to react
immediately to wind shear in order to maintain control of their aircraft. Low-altitude wind shear is
particularly hazardous during takeoff and landing due to the proximity of an aircraft to the ground, which
reduces a pilot’s available reaction time.
The most severe sources of low-altitude wind shear are downward air outflows from thunderstorms and
other convective clouds. The most critical type of convective wind shear event is called a microburst. A
microburst is a strong downdraft which normally occurs within a space less than 1 mile wide and 1,000
feet above ground. A symmetric microburst is shown in Exhibit 3P.
Exhibit 3P: Symmetric Microburst
Source: AC 00-54, Pilot Wind shear Guide
A microburst can produce downdrafts of up to 6,000 feet per minute and wind direction changes of more
than 45 knots in a matter of seconds. The effects of microbursts on aircraft in different operational
scenarios are shown in Exhibits 3Q, 3R, 3S and 3T.
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-29
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
Exhibit 3Q: Wind shear Encounter During Approach
Source: AC 00-54, Pilot Wind shear Guide
Exhibit 3R: Wind shear Effects on Go/No-Go Decision Point
Source: AC 00-54, Pilot Wind shear Guide
Page 3-30
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
Exhibit 3S: Wind shear Encounter During Takeoff on Runway
Source: AC 00-54, Pilot Wind shear Guide
Exhibit 3T: Wind shear Encounter During Takeoff After Liftoff
Source: AC 00-54, Pilot Wind shear Guide
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-31
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
Other sources of low-altitude wind shear include:






