APPENDIX C Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis

Transcription

1 APPENDIX C Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis

2 This page intentionally left blank.

3 Walker MOA Airspace Establishment at Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center, Bridgeport, CA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Final Report October 18, 2018 Submitted Under Task Order No. XP17 Contract No. N D-9002 to: by: Cardno 514 Via De La Valle, Suite 308 Solana Beach, CA De La Cruz Blvd. Santa Clara, CA 95050

4 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis This page intentionally left blank. ii October 2018

5 For Official Use Only Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... XI 1 INTRODUCTION General Study Process Radar Flight Tracks AIRSPACE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Walker High MOA Monthly MOA Crossings Daily MOA Crossings Hourly MOA Crossings MOA Crossings Durations Aircraft Origins and Destination Walker Low MOA Monthly MOA Crossings Daily MOA Crossings Hourly MOA Crossings MOA Crossings Durations Aircraft Origins and Destination Local Airways Walker High MOA Walker Low MOA APPENDIX Additional Data Acronyms and Abbreviations October 2018 iii

6 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis This page intentionally left blank. iv October 2018

7 For Official Use Only List of Figures LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Area of Study Figure 1-2: Radar Coverage for Area of Study Figure 1-3: Dominant Air Traffic Streams near Proposed MOAs Figure 2-1: Walker High MOA Crossings by User Figure 2-2: Walker High MOA Air Carrier IFR Crossings Figure 2-3: Walker High MOA Air Carrier IFR Crossings in Detail Figure 2-4: Walker High MOA Air Taxi IFR Crossings Figure 2-5: Walker High MOA General Aviation IFR Crossings Figure 2-6: Walker High MOA Military IFR Crossings Figure 2-7: Walker High MOA Military IFR Crossings in Detail Figure 2-8: Walker High MOA Unknown Category IFR Crossings Figure 2-9: Walker High MOA VFR Crossings Figure 2-10: Walker High MOA IFR Crossings by Month and Category Figure 2-11: Walker High MOA Total VFR Crossings by Month Figure 2-12: Walker High MOA IFR Crossings by Day and Category Figure 2-13: Walker High MOA VFR Crossings by Day Figure 2-14: Walker High MOA Daily Air Carrier IFR Crossings Figure 2-15: Walker High MOA Daily Air Taxi IFR Crossings Figure 2-16: Walker High MOA Daily General Aviation IFR Crossings Figure 2-17: Walker High MOA Daily Military IFR Crossings Figure 2-18: Walker High MOA Daily Unknown IFR Crossings Figure 2-19: Walker High MOA Daily IFR and VFR Crossings Figure 2-20: Walker High MOA IFR Crossings by Hour Figure 2-21: Walker High MOA Total IFR and VFR Crossings by Hour Figure 2-22: Distribution of Crossing Durations in Walker High MOA Figure 2-23: Most Common Airport Origin and Destination Airports - Walker High MOA Figure 2-24: Walker Low MOA Crossings by Operator Figure 2-25: Walker Low MOA IFR Crossings Figure 2-26: Walker Low MOA VFR Crossings Figure 2-27: Walker Low MOA IFR Crossings by Month and Category Figure 2-28: Walker Low MOA Total VFR Crossings by Month Figure 2-29: Walker Low MOA IFR Crossings by Day and Category Figure 2-30: Walker Low MOA VFR Crossings by Day Figure 2-31: Walker Low MOA Daily IFR Crossings Figure 2-32: Walker Low MOA Daily VFR Crossings Figure 2-33: Walker Low MOA IFR Crossings by Hour Figure 2-34: Walker Low MOA Total IFR and VFR Crossings by Hour Figure 2-35: Distribution of Crossing Durations in Walker Low MOA Figure 2-36: Most Common Airport Origin and Destination Airports - Walker Low MOA Figure 2-37: Dominant IFR Traffic Flows from the Southwest Figure 2-38: Dominant IFR Traffic Flows from the Southwest Crossing above FL Figure 2-39: Dominant IFR Traffic Flows from the Southwest Crossing Below FL Figure 2-40: Dominant IFR Traffic Flows from the Southeast Figure 2-41: Dominant IFR Arrival Flows from the Southeast Figure 2-42: Dominant Low Altitude IFR Traffic Flows from the Southeast October 2018 v

8 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2-43: Segment of VR-201 bordering Eastern Portion of Proposed Walker High MOA 2-49 Figure 2-44: VFR Flights Crossing Walker Low MOA Boundary Figure 2-45: IFR Flights Crossing Walker Low MOA Boundary Figure 3-1: RUSME TWO STAR Figure 3-2: TARVR ONE STAR Figure 3-3: ZEFFR SIX DP Figure 3-4: Segment of V-165 bordering Western Portion of Proposed Walker High MOA Figure 3-5: Jet Routes Located Above the Proposed Walker High MOA Airspace Figure 3-6: Q-Routes Located Above the Proposed Walker High MOA Airspace vi October 2018

9 For Official Use Only List of Tables LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Study Proposed MOA Definitions Table 2-1: Walker High MOA Crossings by Operator Type Table 2-2: Walker High MOA Crossings by Civilian Operator Table 2-3: Walker High MOA IFR Crossings by Month and Category Table 2-4: Walker High MOA VFR Crossings by Month and Category Table 2-5: Walker High MOA IFR Crossings by Day and Category Table 2-6: Walker High MOA VFR Crossings by Day and Category Table 2-7: Walker High MOA Daily Occurrence of IFR Crossings by Category Table 2-8: Walker High MOA Daily Occurrence of VFR Crossings by Category Table 2-9: Walker High MOA Daily Air Carrier IFR Crossings Table 2-10: Walker High MOA Daily Air Taxi IFR Crossings Table 2-11: Walker High MOA Daily General Aviation IFR Crossings Table 2-12: Walker High MOA Daily Military IFR Crossings Table 2-13: Walker High MOA Daily Unknown IFR Crossings Table 2-14: Walker High MOA Daily IFR and VFR Crossings Table 2-15: Walker High MOA IFR Crossings by Hour Table 2-16: Walker High MOA VFR Crossings by Hour Table 2-17: Summary of Walker High MOA Crossing Durations Table 2-18: Distribution of Crossing Durations in Walker High MOA Table 2-19: Destination Airport Prevalence Walker High MOA Table 2-20: Origin Airport Prevalence Walker High MOA Table 2-21: Walker Low MOA Crossings by Operator Type Table 2-22: Walker Low MOA IFR Crossings by Month and Category Table 2-23: Walker Low MOA VFR Crossings by Month and Category Table 2-24: Walker Low MOA IFR Crossings by Day and Category Table 2-25: Walker Low MOA VFR Crossings by Day and Category Table 2-26: Walker Low MOA Daily Occurrence of IFR Crossings by Category Table 2-27: Walker Low MOA Daily Occurrence of VFR Crossings by Category Table 2-28: Walker Low MOA Daily IFR and VFR Crossings Table 2-29: Walker Low MOA IFR Crossings by Hour Table 2-30: Walker Low MOA VFR Crossings by Hour Table 2-31: Summary of Walker Low MOA Crossing Durations Table 2-32: Distribution of Crossing Durations in Walker Low MOA Table 2-33: Destination Airport Prevalence Walker Low MOA Table 2-34: Origin Airport Prevalence Walker Low MOA Table 3-1: Acronyms and Abbreviations October 2018 vii

10 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis This page intentionally left blank. viii October 2018

