FAA Short Course Prelim

Analysis of Air Transportation Systems
The Aircraft and the System

Dr. Antonio A. Trani
Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Falls Church, Virginia

June 9-12, 2003
NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research
Material Presented in this Section
The aircraft and the airport
Aircraft classifications
Aircraft characteristics and their relation to airport

planning
New large capacity aircraft (NLA) impacts
Purpose of the Discussion
Introduces the reader to various types of aircraft and their

classifications
Importance of aircraft classifications in airport

engineering design
Discussion on possible impacts of Very Large Capacity

Aircraft (VLCA, NLA, etc.)
Preliminary issues on geometric design (apron standards)

and terminal design
Relevance of Aircraft Characteristics
Aircraft classifications are useful in airport engineering

work (including terminal gate sizing, apron and taxiway
planning, etc.)
Most of the airport design standards are intimately

related to aircraft size (i.e., wingspan, aircraft length,
aircraft wheelbase, aircraft seating capacity, etc.)
Airport fleet compositions vary over time and thus is

imperative that we learn how to forecast expected vehicle
sizes over long periods of time
Aircraft Classifications
Aircraft are generally classified according to three
important criteria in airport engineering:
Geometric design characteristics (Aerodrome code in

ICAO parlance)
Air Traffic Control operational characteristics (approach

speed criteria)
Wake vortex generation characteristics

Other relevant classifications are related to the type of
operation (short, medium, long-haul; wide, narrow-body,
and commuter, etc.)
Geometric Design Classification (ICAO)

ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code Used in Airport Geometric Design.
Design Group
Wingspan (m)
Outer Main
Landing Gear
Width (m)
Example Aircraft
< 15
< 4.5
All single engine aircraft, Some

business jets
15 to < 24
4.5 to < 6
Commuter aircraft, large business jets

(EMB-120, Saab 2000, Saab
340, etc.)
24 to < 36
6 to < 9
Medium-range transports
(B727, B737, MD-80, A320)
36 to < 52
9 to < 14
Heavy transports
(B757, B767, A300)
52 to < 65
9 to < 14
Heavy transport aircraft

(Boeing 747, L-1011, MD-11,
DC-10)
Geometric Design Classification (FAA in US)

FAA Aircraft Design Group Classification Used in Airport Geometric Design.
Design Group
Wingspan (ft)
Example Aircraft
< 49
Cessna 152-210, Beechcraft A36
II
49 - 78
Saab 2000, EMB-120, Saab 340, Canadair

RJ-100
III
79 - 117
Boeing 737, MD-80, Airbus A-320
IV
118 - 170
Boeing 757, Boeing 767, Airbus A-300
171 - 213
Boeing 747, Boeing 777, MD-11, Airbus A340
VI
214 - 262
A3XX-200 or VLCA (planned)
ATC Operational Classification (US)

Airport Terminal Area Procedures Aircraft Classification (FAA Scheme).
Approach Speed
(knots)a
Group
Example Aircraft
< 91
All single engine aircraft, Beechcraft

Baron 58,
91-120
Business jets and commuter aircraft

(Beech 1900, Saab 2000, Saab 340,
Embraer 120, Canadair RJ, etc.)
121-140
Medium and Short Range Transports

(Boeing 727, B737, MD-80, A320,
F100, B757, etc.)
141-165
Heavy transports
(Boeing 747, L-1011, MD-11, DC-10,
A340, A300)
> 166
BAC Concorde and military aircraft
a. At maximum takeoff gross mass.
Wake Vortex Aircraft Classification

Final Approach Aircraft Wake Vortex Classification.
Group
Takeoff Gross
Weight (lb)
Example Aircraft
Small
< 41,000
All single engine aircraft, light twins,

most business jets and commuter aircraft
Large
41,000-255,000
Large turboprop commuters, short and

medium range transport aircraft (MD80, B737, B727, A320, F100, etc.)
Heavy
> 255,000
Boeing 757a, Boeing 747, Douglas

DC-10, MD-11, Airbus A-300, Airbus
A-340, Lockheed L-1011
a. For purposes of terminal airspace separation procedures, the Boeing 757 is now classified by FAA
in a category by itself. However, when considering the Boeing 757 separation criteria (close to the
Heavy category) and considering the percent of Boeing 757 in the U.S. fleet, the use of three
categories does provide very similar results for most airport capacity analyes.
IATA Aircraft Classification