Gust Fronts: Leading edges of cool air masses recently descended from thunderstorms or
convective clouds.
Air Mass Fronts: Zones of transition between cool and warm air masses.
Sea Breeze Fronts: Zones of transition between land-based air masses and local winds that
blow from sea to land.
Terrain-Induced Wind shear: Turbulence caused by proximity to mountains, breaks in
mountain ranges, or hills with sharp drop-offs.
Low-Altitude Jet Streams: A layer of air with high wind velocities located directly above a
surface air layer with lower wind velocities.
High-Speed Atmospheric Vortices: Violent circular wind patterns such as tornadoes.
Alert systems have been installed at over 100 airports around the country to warn pilots of low-altitude
wind shear. The most common system is the Low-Level Wind shear Alert System (LLWAS). An LLWAS
consists of a series of wind sensors placed around an airport to detect differences in wind speed and
direction at various locations. When wind speed differs by more than 15 knots in different locations
around the airport, a warning for wind shear is given to pilots by Air Traffic Control. A basic LLWAS
consists of six sensor stations, with one station located at the center of the airfield and the other five
stations located around the airport periphery. At sites with demonstrated benefits to more advanced
wind shear detection, the number of sensors can be increased by converting the system to an expanded
network LLWAS (LLWAS-3), which can consist of as many as 32 sensor stations.
Another ground-based wind shear alert system is the Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) system.
TDWR is a more sophisticated system than LLWAS, capable of detecting wind shear and turbulence
associated with outflows, gust fronts, cold fronts, and other wind discontinuities in precipitation and in
clear air. TDWR also has wind shift prediction and wind profiling capabilities using advanced algorithms.
Another option for low-altitude wind shear detection is a modified Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR). An
ASR is a short-range radar installation on an airport designed for detecting aircraft location, altitude, and
airspeed. Although not ideal for wind shear detection, ASR units at several airports have been modified
to provide wind shear information to Air Traffic Control.
The Jackson Hole Airport does not currently have an LLWAS, TDWR, or modified ASR. FAA-towered
airports qualify as candidates for one or a combination of these systems if the present value of the
system’s life-cycle benefits exceeds the present value of its life-cycle costs. A benefit cost analysis
conducted in accordance with FAA-APO-90-13, Establishment Criteria for Integrated Wind Shear
Detection Systems, is required to make this determination.
3.6.2 RVR Equipment
ILS systems are often accompanied by runway visual range (RVR) equipment to determine visibility
conditions at an airport. RVR is defined as the range over which the pilot of an aircraft on the centerline
of a runway can see the runway surface markings or the lights delineating the runway or identifying its
centerline, reported in hundreds of feet. In its basic form, an RVR installation consists of a projector unit,
known as a transmissometer, and a transmissometer receiver unit, each mounted on short towers either
250 or 500 feet apart. The projector emits a beam of light of known intensity, and the receiver measures
the intensity of the light, thereby determining any reduction in visibility occurring due to obscuring matter
between the two units such as rain, snow, dust, fog, or smoke. The number of RVR facilities required for
a given runway depends on the highest category ILS system installed at an airport. Generally, higher
category ILS systems with lower visibility minimums require a greater number of RVR facilities.
Page 3-32
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
FAA Advisory Circular 97-1A, Runway Visual Range (RVR), establishes requirements for RVR systems.
RVR systems are required for airports that have ILS approaches with visibility minimums of ½-mile (2400
feet RVR) or less. CAT-I and CAT-II ILS systems with minimum visibilities between 1,600 and 2,400 feet
require one RVR, called a touchdown RVR, located 750 feet to 1,000 feet from the threshold, normally