11 For Official Use Only Preface PREFACE In support of preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential impacts associated with a proposed Military Operations Area (MOA), the United States Marine Corps (USMC) requested an airspace traffic analysis of operations in the local area of the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center (MCMWTC) in Bridgeport, California (CA). This study focused on analyzing recorded Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) flight track data around the region of the MCMWTC, in particular the regions defined by the proposed Low and High Walker MOAs. A year s worth of flight track information was processed, analyzed, and summarized. The MCMWTC Airspace Traffic Analysis was conducted by ATAC under Contract Number N D-9002, TO XP17. This report documents the study process and results from the analysis. The ATAC study team acknowledges the indispensable contributions throughout this study of other members of ATAC s organization and of our USMC, Department of the Navy (Navy), FAA, and civilian points of contact. October 2018 ix

12 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis This page intentionally left blank. x October 2018

13 For Official Use Only Executive Summary Executive Summary The Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS) Airspace Traffic Analysis was conducted as part of the Walker MOA Airspace Establishment at MCMWTC, Bridgeport, CA Environmental Assessment (EA). This report provides an analysis of air traffic operations within and in close proximity to the proposed Walker MOA High and Low Special Use Airspace (SUA). These proposed MOAs are to be utilized in support of ongoing training operations at the MCMWTC. The analysis focused on characteristics of recent traffic operations from fiscal year 2017 (FY17) transiting through these proposed MOAs. The purpose of this analysis was to provide an inventory of both civilian and military usage of the proposed areas to support the ongoing EA of the study area. The analysis serves to assist by providing a snapshot of existing air traffic operations and summarize impacts the proposed MOAs might have upon these operations. Walker High MOA A total of 4,167 flights traversed the proposed Walker High MOA during the 365 days of radar data evaluated, of which 73.9% (3,079 crossings) were made by aircraft on an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan. 85.2% of IFR crossings were performed by civil aircraft and 11.1% by military operators. The remaining IFR aircraft were uncategorized. Due to limitations in radar data, the 1,088 Visual Flight Rules (VFR) aircraft crossings were mostly uncategorized. On average, there were 8.4 IFR crossings per day and 3.0 VFR crossings per day. The tempo was fairly consistent throughout the study year except for General Aviation (GA) category and VFR aircraft which produced a noted reduction in crossings during the winter months. Air Carrier (AC), Air Taxi (AT), and Unknown IFR aircraft proved to produce a fairly consistent tempo throughout the week, while the Military and GA aircraft produced a larger number of crossings on Fridays. VFR crossings were more pronounced on weekends. On average, IFR crossings peaked during the 12:00 hour and VFR crossings peaked during the 14:00 and 15:00 hours. The average crossing time was 2 minutes 9 seconds for IFR aircraft and 4 minutes 11 seconds for VFR aircraft. The most common determinable airport origin and destination for IFR flights traversing the proposed Walker High MOA was Reno-Tahoe International Airport (RNO). The predominant origin and destination military airfield for crossing aircraft was Naval Air Station Fallon (NFL). Walker Low MOA A total of 1,053 flights traversed the proposed Walker Low MOA airspace during the 365 days of radar data evaluated, of which approximately 18.4% (194 crossings) were made by aircraft on an IFR flight plan and 81.6% (859 crossings) were made by VFR aircraft. Due to limitations in radar data for VFR flights, the majority of the 859 VFR aircraft crossings (99.6%) were uncategorized. 78.4% of IFR crossings were made by civilian aircraft and 20.1% by military operators. The remaining IFR aircraft were uncategorized. On average, there were 0.5 IFR crossings and 2.4 VFR crossings per day. IFR traffic peaked during the month of September with 1.4 average daily crossings. February incurred the fewest numbers of IFR crossings at an average of 0.1 per day. Saturdays experienced the lowest number October 2018 xi

14 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis of IFR MOA crossings with an average of 0.2 per day accounting for 6.7% of total IFR operations. VFR traffic peaked during the month of June with 258 crossings averaging 8.6 per day and dipped between November and February, likely due to the reduction in GA activity during the winter. Mondays experienced the lowest number of VFR MOA crossings, averaging 1.7 per day or 10.2% of total operations. VFR crossings peaked on Saturdays with an average of 3.5 per day accounting for 21.0% of the operations. On average, IFR traffic peaked during the 12:00 hour and VFR traffic peaked during the 10:00 and 11:00 hours and again at the 15:00 hour. Over 89% of flights crossing the proposed Walker Low MOA boundary did not have origin or destination airport information due to lack of data captured by the Air Traffic Control (ATC) system for VFR operations. Of those flights that did have airport information, most aircraft were traveling to or from airports located in the Sierra Nevada Foothills or in the Sacramento Valley. Local Airways Most aircraft crossing the proposed Walker High MOA boundary were on IFR flight plans. On average, there were 11.4 crossings per day through the proposed Walker High MOA airspace, of which 74% were IFR operations. The majority of these flights were either cruising above FL180 and climbing or descending within the MOA boundaries or were low altitude operations that traversed the MOA below 18,000 Mean Sea Level (MSL). Aircraft climbing or descending through the proposed Walker High MOA airspace were mostly going between the Reno-Tahoe Area and airports in Southern California and the Las Vegas Area. Flights between Reno-Tahoe Airports and Southern California traversed the western portions of the proposed Walker High MOA. High altitude flights appear to have been traveling and descending along Jet Routes J-5 and J-7 or Q-Route Q-11. However, a portion of these arrivals from Southern California were not on Jet or Q-Routes, but filed direct to the Mustang VORTAC. To avoid the proposed Walker High MOA boundary, this traffic could be held at altitude longer before initiating a descent. IFR departures out of RNO did not appear to be flying departure procedures, but were climbing directly through the proposed Walker High MOA airspace. These flights could be routed along the ZEFFR departure procedure, which takes aircraft from the EPOSE waypoint to either DARBI (west of the proposed MOA) or PESKE (east of the proposed MOA). By routing IFR departures to these waypoints, aircraft could avoid the proposed Walker High MOA airspace when it is active. Any flights traversing the western portions of the Walker High MOA airspace that are currently cruising below 18,000 MSL could be rerouted along V-165 to the west of the MOA. Specifically, these flights could be routed to the DARBI fix along V-165 to stay clear of the proposed airspace on days when it is active. Flights between the Reno-Tahoe airports and the Las Vegas Area transit the eastern portions of the proposed Walker High MOA. Aircraft currently flying the RUSME or TARVR arrival procedures into RNO descend through the proposed Walker High MOA airspace. Aircraft not currently flying arrival procedures tend to file from the KENNO waypoint direct to the arrival airport. These flights could also be held longer before initiating a descent in order to avoid flying through the proposed airspace when it is active. Low altitude operations traversing the eastern portions of the proposed Walker High MOA airspace were comprised mainly of flights categorized as GA. Most of these flights were made xii October 2018