IATA Aircraft Size Classification Scheme.
Category
Number of Seats
Example Aircraft
< 50
Embraer 120, Saab 340
50-124
Fokker 100, Boeing 717
125-179
Boeing B727-200, Airbus A321
180-249
Boeing 767-200, Airbus A300-600
250-349
Airbus A340-300, Boeing 777-200
350-499
Boeing 747-400
> 500
Boeing 747-400 high density seating
Used in the forecast of aircraft movements at an airport

based on the IATA forecast methodology.
10
Aircraft Classification According to their Intended

Use
A more general aircraft classification based on the aircraft
use
General aviation aircraft (GA)
Corporate aircraft (CA)
Commuter aircraft (COM)
Transport aircraft (TA)

Short-range
Medium-range
Long-range
11
General Aviation (GA)

Typically these aircraft can have one (single engine) or
two engines (twin engine). Their maximum gross weight
usually is always below 14,000 lb.
Single-Engine GA
Twin-Engine GA
Cessna 172 (Skyhawk)

Beechcraft 58TC (Baron)
Beechcraft A36 (Bonanza)
Cessna 421C (Golden Eagle)
12
Corporate Aircraft (CA)

Typically these aircraft can have one or two turboprop
driven or jet engines (sometimes three). Maximum gross
mass is up to 40,910 kg (90,000 lb)
Raytheon-Beechcraft
King Air B300
Cessna Citation II
Gulfstream G-V
13
Commuter Aircraft (COM)

Usually twin engine aircraft with a few exceptions such as
the DeHavilland DHC-7 which has four engines. Their
maximum gross mass is below 31,818 kg (70,000 lb)
Fairchild Swearinger Metro 23
Bombardier DHC-8
Saab 340B
Embraer 145
14
Short-Range Transports (SR-TA)

Certified under FAR/JAR 25. Their maximum gross mass
usually is below 68,182 kg (150,000 lb).
Fokker F100
Airbus A-320
Boeing 737-300
McDonnellDouglas MD 82
15
Medium-Range Transports (MR-TA)

These are transport aircraft employed to fly routes of less
than 3,000 nm (typical).Their maximum gross mass
usually is usually below 159,090 kg (350,000 lb)
Boeing B727-200
Boeing 757-200
Airbus A300-600R
16
Long-Range Transports (LR-TA)

These are transport aircraft employed to fly routes of less
than 3,000 nm (typical).Their maximum gross mass
usually is above 159,090 kg (350,000 lb)
Airbus A340-200
Boeing 777-200
Boeing 747-400
17
Future Aircraft Issues

The fleet composition at many airports is changing
rapidly and airport terminals will have to adapt
Surge of commuter aircraft use for point-to-point

services
Possible introduction of Very Large Capacity Aircraft

(VLCA)
18
VLCA Aircraft Discussion
Large capacity aircraft requirements
Discussion of future high-capacity airport requirements
Airside infrastructure impacts
Airside capacity impacts
Landside impacts
Pavement design considerations
Noise considerations
Systems approach
19
VLCA Design Trade-off Methodology

Aircraft designed purely on aerodynamic principles
would be costly to the airport operator yet have low
DOC
Aircraft heavily constrained by current airport design
standards might not be very efficient to operate
Adaptations of aircraft to fit airports can be costly
Some impact on aerodynamic performance
Weight considerations (i.e., landing gear design)
A balance should be achieved
20
VLCA Impact Framework (I)

Aircraft Design Module
Mission Profile Definition
Range, Speed, Payload
Takeoff Roll, Gate Comp.
VLCA Physical Dimensions

Aircraft Wingspan
Aircraft Length
Airport Geometric Design

Runway and Taxiway Geometric
Modeling
Gate Compatibility Modeling
New Geometric Design Criteria
Takeoff Weight Requirement
Aircraft Separation Analysis

Aircraft Wake Vortex Model
Aircraft Separation Standards
Airside Capacity Analysis

Runway , Taxiway and Gate
Capacity Analysis
New Capacity Figures of Merit
Airport Landside Capacity

Passenger Demand Flows
Terminal Design Modeling

Landside Simulations
New Terminal Design Guidelines
Landing Gear Configurations

Landing Gear Configuration
Strut Configurations
Wheel Track, Wheel Length
Pavement Design Analysis