behind the ILS glideslope antenna. CAT-II ILS systems with visibilities less than 1,600 feet require an
additional RVR, called a rollout RVR, located 750 to 1,000 feet from the rollout end of the runway. All ILS
CAT-III systems require touchdown and rollout RVRs, as well as a third RVR called a midpoint RVR,
located within 250 feet of the longitudinal midpoint of the runway. CAT-II ILS systems on runways longer
than 8,000 feet also require a midpoint RVR. All RVRs are located adjacent to the runway using the ILS.
Runways with runway centerline lighting systems (RCLS) typically include touchdown, rollout, and
midpoint RVRs.
3.6.3 Braking Action Advisories and Runway Friction Reports
Contamination by ice, snow, and rain can reduce braking action on the runway surface and contribute to
runway excursions. Air traffic control (ATC) is responsible for reporting braking action quality to pilots
based on reports received from other pilots and airport management. The quality of braking action is
described by the terms “good”, “fair”, “poor”, and “nil”, or a combination of these terms. When the
reported braking action quality of a runway is “poor” or “nil”, or when weather is conducive to
deteriorating or rapidly changing runway braking conditions, the air traffic information system (ATIS)
broadcast will indicate “braking action advisories are in effect.”
At airports with a friction measuring device, airport staff is responsible for monitoring and reporting
runway friction conditions to ATC when runways are covered with compacted snow and/or ice. The
Greek letter µ is used to designate runway surface condition friction values. MU values range from 0 to
100. When the MU value for any one-third zone of an active runway is 40 or less, airport management
must submit a runway friction report to ATC for dissemination to pilots. It is important to note that no
correlation has been established between MU values and the descriptive terms “good”, “fair”, “poor”,
and “nil” used in braking action advisories.
Although they are necessary for safe operations, braking action advisories and runway friction reports
have limited usefulness for pilots. This is because weather and runway surface conditions can quickly
deteriorate, and the relative nature of braking quality measurements can make them difficult to interpret.
However, planned enhancements to the national ATC system are expected to improve the frequency,
speed, and accessibility of these advisories and reports. These enhancements are also intended to
make braking action advisories and runway friction reports inter-relatable, by standardizing
measurements and harmonizing them with standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO).
3.6.4
Wind Indicators
A wind cone (also known as a wind sock) is a hollow, conical, textile flag mounted on a pole on an
airfield. Wind cones visually indicate approximate wind direction and relative wind speed to aircraft
operators. Wind direction is indicated as air flows into the wind cone, with the wind cone pointing the
opposite direction of the prevailing wind source. Wind speed is indicated by the wind cone’s angle
relative to the mounting pole. The more horizontal the wind cone is to the ground, the higher the
indicated wind speed. Wind cones are often lighted internally or externally at night to ensure visibility to
pilots.
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-33
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
A wind tee performs the same function as a wind cone, but only
provides approximate wind direction information and no relative
wind speed information. Similar to a weather vane, a wind tee
points in the direction of the prevailing wind source. Wind tees
are often designed in the shape of an aircraft, to signal to pilots
the suggested direction of operations based on wind direction.
Exhibit 3U: Wind Tee and
Segmented Circle at JAC
Wind cones and wind tees are often installed at the center of a
segmented circle, usually 100 feet in diameter, constructed of
weather-proof material that provides contrast with the ground.
According to AC 150/5340-5C, Segmented Circle Airport
Marking System, a segmented circle performs two functions: it
aids pilots in locating obscure airports, and it provides a
centralized location for required indicators and signal devices.
As shown in adjacent Exhibit 3U, the Jackson Hole Airport
currently has a wind tee with segmented circle located on the