15 For Official Use Only Executive Summary by turboprop aircraft, such as the Piper Cheyenne and Pilatus PC-12, cruising at or below 18,000 MSL within the proposed MOA airspace. A cursory analysis of flight plan data showed that this flow includes many air ambulance and medical flights. These flights currently are flying direct between RNO and BIH or via the NIKOL waypoint and traversing the MOA boundary near the PEONS waypoint. There are no Victor Airways located to the east of the proposed airspace in the relative vicinity of these flights that would serve as a potential reroute. The closest waypoint to direct the flow away from the proposed MOA airspace is PESKE. The majority of aircraft crossing the proposed Walker Low MOA boundary were VFR operations. On average, there were 2.9 crossings per day through the proposed Walker Low MOA airspace, of which 81.6% were operating under VFR. There are no published airways located within the boundaries of the proposed Walker Low MOA. It follows that most aircraft crossing the proposed Walker Low MOA airspace, whether IFR or VFR, do not appear to be following any routes or procedures. Rather, these aircraft are flying direct to their destinations. In addition, the radar data show the majority of operations are VFR aircraft maneuvering in the area, probably reflecting the intense glider activity that takes place in the Reno-Tahoe Area. In order to avoid the proposed Walker Low MOA airspace, GA aircraft would need to either fly above the MOA ceiling, assuming the Walker High MOA airspace is not concurrently active, or around the lateral MOA boundary. Dispatchers for Air Taxi operators could determine which days to avoid the MOA and plan the route of flight accordingly. Economic Efficiency Analysis Because the examination of the proposed Walker MOAs is based upon airspace that does not exist during the period that air traffic was examined, a direct comparison of fuel or money between periods of MOA activation to non-activation was not possible. When looking at most of the impacted air traffic, most flights would likely remain at altitudes above the MOAs for longer durations prior to commencing descent. This would avoid crossing the MOA boundaries. The fuel impact is solely dependent upon the type of descent (continuous or altitude stepping) following the aircraft clearing the MOA boundary. A continuous descent may, in fact, save fuel. Regardless, this likely procedure would likely neither harm or benefit aircraft fuel usage. Air traffic may also to plan their route differently. With the MOA activated, the majority of traffic from the south would either plan on the delayed descent described or choose a slightly different flight plan with total deviation of less than 1nautical mile (NM) from the track observed in the radar data. It would likely be far less with different fixes used well prior to when the data points began in the dataset. A large number of radar tracks observed in the data were VFR with no origin and destination determinable. These flights cannot be evaluated due to the nature of VFR flying. In general, the flight traffic that would be affected by the proposed Walker MOAs would experience minimal, if any, additional fuel burn or costs. Conclusion Although there were occurrences of aircraft traveling through the proposed Walker High and Walker Low MOAs airspace in the FY17 radar data analyzed, the overall impact to civilian flight October 2018 xiii

16 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis operations is expected to be minimal. Considering that the proposed MOAs would be activated via NOTAM, it would be the responsibility of VFR pilots to become aware of days when the MOA is activated and to avoid the airspace. Aircraft on an IFR flight plan would be automatically separated by ATC. Mountain Training Exercise (MTX) flight operations are expected to occur six days per year, with additional flight operations for up to 100 days per year in the Walker Low MOA and up to 40 days per year in Walker High MOA. With a total 1,053 flights crossing the proposed Walker Low MOA boundary in FY17, an average of 2.9 aircraft per day (2.4 VFR and 0.5 IFR) would have been impacted on each of the 100+ days the MOA would be activated. 4,167 crossings were recorded for FY17 through the proposed Walker High MOA airspace. On average, 11.4 aircraft (3.0 VFR aircraft and 8.4 IFR) would have been impacted on each of the 40+ days the Walker High MOA is expected to be active. xiv October 2018

17 For Official Use Only Introduction 1 Introduction This report contains the results of the airspace traffic analysis conducted as part of the Walker MOA Airspace Establishment at MCMWTC, Bridgeport, CA EA study. This report provides an analysis of air traffic operations within and in close proximity to the training airspace in the proposed Walker High and Walker Low MOAs. These proposed MOAs are presented in Figure 1-1. The purpose of this analysis is to provide an inventory of both civilian and military usage of the areas under study to support the EA evaluating proposed MOA airspace. The study task focused on analyzing existing air traffic operations, based on recorded flight data from FY17, which was collected on a daily basis. This data contains radar flight tracks and, when available, specific other information regarding each individual flight during transit of the airspace. Figure 1-1: Area of Study The FAA has approved the use of the PDARS necessary for the purpose of performing the airspace traffic analysis. The FAA permitted use of the system s archived Oakland Center (ZOA), Northern California Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility (TRACON) (NCT), and Las Vegas TRACON (L30) recorded radar information for FY17. This report is comprised of two distinct sections. The first section describes the study process including the gathering of radar data, selection of pertinent radar tracks, and analytical methods. The second section includes the results from the traffic analysis. 1.1 General Study Process The scope of the airspace traffic analysis centers on the examination and evaluation of historical (PDARS-collected data) traffic flows within and surrounding the proposed MOAs under study. In October

18 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis addition, flight tracking data by individual flights was produced for input into the SkyViewer visualization tool for purposes of analysis and to produce graphics for illustrating flights. Figure 1-2 presents a visualization of the radar coverage for the Center and two TRACONs available to this study. This graphic is a subset of the total data representing a single day during the study period. Due to the location of the proposed MOAs among adjoining airspace, flight plan and radar track data from the Center and TRACONs were collected and verified to ensure the quality and reliability of the data. The three sets of radar data were then merged into a single dataset in order to simplify the analytic process as well as to prevent errors in the analysis. This new dataset was then examined for any errors and omissions. The dataset was validated and the analytical processing commenced. Figure 1-2: Radar Coverage for Area of Study The PDARS SkyView Reporting System (SVRS) was used in conjunction with ATAC s SkyViewer as the primary analytical tools. The PDARS SVRS is a Microsoft Excel plug-in that allows for the analysis of radar flight tracks and is used specifically with PDARS data. SkyViewer is a state-of-the-art 4-dimensional computer tool for displaying, analyzing, designing, and evaluating air traffic operations. SVRS and SkyViewer allow for the systematic allocation of PDARS radar data for the areas of interest. PDARS contains radar flight track data as well as flight plan information (for IFR traffic) for every flight within the dataset. SVRS reports are generated from this flight plan data and used to analyze operations within each airspace volume. PDARS flight processing tools allow for the reconstruction of flight trajectories with a great level of precision and reliability. Built-in flight analysis capabilities allow for the automatic computation of a wide variety of parameters for a particular airspace, including time spent in the airspace, distance flown, and origin and destination airports. SkyViewer provides the capability to analyze and visualize these traffic operations. Ultimately, the analytical process yielded airspace boundary crossing data for each of the MOAs of interest in the study: Walker High MOA and Walker Low MOA. 1-2 October 2018

19 For Official Use Only Introduction In order to ensure a sufficient number of operational days to cover the potential variance in traffic operations in the areas under study, a one-year period of data were chosen for reprocessing. A radar sample of 365 days between October 1, 2016 and September 30, 2017 was processed to obtain metrics for each proposed MOA. The lateral and vertical boundaries of each MOA are listed in Table 1-1. All data reported were from this time period, lateral definitions, and altitude strata. Table 1-1: Study Proposed MOA Definitions Area Altitudes Lateral Boundaries Walker High MOA 13,500 MSL to (not including) FL180 excludes surface up to and including 3,000 AGL above wilderness areas 38 35' 00 N ' 00 W 38 15' 00 N ' 00 W 38 12' 00 N W 38 30' 00 N W 38 35' 00 N ' 00 W Walker Low MOA AGL: Above Ground Level FL: Flight Level MSL: Mean Sea Level SFC: Surface SFC to (not including) 13,500 MSL excludes surface up to and including 3,000 AGL above wilderness areas N W N W N W N W N W N W N W Figure 1-3 presents a snapshot of operations taking place during a single day near the proposed Walker MOAs. Aside assisting with visibility, the colors of the radar tracks simply denote arrival, departure, and overflight (neither arriving nor departing airports in the Center) traffic. Several distinct airways, procedures, and routes are visible in the data, not all of them at MOA altitudes. Each route that may be affected by the proposed MOAs was examined. October