Flexible and Rigid Pavements
Identify Areas of Further
Research
21
VLCA Impact Methodology (II)

Airport Landside Capacity
Terminal Design Modeling
Landside Sim ulations
Passenger Demand Flows
New Terminal Design Guidelines
Landing Gear Configurations

Strut Configurations
Wheel Track, Wheel Length
Thrust and EPNL/SEL

Landing Analysis
Takeoff Analysis
Pavement Design Analysis

Flexible and Rigid Pavements
Identify Areas of Further
Research
VLCA Noise Model

Noise Modeling of VLCA
Operations (Ldn contours)
Comparison with Current Limits
VLCA Economic Impact

Trade-off Model
User Cost Impacts
Community Impacts
22
VLCA Specifications (Typical)

Parameter
Boeing 747-500X
VLCA (A380)
Range (km)
13,000
13,000
Runway Length (m)
3,000
3,000
Payload (kN)
800
1,200
Passengers
500
630-650
Max.TOW (kN)
4,200
5,400
Wingspan (m)
75
80-85
Length (m)
74-76
76-85
23
VLCA Schematic
VLCA aircraft will have wingspans around 15-25%

larger than current transports
Payload = 650 passengers
Design Range = 13,000 km.
Four 315 kN Turbofan Engines

MTOW = 5,400 kN
2
S = 700 m
AR = 9.5
o o
12
9-11
.5 m.
7881.57
81-87
m
24
VLCA Schematic (II)
Structural weight penalties of folding wings are likely to

be unacceptable to most airlines
The empennage height could be a problem for existing

hangars at some airport facilities
VLCA
Boein g 7 47-400
24 .87 m
14 o
75.67 m
25
Airbus A380 - First in a Family of VLCA
Source: Airbus
26
Development of Subsonic Transport Wings

The graphic below offers some idea on the development
of transport wings over three decades
Long Range Aircraft Data
11.0
A330/340
Wing Aspect Ratio
10.0
VLCA Aircraft
9.0
A310-300
B767-200
L1011-500
8.0
B767-300
DC-8-63
DC-8-50
B707-320
7.0
B707-121
B777-A
B747-400
IL-86
A300-B4
DC-10-30
DC-10-10 L1011-200 B747-300
B747-100
B747-200
6.0
1940.0
1960.0
1980.0
2000.0
2020.0
Year in Revenue Service
27
VLCA Design Trade-off Studies
Aircraft Maximum Takeoff Weight (kN)
Future VLCA would weight 5,400 kN for a 13,000 km

design range mission
7000
VLCA Wing Aspect Ratio
6500
AR = 9.0
AR = 9.5
6000
AR =10.0
5500
5000
5,400 KN
4500
B747-400
4000
MTOW
3500
5000
(9,260)
5500
6000
(10,186)
(11,112)
6500
7000
7500
(12,038) (12,965) (13,890)
8000
(14,816)
Design Range (Nautical Miles and Kilometers)

28
VLCA Design Trade-off Studies (II)

It is possible that aircraft designers in the near future will
exceed the FAA design group VI limits
90
VLCA Wing Aspect Ratio

AR =9.0
VLCA Aircraft Wingspan (Meters)
85
AR = 9.5
AR =10.0
81.5
FAA Design
80
Group VI Limit
75
70
65
5000
5500
6000
(9,260)
(10,186)
(11,112)
6500
7000
7500
(12,038) (12,965) (13,890)
8000
(14,816)
Design Range (Nautical Miles and Kilometers)
29
VLCA Impacts on Airside Infrastructure
Increase taxiway dimensional standards for design group

VI to avoid possible foreign object damage to VLCA
engines (increase taxiway and shoulder widths to 35 m
and 15 m, respectively)
31 m
61 m
VLCA on DG VI Runway
VLCA on DG VI Taxiway
30
Runway-Taxiway Separation Criteria
Increase the minimum runway to taxiway separation

criteria to 228 m (750 ft.). This should increase the use of
high-speed exits
183 m
230 m
31
HS Runway Exits for VLCA
Larger transition radii (due to large aircraft yaw inertia)
Linear taper turnoff width from 61 m to 40 m (metric

stations 250 to 650)
Latera l Distan ce (m)
100
HS Exit
35 m/s design speed
75
Boeing 727-200
50
Boeing 747-200
VLCA Aircraft
25
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Downrange Distance (m)