west side of Runway 1/19, directly across the runway from the
passenger terminal.
The Airport also has three lighted
windsocks.
3.6.5
TAG Weather Monitoring Option Determination Summary
Runway Visual Range (RVR) equipment enhances en route pilot awareness of prevailing visibility
conditions on the airfield. This will allow pilots to divert earlier if visibility conditions are below approach
procedure minimums, and has the potential to reduce available approach procedure minimums. For
these reasons, the Operational Enhancement Study TAG determined that RVR equipment will be carried
forward for further assessment and analysis. This equipment will be considered in combination with
Runway Centerline Lighting Systems (RCLS), as these systems and equipment are typically installed
together.
The TAG eliminated low altitude wind shear detection equipment and braking action advisories/runway
friction reports from further consideration for the following reasons.
Low Altitude Wind Shear Detection Equipment. Although the Jackson Hole Airport is at greater risk of
low altitude wind shear due to mountainous terrain, wind shear has not been shown to have been a
major factor in runway excursions at the Jackson Hole Airport.
Braking Action Advisories and Runway Friction Reports. Airport staff are currently in compliance with
FAA braking action and runway friction reporting requirements.
Wind Indicators. Existing wind indicators at the Jackson Hole Airport are in compliance with FAA
requirements.
3.7
AIRCRAFT GROUND CONTROL OPTIONS
3.7.1
Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS)
ESCO (Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation, a subsidiary of ZODIAC, S.A.) is currently the sole
provider of EMAS. ESCO performed a preliminary modeling for this study. EMAS was developed in
partnership with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and consists of a bed of cellular cement
material manufactured in the form of engineered block components that are strategically placed at the
end of a runway. The material crushes under the weight of an aircraft, providing deceleration and a safe
stop. It is accepted by the FAA as an equivalent to a standard runway end safety area. The length and
Page 3-34
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
width of the system vary in size, which is determined by the EMAS design aircraft. The system also
includes side steps for passengers to egress the aircraft after an excursion. These steps are also
designed to allow Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) equipment and safety personnel to access the
aircraft and assist passengers in the event of a mishap. The performance objective is to be able to stop
the design aircraft that is exiting the end of the runway at 70 knots.
To date, EMAS has been installed at 41 runway ends at 28 airports throughout the United States. There
are plans to install an additional 10 systems in 2009. Since the development of EMAS, there have been
five incidents in which aircraft have been successfully arrested without causing major injury to
passengers or significant damage to the aircraft.
EMAS installations only have enhancement value for aircraft operations that have already departed the
usable runway surface. As a result, EMAS is a reactive, not proactive, solution to runway excursions,
and is only installed in situations where a full runway safety area (RSA) cannot be provided beyond the
end of a runway. Runway 1/19 at the Jackson Hole Airport currently has fully compliant RSAs. In
addition, EMAS installations have very high maintenance costs and are costly to reconstruct following a
runway excursion. Given the frequency of runway excursions at the Jackson Hole Airport, repeated
EMAS reconstruction would likely be cost-prohibitive.
Exhibit 3V: EMAS Views
Source: Zodiac ESCO
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-35
Chapter 3
Options
3.7.2
Operational Enhancement Study
Grading Beyond Runway 19 Departure End Runway Safety Area (RSA)
This option involves grading beyond the runway safety area (RSA) for the Runway 19 departure end.
RSAs are rectangular areas surrounding a runway and centered on the runway centerline. As required
by FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, and FAA Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program, an RSA
must be:

Cleared and graded and have no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or other
surface variations;

Drained by grading or storm sewers to prevent water accumulation;

Capable, under dry conditions, of supporting snow removal equipment, aircraft rescue and
firefighting equipment, and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing structural damage
to the aircraft; and

Free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the RSA because of their function.
The proposed grading area is shown in Exhibit 3W. Like an EMAS installation, this is a reactive, not a
proactive, solution, as grading beyond the Runway 19 departure end RSA will only have enhancement
value for aircraft operations that have already departed the usable runway surface.
3.7.3
Extended Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) Hours of Operation
The ATCT is a central operational facility in the terminal aircraft control system. It consists of a tower
cab, an IFR associated room if equipped with radar, and uses air/ground communications and/or radar,
visual signaling, and other devices to provide a safe operating environment. Having an adequate
amount of tower staff and sufficient operating hours is a key ingredient in reducing the risk of an incident
at airports. The Jackson Hole air ATCT is operational between the hours of 7 AM to 9 PM seven days a
week. Extended ATCT operations would strongly enhance safety and security for flights which may
arrive late due to delays. This may be necessary primarily during winter season, when delays due to
weather are frequent, visibility is low, and snow removal crews operate after ATCT hours.
3.7.4
Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON)
A TRACON is a terminal Air Traffic Control (ATC) facility that controls aircraft movements between an
airport’s immediate airspace and the en route structure. In ATC communications, a TRACON is often
referred to as “Approach Control” or “Departure Control”, although TRACONs also handle overflights
and VFR operations in the terminal area. The purpose of a TRACON is to ensure adequate separation of
aircraft in the terminal area, to issue traffic and weather information to pilots, to determine the arrival
sequence of aircraft, and to ensure departing aircraft safe access to en route airspace. TRACONs do not
handle takeoffs and landings, which are handled by Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) controllers.
According to the National Airspace System Enterprise Architecture Portal, there are currently 217
TRACON facilities in the United States. Four of these facilities are located within 200 nautical miles of the
Jackson Hole Airport. These four TRACONs are located at ATCTs in Billings, MT; Twin Falls, ID; Casper,
WY; and Helena, MT.
Page 3-36
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
Exhibit 3W:
Proposed Runway 1 Departure End Grading Area
TRACONs typically control aircraft in an area with a radius up to 60 nautical miles and to altitudes
ranging from 10,000 to 17,000 feet MSL. The actual horizontal and vertical boundaries of TRACON ATC
are based on terrain, traffic flow, and other factors specific to the airport in question. Aircraft outside or
above TRACON ATC boundaries are handled by the regional Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) or
neighboring TRACONs, and aircraft within two to five miles of the airport, or below 2,500 feet above
airport elevation, are handled by the ATCT. At airports without a TRACON, ATC is coordinated by direct
communication between the ARTCC and the ATCT, which usually results in an increase in required
aircraft separation minimums in the terminal area.
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-37
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
TRACON controllers work in a dimly-lit IFR room within an ATCT complex or in a separate building
located on or near the airport it serves, to allow for use of radar scopes that are difficult to read in rooms
with windows. In some instances, TRACON controllers will work alongside ATCT controllers in the tower
cab, an arrangement referred to as a TRACAB. However, a TRACAB arrangement is generally utilized
only to control costs, and only if there is relatively uncongested airspace in the terminal area.
The airspace controlled by a TRACON is usually divided into smaller, manageable sectors assigned to
separate air traffic controllers. The physical dimensions of each sector and the procedures controllers
use as aircraft pass from one sector to another are outlined in appropriate facility directives. TRACON
controllers determine aircraft positions and control aircraft movements using radar detection and radio
communications, and do not have visual contact with aircraft. TRACON radar detection systems consist
of two general types, Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) and Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR), and
are installed at airports and remote locations across the United States. PSR is known as noncooperative radar because it only detects an aircraft’s two-dimensional location, and does not collect
altitude information or unique data about its targets. Conversely, SSR relies on cockpit cooperative
transponder equipment to replace PSR’s passive reflected return signal with an active reply signal from
the aircraft. This allows ATC to collect unique data about the target being tracked. The cockpit
transponder detects SSR signals and replies with an aircraft-specific 4 digit code assigned by ATC,
allowing the SSR antenna to collect aircraft type and altitude information.
According to the FAA guidance document Investment Criteria for Airport Surveillance Radar
(ASR/ATCRBS/ARTS), “current provisions in Airway Planning Standard Number One, Order 7031.2B, are
valid operational and economic determinants for determining how a radar approach control facility
should initially be established.” The establishment criteria for approach control service contained in
Order 7031.2B are as follows:
“Establishment. Approach control service may be implemented by the FAA control
tower at an airport having a radio navigational aid that is suitable for holding purposes or
an approved approach procedure, or if the airport has an ILS installed or programmed,
provided that the service can be implemented within the existing resources of the facility.
This service may be extended to an adjacent airport within 30 nautical miles using direct
or indirect communications if air/ground coverage exists at the final approach altitude
over the navigational aid serving the adjacent airport. Communications equipment (VHF