20 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 1-3: Dominant Air Traffic Streams near Proposed MOAs Radar Flight Tracks When available, PDARS data contains electronic flight plan information for recorded flights. IFR aircraft are associated with a specific flight plan describing the route and this data is recorded in PDARS. The increased fidelity of information allows for more detailed analysis of the flight tracks including arrival and departure pairs. VFR aircraft may or may not be transmitting location data to air traffic control centers. Most of these flight tracks do not have detailed information available and only in rare cases can additional information be calculated. IFR and VFR aircraft were examined separately for each proposed MOA to give as detailed a picture as possible. IFR flight tracks were described by the Military (MIL), AC, AT, and GA aircraft type categories when the classification was determinable. 1-4 October 2018

21 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis 2 Airspace Traffic Analysis This section presents an analysis of airspace traffic operations in the proposed Walker High and Low MOAs. The airspace traffic analysis consisted of examining historical PDARS radar flight data in the area of interest. PDARS radar tracks that crossed MOA boundaries had the track data and attributed information recorded. Various analytics were then performed on this data. Section 2.1 presents the findings for the Walker High MOA and Section 2.2 discusses the same for the Walker Low MOA. 2.1 Walker High MOA The proposed Walker High MOA is situated from 13,500 MSL up to but not including FL180. Additionally, all airspace within its lateral boundaries up to and including 3,000 AGL over wilderness areas is excluded. The MOA would be activated by Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) in support of MTX and other high-density flight operations in the region supporting mountainous training. MTX training generally occurs six times per year. The Walker High MOA is expected to be activated for four days, 24 hours per day during those exercises. Additional operations outside of MTX activity in the Walker High MOA are anticipated to occur up to 40 days per year for 12 hours per day. Table 2-1, Table 2-2, and Figure 2-1 present the total Walker High MOA crossing counts by operator category. These are recorded aircraft movements that, without altering course or altitude, would have entered the MOA boundaries had the MOA been implemented and active. 4,167 total MOA crossings were observed for the Walker High MOA. 3,079 (73.9%) of these operations were on an IFR flight plan. The majority of these operations were performed by civilian operators with AC accounting for 378 (14.4% of civil crossings), AT accounting for 175 (6.7% of civil crossings), and GA accounting for 2,071 (78.9% of civil crossings). AC category aircraft can accommodate more than 60 passengers or more than 18,000 pounds of payload. Aircraft in this category observed in the study include large turbojet variants such as Boeing 737, 757, and 767 and Airbus A319 and A320; larger regional jetliners such as Bombardier CRJ-7 and Embraer 175 variants; and larger turboprops such as the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400. AT category aircraft accommodate fewer than 60 passengers and a maximum payload of 18,000 pounds. Aircraft in this category observed in this study include smaller regional jets such as the Bombardier Challenger 600 and CRJ-9, single engine turboprops such as the Pilatus PC-12, and smaller twin propeller aircraft such as Bombardier Dash 8 and Beech King Air and Super King Air aircraft. All other civil aircraft not included in AC or AT categories are of the GA category. GA aircraft observed in this study include many single engine propeller aircraft such as the C-172, SR-22, and PC-12; twin engine propeller aircraft such as the C-340, Beech King Air, and Piper Cheyenne 2; and business jets such as the C550, LJ60, and EA50. Military aircraft accounted for 341 (11.1%) of the MOA crossings by IFR aircraft. The most common aircraft observed in this study were F-18s, F-5s, T-38s, C-130s, and military versions of the King Air aircraft. Additionally, 1,088 crossings were performed by aircraft under VFR. Because of the nature of VFR flying, the majority of operations were by unknown or unverifiable operators. This is due to April

22 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis the lack of data captured by the ATC system. The system does not capture any identifying information beyond a radar flight track for aircraft operating with a 1200 beacon code. Table 2-1: Walker High MOA Crossings by Operator Type Category Civilian Military Unknown Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Total Percent IFR 2, % % % 3, % VFR % 5 0.5% 1, % 1, % Total 2, % % 1, % 4, % Table 2-2: Walker High MOA Crossings by Civilian Operator Category Air Carrier Air Taxi General Aviation Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Total Percent IFR % % 2, % 2, % VFR 0 0.0% % % % Total % % 2, % 2, % Figure 2-1: Walker High MOA Crossings by User Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 each present the Air Carrier IFR traffic that crossed into the proposed Walker High MOA. The majority of tracks that crossed the MOA boundaries appear to have been traveling and descending along Jet Routes J-5 and J-7 and Area Navigation (RNAV) Q-Route Q- 2-2 October 2018

23 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis 11. Other dominant traffic flows crossing the MOA boundaries were observed likely along the RUSME TWO Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR). More information on these routes is available in Section 2.3. Figure 2-2: Walker High MOA Air Carrier IFR Crossings Figure 2-3: Walker High MOA Air Carrier IFR Crossings in Detail October

24 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2-4 presents the Air Taxi IFR traffic that crossed into the proposed Walker High MOA. Like the Air Carrier traffic, the majority of tracks that crossed the MOA boundaries appear to have been traveling and descending along Jet Routes J-5 and J-7 and RNAV Q-Route Q-11. More information on these routes is available in Section 2.3. Figure 2-4: Walker High MOA Air Taxi IFR Crossings Figure 2-5 presents the General Aviation IFR traffic that crossed into the proposed Walker High MOA. Like the Air Carrier and Air Taxi traffic, the majority of tracks that crossed the MOA boundaries appear to have been traveling and descending along Jet Routes J-5 and J-7 and RNAV Q-Route Q-11. More information on these routes is available in Section October 2018

25 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Figure 2-5: Walker High MOA General Aviation IFR Crossings Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7 each present the Military IFR traffic that crossed into the proposed Walker High MOA. The majority of tracks that crossed the MOA boundaries appear to be in transit arriving or departing the following airfields: Beale AFB (BAB), NAS Fallon (NFL), NAS Lemoore (NLC), Reno/Tahoe International Airport (RNO), and Sacramento Mather Airport (MHR). October

26 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2-6: Walker High MOA Military IFR Crossings Figure 2-7: Walker High MOA Military IFR Crossings in Detail Figure 2-8 presents the uncategorized IFR traffic that crossed into the proposed Walker High MOA. Like the Air Carrier and Air Taxi traffic, the majority of tracks that crossed the MOA boundaries appear to have been traveling and descending along Jet Routes J-5 and J-7 and RNAV 2-6 October 2018

27 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Q-Route Q-11. Other traffic flows crossing the MOA boundaries were likely following the RUSME TWO STAR. More information on these routes is available in Section 2.3. Figure 2-8: Walker High MOA Unknown Category IFR Crossings Figure 2-9 presents the VFR traffic that crossed into the proposed Walker High MOA. Traffic crosses the proposed MOA in all directions with no dominant courses apparent. Figure 2-9: Walker High MOA VFR Crossings October

28 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Monthly MOA Crossings The following tables and figures present the number of monthly MOA crossings detailed by user category. On average, the proposed Walker High MOA experienced 8.4 IFR crossings per day. IFR traffic peaked during the month of July with 11.9 average daily crossings. When analyzing most categories, there was little variance in the numbers of crossings each month with February incurring the fewest numbers of crossings at an average of 5.1 per day. The exception to this is the category that produced the most MOA crossings during FY17: General Aviation. GA aircraft produced a noted reduced number of crossings in the months December through February. This was simply due to the reduction in GA activity during the winter. On average, the proposed Walker High MOA experienced 3.0 VFR crossings per day. VFR traffic peaked during the month of July with 223 crossings averaging 7.2 per day. The tempo of aircraft crossing into the proposed MOA is similar to the tempo produced by the GA category on an IFR flight plan. Table 2-3: Walker High MOA IFR Crossings by Month and Category Month Air General Average Air Taxi Military Unknown Total Carrier Aviation Daily October November December January February March April May June July August September Total , , October 2018

29 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Figure 2-10: Walker High MOA IFR Crossings by Month and Category Table 2-4: Walker High MOA VFR Crossings by Month and Category Month Air General Average Air Taxi Military Unknown Total Carrier Aviation Daily October November December January February March April May June July August September Total ,039 1, October

30 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2-11: Walker High MOA Total VFR Crossings by Month Daily MOA Crossings The following tables and figures present the number of MOA crossings by day of week detailed by user category. The AC, AT, and Unknown IFR aircraft proved to produce a fairly consistent tempo throughout the week, while the MIL and GA aircraft produced a larger number of crossings on Fridays. This is likely related to increased GA and MIL cross country operations leading into a weekend. In general, IFR MOA crossings peaked on Fridays with an average of 10.1 per day accounting for 17.1% of the operations. Saturdays experienced the lowest number of MOA crossings, averaging 6.6 per day or 11.2% of total operations. Weekend days experienced the heaviest usage throughout the week for VFR crossings into the proposed Walker High MOA averaging 4.1 operations per day. Monday through Wednesday demonstrated lower numbers of crossings at about 2.0 per day while Thursday and Friday experienced about 3.3 crossings per day. More weekend VFR MOA crossings were likely due to the increased amount of flying the GA category produces during weekends in general October 2018

31 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Table 2-5: Walker High MOA IFR Crossings by Day and Category Month Air Air General Average Military Unknown Total Carrier Taxi Aviation Daily Percent Sunday % Monday % Tuesday % Wednesday % Thursday % Friday % Saturday % Total , , % Figure 2-12: Walker High MOA IFR Crossings by Day and Category October

32 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Table 2-6: Walker High MOA VFR Crossings by Day and Category Month Air Air General Average Military Unknown Total Carrier Taxi Aviation Daily Percent Sunday % Monday % Tuesday % Wednesday % Thursday % Friday % Saturday % Total ,039 1, % Figure 2-13: Walker High MOA VFR Crossings by Day Table 2-7 and Table 2-8 present the maximum, minimum, and average number of proposed MOA crossings by aircraft category as observed during each day in FY17. A maximum of 23 IFR and 37 VFR crossings were observed (on separate days) in the examination. Several days of no MOA crossings (both IFR and VFR) were also recorded. All Categories denotes looking at the maximum, minimum, and average numbers of crossings regardless of category October 2018

33 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Table 2-7: Walker High MOA Daily Occurrence of IFR Crossings by Category Air Air General All Military Unknown Carrier Taxi Aviation Categories Maximum Minimum Average Table 2-8: Walker High MOA Daily Occurrence of VFR Crossings by Category Air Air General All Military Unknown Carrier Taxi Aviation Categories Maximum Minimum Average Each day observed in the FY17 dataset was further examined to determine the numbers of aircraft that crossed into the proposed Walker High MOA on a daily basis. The following tables and figures present the numbers of days that experienced the listed number of aircraft crossing into the MOA by aircraft category. A final table summarizes this information for the total numbers of IFR and VFR aircraft. Air Carrier type aircraft produced no IFR crossings on 133 separate days and 5 IFR crossings on 2 separate days in FY17. Table 2-9: Walker High MOA Daily Air Carrier IFR Crossings Number Crossings of Days October

34 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2-14: Walker High MOA Daily Air Carrier IFR Crossings Air Taxi type aircraft produced no IFR crossings on 243 separate days and 4 IFR crossings on 2 separate days in FY17. Table 2-10: Walker High MOA Daily Air Taxi IFR Crossings Number Crossings of Days October 2018

35 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Figure 2-15: Walker High MOA Daily Air Taxi IFR Crossings General Aviation type aircraft produced no IFR crossings on 19 separate days and IFR crossings on 1 day in FY days experienced 4-6 crossings. Table 2-11: Walker High MOA Daily General Aviation IFR Crossings Crossings Number of Days October

36 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2-16: Walker High MOA Daily General Aviation IFR Crossings Military aircraft produced no IFR crossings on 174 separate days and 7 IFR crossings on 1 day in FY17. Table 2-12: Walker High MOA Daily Military IFR Crossings Number Crossings of Days October 2018

37 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Figure 2-17: Walker High MOA Daily Military IFR Crossings Aircraft unable to be categorized (unknown) produced no IFR crossings on 267 separate days and 3 IFR crossings on 1 day in FY17. Table 2-13: Walker High MOA Daily Unknown IFR Crossings Number Crossings of Days October

38 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2-18: Walker High MOA Daily Unknown IFR Crossings All IFR aircraft produced no MOA crossings on only 6 separate days during FY17 while VFR aircraft didn t cross into the MOA on 118 separate days. IFR aircraft crossed into the proposed MOA more than 21 times over 3 days during this period while VFR aircraft did this 5 times. 139 days experienced 6-10 IFR crossings while 192 days saw 1-5 VFR crossings into the MOA. Table 2-14: Walker High MOA Daily IFR and VFR Crossings All IFR All VFR Crossings Number of Days Number of Days October 2018

39 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Figure 2-19: Walker High MOA Daily IFR and VFR Crossings Hourly MOA Crossings The following table and figures present the number of crossings into the proposed Walker High MOA in FY17, by hour, for IFR and VFR aircraft. IFR traffic gradually builds throughout the day, peaked during the 12:00 hour, and then steadily dropped as the day progressed. AC operators produced a secondary peak (and produced its greatest number of crossings) during the 17:00 hour. VFR traffic followed a similar trend of building to a peak followed by a decline, peaking during the 14:00 and 15:00 hours. October

40 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Table 2-15: Walker High MOA IFR Crossings by Hour Hour Air Air General Carrier Taxi Aviation Military Unknown Total Percent % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Total , , % 2-20 October 2018

41 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Table 2-16: Walker High MOA VFR Crossings by Hour Hour Air Air General Carrier Taxi Aviation Military Unknown Total Percent % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Total ,039 1, % October

42 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2-20: Walker High MOA IFR Crossings by Hour Figure 2-21: Walker High MOA Total IFR and VFR Crossings by Hour 2-22 October 2018

43 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis MOA Crossings Durations Observed radar tracks that penetrated the proposed Walker High MOA boundaries varied widely in the amount of time spent traversing or within the airspace. The following figure and tables present these summarized crossing durations for IFR and VFR aircraft. On average, IFR aircraft spent 2 minutes and 9 seconds and VFR aircraft spent 4 minutes and 11 seconds within the Walker High MOA after crossing. Average Air Carrier crossing time was 40 seconds. About 87% of IFR aircraft and 68% of VFR aircraft spent less than 5 minutes traversing the MOA. 208 IFR aircraft and 67 VFR aircraft touched the proposed MOA boundary and immediately departed via the vertical or lateral boundaries producing no duration for those given aircraft. They essentially touched but did not traverse any portion of the Walker High MOA. Larger durations are aircraft that circled within the proposed MOA or traversed it several times during the same flight. Most of these flights are General Aviation propeller and glider aircraft. Although some of the VFR tracks contained within the Walker High MOA, focused near the MCMWTC may be military aircraft that cannot be determined due to the limitations of the VFR radar data. Table 2-17: Summary of Walker High MOA Crossing Durations Category Max Min Average (min: sec) (min: sec) (min: sec) Air Carrier IFR 3:20 0:00 0:40 Air Taxi IFR 5:33 0:00 1:03 General Aviation IFR 22:13 0:00 2:35 Military IFR 7:50 0:00 2:01 Unknown IFR 6:08 0:00 1:28 IFR Aircraft 22:13 0:00 2:09 VFR Aircraft 51:51 0:00 4:11 October