and/or UHF, as required) necessary to provide a discrete approach control channel and
associated landlines may be requested when:
(1) At FAA Tower Airport. 5,000 or more annual instrument operations are recorded or
the airport has an ILS installed or programmed.
(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
Activity Statistics, CAB/FAA, or other counts acceptable to the FAA) are recorded
and the airport is within 30 nautical miles of the approach control facility.”
There are unlikely to be 5,000 annual instrument operations recorded at the Jackson Hole Airport;
however, it is possible that 1,500 instrument operations could be recorded. As a result, TRACON
services would be most feasibly provided by an adjacent airport with an existing TRACON.
Unfortunately, there are no FAA tower airports within 30 nautical miles of the Jackson Hole Airport, as
referenced in the eligibility criteria. However, consolidation of approach and departure control services
over greater distances has become common in recent years to control ATC costs. If one of the four
nearby TRACON facilities is found to have adequate existing resources to provide approach/departure
control service for the Jackson Hole Airport, an FAA waiver will be needed to establish such service.
Page 3-38
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
Transfer of responsibility for ATC duties from the ARTCC to a nearby TRACON will require formal
authorization by a letter of agreement (LOA) between the Salt Lake City ARTCC, the Jackson Hole ATCT,
and the proposed TRACON. The letter must define the physical boundaries of TRACON airspace
control; the altitudes and airways to be used by aircraft when crossing the boundaries between ATCT,
TRACON, and ARTCC airspace; and procedures for transfer of control from the ATCT to the TRACON,
and from the TRACON to the ARTCC.
This option would enhance both approach and departure operations. Approach enhancements would
have a ripple effect that would enhance landing operations, as well-sequenced, stabilized approaches
reduce the risk of runway excursions. It is not expected that enhancements to departure sequencing
would have a ripple effect that extends to the takeoff roll. Approach and departure operations would be
enhanced when the Jackson Hole ATCT is closed, as the TRACON would be in operation 24 hours a day
The establishment of a TRACON would address challenges associated with high terrain and mix of air
traffic at the Jackson Hole Airport. Approach and departure control would reduce the risk of controlled
flight into terrain (CFIT) accidents, as TRACON controllers would provide special routing to aircraft in
order to avoid high terrain. Availability of a TRACON would reduce aircraft separation requirements for
arriving and departing aircraft in the Jackson Hole Airport terminal area. The TRACON would also
improve the ability of controllers to safely sequence arrivals and departures by a mix of aircraft with
widely varying performance characteristics, thereby reducing the risk of wake turbulence events.
3.7.5
Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Location and Procedures
FAR Part 139.315 designates the ARFF index of an airport based on the length of an air carrier aircraft
that uses the airport and the average number of daily departures of air carrier aircraft. ARFF index is
determined by the longest aircraft that serves the airport on an average of five departures per day. Index
determination based on aircraft length is as follows:
Index A: Aircraft less than 90 feet in length
Index B: Aircraft more than 90 feet but less than 126 feet in length
Index C: Aircraft more than 126 feet but less than 159 feet in length
Index D: Aircraft more than 159 feet but less than 200 feet in length
Index E: Aircraft greater than 200 feet in length
This system is based on an area that must be secured for evacuation or protection of aircraft occupants
should an accident involving fire occur. The protected area is equal to the length of the aircraft, which is
multiplied by a width of 100 feet, consisting of 40 feet on each side of the fuselage plus a 20-foot
allowance for fuselage width.
There are combinations of water, dry chemicals, and aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) to fight aircraftbased and other airfield fires. The following describes the chemical requirements.
Index A airports require on ARFF vehicle carrying at least:
1. 500 pounds of sodium-based dry chemical
or
2.
450 pounds of potassium-based dry chemical and 100 pounds of water and AFFF for
simultaneous water and foam application
Index B airports require either of the following:
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-39
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
1. One vehicle carrying at least 500 pounds of sodium-based dry chemical and 1,500 gallons of
water, and AFFF for foam production
or
2. Two vehicles, with one vehicle carrying the agents required for Index A and one vehicle
carrying enough water and AFFF so that the total quantity of water for foam production
carried by boat vehicles is at least 1,500 gallons.
Index C airports require either:
1. Three vehicles, with one vehicle carrying the agents required for Index A, and two vehicles
carrying enough water and AFFF, so that the total quantity of water for foam production
carried by all three vehicles is at least 3,000 gallons.
or
2. Two vehicles, with one vehicle carrying the requirements for Index B, and one vehicle
carrying enough water for foam production by both vehicles is 3,000 gallons.
Index D airports require three vehicles, including:
1. One vehicle carrying the agents required for Index A
2. Two vehicles carrying enough water and AFFF so that the total quantity of water for foam
production carried by all three vehicles is at least 4,000 gallons
FAR Part 139 specifies a minimum response time of the first vehicle to an incident, defined by the ability
to reach the midpoint of the runway farthest from the vehicle’s assigned post, of 3 minutes from when an
alarm sounds, with all other vehicles required to the scene within a minimum of 4 minutes.
FAR Part 139 also requires that all ARFF personnel participate in at least one live-fire drill every 12
months. Many airports conduct real-time accident drills, which include ARFF, as well as other elements
associated with airport management and local community services, every 3 years.
3.7.6
Snow Removal Procedures
FAR Part 139.313, states that all airports operating under FAR Part 139 where snow and icing conditions
regularly occur shall prepare, maintain, and carry out a snow and ice control plan. The snow and ice
control plan shall include instructions and procedures for:

Prompt removal or control, as completely as practical, of snow, ice, and slush on each pavement
area

Positioning snow on movement area surfaces so that all air carrier aircraft propellers, engine
pods, rotors, and wingtips will clear any snowdrift and snow bank as the aircrafts’ landing gear
traverses any full-strength portion of the pavement area

Selection and application of approved materials for snow and ice control to ensure that they
adhere to snow and ice sufficiently to minimize engine ingestion

Timely commencement of snow and ice control operations

Prompt notification of all air carriers using the airport when any portion of the pavement area
normally available to them is less than satisfactorily cleared for safe operation by their aircraft
Snow and ice control plans typically consists of:
1. A brief statement of the purpose of the plan.
Page 3-40
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
2. A listing of the personnel and organizations responsible for the snow and ice control program:
Many airports hire additional personnel during the winter months or utilize personnel from the
streets and sanitation departments on an emergency basis.
There are several items that should be considered when implementing the snow and ice control program
which includes:

Weather forecasts

Type of expected precipitation

Estimated duration, intensity, and accumulation

Forecasted wind directions and velocities during snowfall

Cloud coverage after snowfall
Mechanical and chemical are the two basic methods for removing snow and ice. The main means for
removing snow is accomplished through the use of machines and not chemical, because it is typically
more expensive and less effective. Some large airports use underground hot water and electrical heating
systems around ramp area, however, this method is expensive to implement and maintain.
3.7.7
TAG Aircraft Ground Control Option Determination Summary
Grading beyond the Runway 19 Departure End runway safety area (RSA) will mitigate potential
catastrophic consequences of runway excursions, at minimal cost. Extended ATCT operations would
provide an added layer of safety and security for flights which may arrive late due to delays, at minimal
cost. For these reasons, the Operational Enhancement Study TAG determined that grading beyond the
RSA and extending ATCT hours of operation will be carried forward for further assessment and analysis.
The TAG eliminated low altitude wind shear detection equipment and braking action advisories/runway
friction reports from further consideration for the following reasons.
Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS). Installation of EMAS is a reactive measure with high
installation and maintenance costs. EMAS is only installed to remedy a non-compliant RSA, as it does
not reduce excursions. The RSAs for Runway 1/19 are currently fully compliant with FAA standards.
Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) Location and Procedures. The current ARFF location and
procedures either meet or exceed applicable FAA standards.
Snow Removal Procedures. The current snow removal procedures meet or exceed applicable FAA
standards. Although use of pavement deicers would improve runway friction coefficients, use of these
deicers would involve costs and environmental impacts that are excessive in relation to their benefits.
3.8
NEXT-GENERATION TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
3.8.1 Surface Movement Detection Systems and Runway Status Lights
Ground surveillance systems are increasingly being installed at airports to reduce the risk of ground
incidents, incursions, and accidents by providing detailed coverage of aircraft and ground vehicle
movements on runways and taxiways. Over the last decade, the nation’s busiest airports have been
outfitted with the most advanced of these systems, Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X
(ASDE-X). ASDE-X tracks transponder-equipped aircraft and ground vehicles in movement areas using
a combination of surface movement radar located on the ATCT, multilateration sensors, Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) sensors, and terminal automation systems. Tracking
information, overlaid on a map of the airfield and its approach corridors, is displayed electronically to
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-41
Chapter 3
Options
Operational Enhancement Study
controllers in the ATCT. The first deployment of an ASDE-X system took place in 2003 at General Mitchell
International Airport in Milwaukee, and a total of 35 airports nationwide are scheduled to receive the
system by 2010. ASDE-X has been integrated with automated Runway Status Light (RWSL) systems,
with deployment of RWSL at 22 airports scheduled for completion by 2012.
However, small and medium-sized airports continue to rely on controller and pilot “out-the-window” sight
and voice communication to avoid runway conflicts. The effectiveness of this system is limited in periods
of bad weather, low visibility, and at night. ASDE-X systems are not scheduled for installation at small
and medium-sized airports, as they are not generally cost-effective at non-hub airports. An FAA pilot
program is currently underway to develop and test potential Low Cost Ground Surveillance (LCGS)
systems at selected airports around the country. The LCGS program is testing the viability of multiple
candidate LCGS technologies for integration with current ATC procedures, as well as with automated
RWSL systems. Following evaluation of pilot sites and investment analysis, the FAA may select one or
more LCGS systems for deployment at up to thirty locations nationwide. As of April 2009, six airports
have been selected for LCGS installation and evaluation, with production LCGS units to be installed at
four airports per year starting in 2011. It is unknown at this time which airports will receive LCGS.
3.8.2 Foreign Object Debris/Damage (FOD) Detection Equipment
FOD is the presence of, or damage related to, a foreign object in the airport environment. A foreign
object is “any object located in an inappropriate location in the airport environment that has the capacity
to injure airport or airline personnel and damage aircraft.” FOD can cause damage by cutting aircraft
tires, being ingested by aircraft engines, lodging in mechanisms affecting airport operations, or being
thrown by jet blast to damage equipment and injure people. FOD has numerous sources, including
personnel, infrastructure, the environment, and airfield equipment. Typical FOD includes:

Aircraft/Engine fasteners







Aircraft parts
Mechanics’ tools
Pavement materials
Construction debris
Plastic
Natural materials
Snow and ice
The most high-profile recent accident caused by FOD was the 2000 crash of Air France Flight 4590 in
Paris, France, which was a major factor leading to the retirement of the entire supersonic Concorde fleet.
A thin piece of titanium just over one foot long ruptured an aircraft tire on take-off, causing a chain
reaction that led to the ignition of a fuel tank, the failure of two engines, and aircraft wing damage. The
Concorde ultimately crashed into a hotel near the airport, killing everyone aboard and four people on the
ground. The source of the FOD that caused the crash was identified as a piece of a thrust reverser from
a Continental Airlines DC-10.
Despite its limitations, the traditional, and still most widely-used, method of FOD detection is visual
detection by airport personnel and users. The crash of Air France Flight 4590 largely led to the
development of new FOD detection systems utilizing radar and other remote sensing technology.
Vancouver International Airport in Vancouver, Canada, became the first commercial airport in the world
to install a remote FOD detection system in 2007, and in 2009 became the first to supplement its
stationary FOD detection units with 24-hour cameras.
The FAA released draft Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5220-xx, Airport Foreign Object Debris/Damage (FOD)
Detection Equipment, in August 2009, and is currently conducting trials of different FOD detection
Page 3-42
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Operational Enhancement Study
Chapter 3
Options
equipment types at airports around the United States. The Jackson Hole Airport does not currently have
remote FOD detection equipment. Draft AC 150/5220-xx identifies four different FOD detection
equipment types, and provides specifications and standards for all types:

Stationary Radar – Uses radio transmission sensors installed at fixed locations on the airfield.
Stationary Electro-Optic – Uses optical sensors installed at fixed locations on the airfield.
Hybrid Radar – Uses a combination of radar and optical sensors installed at fixed locations on the
airfield.
 Mobile Radar – Uses radio transmission sensors installed on the front of moving vehicles.


3.8.3
TAG Next Generation Technology Option Determination Summary
The TAG eliminated surface movement detection systems, runway status lights, and foreign object
debris/damage (FOD) detection equipment from further consideration for the following reasons.
Surface Movement Detection Systems and Runway Status Lights. These systems are designed to
reduce runway incursion incidents and situational awareness at high capacity airports. They do not
address runway excursion incidents.
Foreign Object Debris/Damage (FOD) Detection Equipment. Like the vast majority of airports in the
U.S., FOD detection at the Jackson Hole Airport is conducted via physical inspections. Runway
excursion incidents have not been shown to be associated with FOD on Runway 1/19.
3.9
CONCLUSION
Based on the TAG’s consideration of the preliminary analysis contained in this working paper, the
following operational enhancement options will be carried forward for further assessment and analysis.










Runway Centerline Lighting System (RCLS)
Touchdown Zone Lighting (TDZL)
Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (RAILs)
Overrun Lighting
Runway Extension
Satellite-Based Approach Procedures
Flight Crew Best Practices Literature and Training
Runway Visual Range (RVR) Equipment
Grading Beyond the Runway 19 Departure End Runway Safety Area (RSA)
Extended Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) Operational Hours
Jackson Hole Airport
February 2011 Draft
Page
3-43