44 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Table 2-18: Distribution of Crossing Durations in Walker High MOA Time (min: sec) IFR Total IFR % VFR Total VFR % % % 0:01-0: % % 0:31-1: % % 1:00-1: % % 1:31-2: % % 2:01-2: % % 2:31-3: % % 3:01-3: % % 3:31-4: % % 4:01-4: % % 4:31-5: % % 5:01-6: % % 6:01-7: % % 7:01-8: % % 8:01-9: % % 9:01-10: % % 10:01-15: % % 15:01-20: % % 20: % 9 0.8% 2-24 October 2018

45 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Figure 2-22: Distribution of Crossing Durations in Walker High MOA Aircraft Origins and Destination Table 2-19 and Table 2-20 present the most common destination and origin airports for flights that crossed into the proposed Walker High MOA. These tables contain an Others/Unknown descriptor. This is the aggregate for all flight tracks that had an unknown origin/destination pair, had an airspace fix recorded in the data as opposed to an airport, or listed an airport that had too few operations (<1.0%) to present as significant. In terms of aircraft that traversed the Walker High MOA, Reno-Tahoe International Airport accounted for most of the traffic leading in known destinations (24.9% of all operations) and origins (10.8% of all operations). The most prevalent known destinations are within in the Reno- Tahoe Area, Sierra Nevada Foothills, and Southern California. Of the observed crossings, NAS Fallon accounted for the largest percentage of aircraft arriving or departing a military airfield. These airports and their relation to the Walker High MOA are presented in Figure October

46 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Table 2-19: Destination Airport Prevalence Walker High MOA Airport Prevalence Reno-Tahoe International Airport (RNO) 24.9% Minden-Tahoe Airport (MEV) 8.9% Bishop Airport (BIH) 7.5% Carson Airport (CXP) 3.2% Naval Air Station Fallon (NFL) 2.4% Lake Tahoe Airport (TVL) 2.2% Naval Air Station Lemoore (NLC) 1.5% Meadows Field Airport (BFL) 1.2% Yerington Municipal Airport (O43) 1.1% Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MMH) 1.1% Beale Air Force Base (BAB) 1.0% Others/Unknown 45.1% Table 2-20: Origin Airport Prevalence Walker High MOA Airport Prevalence Reno-Tahoe International Airport (RNO) 10.8% Bishop Airport (BIH) 5.4% Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) 4.2% John Wayne-Orange County Airport (SNA) 3.6% McCarran International Airport (LAS) 2.8% Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MMH) 2.5% Meadows Field Airport (BFL) 2.1% Long Beach Airport (LGB) 2.0% Naval Air Station Fallon (NFL) 1.8% Mc Clellan-Palomar Airport (CRQ) 1.5% Minden-Tahoe Airport (MEV) 1.2% Lone Pine-Death Valley Airport (O26) 1.2% Van Nuys Airport (VNY) 1.2% Beale Air Force Base (BAB) 1.1% Others/Unknown 58.6% 2-26 October 2018

47 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Figure 2-23: Most Common Airport Origin and Destination Airports - Walker High MOA 2.2 Walker Low MOA The proposed Walker Low MOA is situated from the surface up to but not including 13,500 MSL. Additionally, all airspace within its lateral boundaries up to and including 3,000 AGL over wilderness areas is excluded. The MOA would be activated by NOTAM in support of MTX operations and other high-density flight operations in the region supporting mountainous training. MTX training generally occurs six times per year. The Walker Low MOA is expected to be activated for ten days, 24 hours per day during those exercises. Additional operations outside of MTX activity in the Walker Low MOA are anticipated to occur up to 100 days per year for 12 hours per day. Table 2-21 and Figure 2-24 present the total Walker Low MOA crossing counts by operator type category. These are recorded aircraft movements that, without altering course or altitude, would have entered the MOA boundaries had the MOA been implemented and active. 1,053 total MOA crossings were observed for the Walker Low MOA. 194 (18.4%) of these operations were on an IFR flight plan. Of these, 151 (77.8% of IFR crossings) were GA, 39 (20.1% of IFR crossings) were Military, and 1 (0.5% of IFR crossings) was AT. The remaining 3 (1.6% of the IFR crossings) were uncategorized. No AC category aircraft operated within the boundaries of the proposed Walker Low MOA. These categories and typical aircraft observed within them are described in Section 2.1. The majority of crossings into the proposed Walker Low MOA were performed by VFR aircraft which accounted for 859 or 81.6% of all crossings. Because of the nature of VFR flying, the vast majority (98.5%) of these operations were by unknown or unverifiable operators. This is due to October

48 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis the lack of data captured by the ATC system. 11 GA (1.3%) and 2 MIL (0.2%) were able to be categorized. Table 2-21: Walker Low MOA Crossings by Operator Type Category Civil Military Unknown Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Total Percent IFR % % 3 1.5% % VFR % 2 0.2% % % Total % % % 1, % Figure 2-24: Walker Low MOA Crossings by Operator 2-28 October 2018

49 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Figure 2-25 presents the IFR traffic that crossed into the proposed Walker Low MOA. Figure 2-25: Walker Low MOA IFR Crossings Figure 2-26 presents the VFR traffic that crossed into the proposed Walker Low MOA. Traffic crosses the proposed MOA in all directions except the east, with no dominant courses apparent. Figure 2-26: Walker Low MOA VFR Crossings October

50 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Monthly MOA Crossings The following tables and figures present the number of monthly MOA crossings detailed by user category. On average, the proposed Walker Low MOA experienced 0.5 IFR crossings per day. IFR traffic peaked during the month of September with 1.4 average daily crossings. There was little variance in the numbers of crossings each month with February incurring the fewest numbers of crossings at an average of 0.1 per day and September incurring the highest numbers of crossings at an average of 1.4 per day. The category that produced the most MOA crossings during FY17 was GA. GA aircraft produced a noted reduced number of crossings in the months November through February. This was simply due to the reduction in GA activity during the winter. On average, the proposed Walker Low MOA experienced 2.4 VFR crossings per day. VFR traffic peaked during the month of June with 258 crossings averaging 8.6 per day. The tempo of aircraft crossing into the proposed MOA is similar to the tempo produced by the GA category on an IFR flight plan. Table 2-22: Walker Low MOA IFR Crossings by Month and Category Month Air General Average Air Taxi Military Unknown Total Carrier Aviation Daily October November December January February March April May June July August September Total October 2018

51 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Figure 2-27: Walker Low MOA IFR Crossings by Month and Category Table 2-23: Walker Low MOA VFR Crossings by Month and Category Month Air General Average Air Taxi Military Unknown Total Carrier Aviation Daily October November December January February March April May June July August September Total October

52 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2-28: Walker Low MOA Total VFR Crossings by Month Daily MOA Crossings The following tables and figures present the number of MOA crossings by day of week detailed by user category. In general, IFR MOA crossings produced a fairly consistent tempo throughout the week. Saturdays experienced the lowest number of MOA crossings with an average of 0.2 per day accounting for 6.7% of total IFR operations. VFR aircraft proved to produce a fairly consistent tempo most days, with a notable dip in crossings on Mondays and a peak on Saturdays. Mondays experienced the lowest number of VFR MOA crossings, averaging 1.7 per day or 10.2% of total operations. VFR crossings peaked on Saturdays with an average of 3.5 per day accounting for 21.0% of the operations October 2018

53 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Table 2-24: Walker Low MOA IFR Crossings by Day and Category Day Air General Average Air Taxi Military Unknown Total Carrier Aviation Daily Percent Sunday % Monday % Tuesday % Wednesday % Thursday % Friday % Saturday % Total % Figure 2-29: Walker Low MOA IFR Crossings by Day and Category October

54 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Table 2-25: Walker Low MOA VFR Crossings by Day and Category Day Air General Average Air Taxi Military Unknown Total Carrier Aviation Daily Percent Sunday % Monday % Tuesday % Wednesday % Thursday % Friday % Saturday % Total % Figure 2-30: Walker Low MOA VFR Crossings by Day Table 2-26 and Table 2-27 present the maximum, minimum, and average number of proposed MOA crossings by aircraft category as observed during each day in FY17. A maximum of 5 IFR and 51 VFR crossings were observed (on separate days) in the examination. Several days of no MOA crossings (both IFR and VFR) were also recorded. All Categories denotes looking at the maximum, minimum, and average numbers of crossings regardless of category October 2018

55 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Table 2-26: Walker Low MOA Daily Occurrence of IFR Crossings by Category Air Air General All Military Unknown Carrier Taxi Aviation Categories Maximum Minimum Average Table 2-27: Walker Low MOA Daily Occurrence of VFR Crossings by Category Air Air General All Military Unknown Carrier Taxi Aviation Categories Maximum Minimum Average Each day observed in the FY17 dataset was further examined to determine the numbers of aircraft that crossed into the proposed Walker Low MOA on a daily basis. The following table and figures summarize the numbers of days that experienced the listed number of aircraft crossing into the MOA by IFR and VFR aircraft. All IFR aircraft produced no MOA crossings on 236 separate days during FY17 while VFR aircraft didn t cross into the MOA on 157 separate days. 129 days experienced 1-5 IFR crossings while 176 days saw 1-5 VFR crossings into the MOA. Table 2-28: Walker Low MOA Daily IFR and VFR Crossings All IFR All VFR Crossings Number of Days Number of Days October

56 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2-31: Walker Low MOA Daily IFR Crossings Figure 2-32: Walker Low MOA Daily VFR Crossings 2-36 October 2018

57 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Hourly MOA Crossings The following table and figures present the number of crossings into the proposed Walker Low MOA in FY17, by hour, for IFR and VFR aircraft. IFR traffic gradually builds throughout the day, peaked during the 12:00 hour, and then steadily dropped as the day progressed. VFR traffic peaked during the 10:00 and 11:00 hours and again at the 15:00 hour. There were no IFR or VFR crossings into the proposed Walker Low MOA in FY17 between the hours of 23:00 and 04:00. Table 2-29: Walker Low MOA IFR Crossings by Hour Hour Air Air General Carrier Taxi Aviation Military Unknown Total Percent % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Total % October

58 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Table 2-30: Walker Low MOA VFR Crossings by Hour Hour Air Air General Carrier Taxi Aviation Military Unknown Total Percent % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Total % 2-38 October 2018

59 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Figure 2-33: Walker Low MOA IFR Crossings by Hour Figure 2-34: Walker Low MOA Total IFR and VFR Crossings by Hour October

60 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis MOA Crossings Durations Observed radar tracks that penetrated the proposed Walker Low MOA boundaries varied widely in the amount of time spent traversing or within the airspace. The following figure and tables present these summarized crossing durations for IFR and VFR aircraft. On average, IFR aircraft spent 1 minute and 54 seconds and VFR aircraft spent 2 minutes and 13 seconds within the Walker Low MOA after crossing. About 99% of IFR aircraft and 92% of VFR aircraft spent less than 5 minutes traversing the MOA. 16 IFR aircraft and 51 VFR aircraft touched the proposed MOA boundary and immediately departed via the vertical or lateral boundaries producing no duration for those given aircraft. They essentially touched but did not traverse any portion of the Walker Low MOA. Larger durations are aircraft that circled within the proposed MOA or traversed it several times during the same flight. Most of these flights are GA propeller and glider aircraft. Although some of the VFR tracks contained within the Walker Low MOA, focused near the MCMWTC may be military aircraft that cannot be determined due to the limitations of the VFR radar data. Table 2-31: Summary of Walker Low MOA Crossing Durations Category Max Min Average (hour: min: sec) (min: sec) (min: sec) Air Carrier IFR 0:00 0:00 0:00 Air Taxi IFR 0:00 0:00 0:00 General Aviation IFR 6:20 0:00 2:15 Military IFR 1:47 0:00 0:39 Unknown IFR 3:18 0:13 1:50 IFR Aircraft 06:20 0:00 1:54 VFR Aircraft 01:10:56 0:00 2: October 2018

61 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Table 2-32: Distribution of Crossing Durations in Walker Low MOA Time (min: sec) IFR Total IFR % VFR Total VFR % % % 0:01-0: % % 0:31-1: % % 1:00-1: % % 1:31-2: % % 2:01-2: % % 2:31-3: % % 3:01-3: % % 3:31-4: % % 4:01-4: % % 4:31-5: % % 5:01-6: % % 6:01-7: % % 7:01-8: % 5 0.6% 8:01-9: % 5 0.6% 9:01-10: % 6 0.7% 10:01-15: % % 15:01-20: % 3 0.3% 20: % 6 0.7% October

62 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2-35: Distribution of Crossing Durations in Walker Low MOA Aircraft Origins and Destination Table 2-33 and Table 2-34 present the most common destination and origin airports for flights that crossed into the proposed Walker Low MOA. These tables contain an Others/Unknown descriptor. This is the aggregate for all flight tracks that had an unknown origin/destination pair, had an airspace fix recorded in the data as opposed to an airport, or listed an airport that had too few operations (<1.0%) to present as significant. Over 89% of flights crossings Walker Low MOA did not have origin or destination airport information due to lack of data captured by the ATC system for VFR operations. Of those flights that did have airport information, most aircraft were traveling to or from airports located in the Sierra Nevada Foothills or in the Sacramento Valley. These airports and their relation to the Walker Low MOA are presented in Figure October 2018

63 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Table 2-33: Destination Airport Prevalence Walker Low MOA Airport Prevalence Carson Airport (CXP) 1.9% Minden-Tahoe Airport (MEV) 1.7% Beale Air Force Base (BAB) 1.3% Reno-Tahoe International Airport (RNO) 1.0% Naval Air Station Fallon (NFL) 0.9% Mammoth Yosemite Airport (MMH) 0.8% North Las Vegas Airport (VGT) 0.8% Columbia Airport (O22) 0.7% Lincoln Regional Airport (LHM) 0.7% Sacramento Mather Airport (MHR) 0.6% Nevada County Airport (GOO) 0.5% Westover Field/Amador County Airport (JAQ) 0.5% Others/Unknown 88.6% Table 2-34: Origin Airport Prevalence Walker Low MOA Airport Prevalence Beale Air Force Base (BAB) 2.1% Reno-Tahoe International Airport (RNO) 1.2% Bob Hope Airport (BUR) 1.1% Columbia Airport (O22) 1.0% Naval Air Station Fallon (NFL) 0.9% Placerville Airport (PVF) 0.6% Sacramento Mather Airport (MHR) 0.5% Others/Unknown 92.6% October

64 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2-36: Most Common Airport Origin and Destination Airports - Walker Low MOA 2.3 Local Airways This purpose of this section is to evaluate the current traffic flows relative to the proposed MOA boundaries. By analyzing current traffic flows relative to the proposed airspace, operational insight was gained and then used in making the proposed recommendations for procedural/routing options. The potential procedural/routing options are suggested based on observations of the existing operations, traffic flows, routes, and procedures Walker High MOA This section evaluates recent operations (FY17) relative to the proposed Walker High MOA airspace. Approximately 74% of operations in the proposed Walker High MOA airspace were conducted under IFR, the majority of which (89%) were by civilian operators. These flights were arriving or departing mountain airports such as Reno-Tahoe International Airport (RNO), Minden- Tahoe Airport (MEV), and Bishop Airport (BIH). Figure 2-37 presents the dominant traffic flows between Southern California and the Reno-Tahoe Area. The majority of arrivals into RNO that crossed the Walker High MOA boundary appear to have been traveling and descending along Jet Routes J-5 and J-7 or Q-Route Q-11. However, a portion of these arrivals from Southern California had filed direct to the Mustang VORTAC (FMG) (see Figure 2-38). To avoid the proposed Walker High MOA boundary, traffic currently on Jet or Q-Routes traveling above FL180, but descending within the MOA boundary, could be held at altitude longer prior to initiating a descent. Traffic cruising below 18,000 MSL within the western portion of the proposed MOA boundary (see Figure 2-39) could be rerouted along Victor Airway V-165, which is located west of the 2-44 October 2018

65 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis proposed airspace. In particular, these flights could be directed to the DARBI fix to keep them clear of the western boundary of the proposed Walker High MOA airspace. Figure 3-4 presents a depiction of V-165 relative to the proposed airspace. Impacted RNO departures do not appear to be flying to any published departure procedures. Instead these aircraft are flying direct to their destinations. These flights could be placed on the ZEFFR departure out of RNO, which has two legs: one going to DARBI (west of the MOA) and one to PESKE (east of the MOA). This would successfully route IFR aircraft around the Walker High MOA airspace when it is active. Figure 3-3 presents the procedure plate for the ZEFFR departure. Figure 2-37: Dominant IFR Traffic Flows from the Southwest October

66 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2-38: Dominant IFR Traffic Flows from the Southwest Crossing above FL180 Figure 2-39: Dominant IFR Traffic Flows from the Southwest Crossing Below FL October 2018

67 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Figure 2-40 presents dominant IFR traffic flows for aircraft transiting the eastern portion of the Walker High MOA and going between airports in the Las Vegas and Phoenix Areas and Reno- Tahoe Area airports such as RNO, MEV, and South Lake Tahoe Airport (TVL). Aircraft currently utilizing the RUSME or TARVR arrival procedures into RNO descend through the proposed Walker High MOA airspace (see Figure 2-41). These flights could be held longer at altitude before initiating a descent to avoid flying through the proposed airspace when it is active. Procedure plates for the RUSME and TARVR procedures are presented in the Appendix. Observed aircraft not using arrival procedures preferred to file direct from the KENNO waypoint direct to the arrival airport. RNO departures to the southeast were not following published departures procedures. IFR departures out of RNO could be placed on the ZEFFR departure to PESKE, which would route IFR aircraft to the east around the Walker High MOA airspace when it is active. Figure 2-40: Dominant IFR Traffic Flows from the Southeast October

68 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 2-41: Dominant IFR Arrival Flows from the Southeast Figure 2-42 presents the dominant low altitude traffic flow for aircraft traversing the eastern portion of the proposed Walker High MOA airspace. These flights currently are flying direct between RNO and BIH or via the NIKOL waypoint and traversing the MOA boundary near the PEONS waypoint. This flow consists mainly of turboprop aircraft, such as the Piper Cheyenne and Pilatus PC-12, cruising at or below 18,000 MSL within the proposed MOA airspace. A cursory analysis of flight plan data showed that this flow includes mostly air ambulance and medical flights. There are no Victor Airways located to the east of the proposed airspace in the relative vicinity of these flights that would serve as a potential reroute. The closest waypoint to direct the flow away from the proposed MOA airspace is PESKE October 2018

69 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Figure 2-42: Dominant Low Altitude IFR Traffic Flows from the Southeast Figure 2-43 presents the segments of VFR military training route 201 (VR-201) which lies within close proximity to the Eastern portion of the proposed Walker High MOA airspace. The segment of VR-201 near Bryant Field (O57) is defined from 200 AGL to 10,000 MSL with a route width of six NM. Although VR-201 resides beneath the floor of the proposed Walker High MOA airspace, aircraft entering or exiting the proposed MOA from the east should be made aware of the proximity of the training route for situational awareness. Figure 2-43: Segment of VR-201 bordering Eastern Portion of Proposed Walker High MOA October

70 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Walker Low MOA This section evaluates recent operations (FY17) relative to the proposed Walker Low MOA airspace. Figure 2-44 presents the VFR crossings of the proposed Walker Low MOA. Approximately 82% of operations in the proposed Walker Low MOA airspace were conducted under VFR. The majority (98.5%) of these operations were by unknown or unverifiable operators. This is due to the lack of data resulting from the ATC system not capturing any identifying information beyond a radar flight track for aircraft operating with a 1200 beacon code. Most VFR aircraft transiting the proposed Walker Low MOA boundary do not appear to be following any routes or procedures. Rather aircraft are flying direct to their destinations. The radar tracks also indicate that there is a lot of maneuvering flight occurring within the proposed airspace boundary, probably reflecting sightseeing and intense glider activity that takes place in the Reno- Tahoe Area. Figure 2-44: VFR Flights Crossing Walker Low MOA Boundary Figure 2-45 presents the IFR crossings into the proposed Walker Low MOA airspace. IFR crossings accounted for 18.4% of total operations (194 crossings) in the proposed Walker Low airspace. The majority of these were made by GA and Military aircraft. The military flights were comprised mainly of roundtrips to Beale Air Force Base. While GA aircraft mainly consisted of direct flights going between mountain airports in the Reno-Tahoe Area and GA airports throughout California and Nevada. In order to avoid the proposed Walker Low MOA airspace, GA aircraft would need to either fly above the MOA ceiling or around the lateral MOA boundary October 2018

71 For Official Use Only Results and Analysis Figure 2-45: IFR Flights Crossing Walker Low MOA Boundary October

72 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis This page intentionally left blank October 2018

73 For Official Use Only Appendix 3 Appendix 3.1 Additional Data Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 present RNO arrival procedures for aircraft coming from points of origin south of the airport. Figure 3-1: RUSME TWO STAR April

74 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 3-2: TARVR ONE STAR 3-2 October 2018

75 For Official Use Only Appendix Figure 3-3 present the ZEFFR 6 departure procedure for RNO departures to the south. Figure 3-3: ZEFFR SIX DP October

76 MCMWTC Bridgeport Walker MOA Airspace Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 3-4 depicts the portion of Victor Airway V-165 that borders the western boundary of the proposed Walker High MOA airspace. The airway is shown with a six NM lateral boundary, which is a typical width of airways when the distance between navigation aids is more than 102 NM, such as is the case with this portion of V-165. Figure 3-4: Segment of V-165 bordering Western Portion of Proposed Walker High MOA Figure 3-5 presents the Jet Routes located above the proposed Walker High MOA airspace. Figure 3-5: Jet Routes Located Above the Proposed Walker High MOA Airspace 3-4 October 2018

77 For Official Use Only Appendix Figure 3-6 presents the RNAV Jet Routes (Q-Routes) located above the proposed Walker High MOA airspace. Figure 3-6: Q-Routes Located Above the Proposed Walker High MOA Airspace October