32
VLCA Taxiway Fillet Radius Requirements
Minimum Fillet Radius (m)
The fillet radius design standards for design group VI

should suffice for VLCA aircraft
31.00
VLCA Design Region

30.00
Undercarriage Width (m.)

Uw = 13.5
Uw = 15.0
Uw = 16.5
29.00
28.00
27.00
FAA Design Group VI
26.00
25.00
27.00
28.00
29.00
30.00
31.00
32.00
33.00
34.00
Distance
Undercarriage
to Cockpit
(m.)
Distance
from from
MainMain
Undercarriage
to Cockpit
(m)
33
Taxiway Length of Fillet Requirements
VLCA length of fillet requirements will probably be

satisfied using current geometric design criteria
80.00
FAA Design Group VI
Fillet Length (m)
70.00
Undercarriage Width (m.)
60.00
Uw = 13.5
Uw = 15.0
50.00
Uw = 16.5
40.00
30.00
VLCA Design Region
20.00
27.00
28.00
29.00
30.00
31.00
32.00
33.00
34.00
Distance
Undercarriage
to Cockpit
Distance
from from
MainMain
Undercarriage
to Cockpit
(m)(m.)
34
Impacts to Aircraft Separation

Critical to estimate safe aircraft separation criteria
Induced rolling acceleration principle ( p quotient)
Tangential speed matching method
Derived formulation (using p quotient principle)
K4
ij = Max L 1 + L 2 W i , K 1 + K W i + K 3 { W j }
2
is the separation distance between aircraft i and j in km

K K , K , and K are regression constants found to be
6.1000, 0.00378, -0.24593 and 0.44145, respectively
L and L are 4.7000 and 0.00172 and have been derived
using empirical roll control flight simulation data
ij
35
Aircraft Separation Analysis

Recommended in-trail separation criteria for
approaching aircraft using the P quotient criteria
24.0
Aircraft Separation (km.)
Small (Learjet 23)

Medium (DC9)
20.0
Large (B757)
Heavy (747)
16.0
VLCA
12.0
8.0
4.0
0.0
750.0
1500.0
2250.0
3000.0
3750.0
4500.0
5250.0
Leading Aircraft Weight (kN)

36
Wake Vortex Tangential Speed Estimation

Predicted tangential speeds of wake vortex using
Robinson and Larson semi-empirical vortex model
7
Clean aircraft
Speed = 160 knots
Sea Level ISA
14 km behind aircraft
Tangential Speed (m/s)
6
5
4
VLCA (4,400 KN)
3
2
Vortex Cores
1
0
20
Lockheed C5A (2,060 KN)
30
40
50
60
70
80
Lateral Distance from Center of Fuselage (m.)
37
Aircraft Separation Analysis (cont.)

In-trail separation criteria for approaching aircraft
using the tangential speed matching method
Miminum In-trail Separation (km)
16
IMC Conditions
Trailing Aircraft
Small
14
MTOW < 267 kN

Medium
267 KN < MTOW < 1,336 kN
12
Heavy
MTOW > 1,336 kN
10
8
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
Maximum Takeoff Weight (kN)

5500
6000
(10,186)
(11,112)
6500
7000
7500
(12,038) (13,000) (13,890)
8000
(14,816)
VLCA Design Range (Nautical Miles and Kilometers)
38
Runway Saturation Capacity Impacts

Small to moderate saturation capacity changes
60
Parallel Runway Configuration
IMC Weather Conditions
Percent VLCA
50
0%
(aircraft/hr)
40
10%
20%
30
Independent Parallel Approaches
20
10
0
0
25
50
75
Departure Saturation Capacity (aircraft/hr)
100
39
Airport Terminal Impacts (Landside)

VLCA will certainly impact the way passengers are
processed at the terminal in various areas:
Gate interface (dual-level boarding gates)
Service areas (ticket counters, security counters,
immigration cheking areas, corridors, etc.)
Apron area parking requirements
40
Airport Landside Effects

Use of simulation models to estimate landside LOS
5 VLCA A ircraf t (or 7 Boeing 7 47 -4 00 )
Te rm inal
4 9 0 m.
VLCA Deplaning Model
count
Heavy Acft Gate
ReadMe
Heavy Acft Gate
Exit
c
Circulation
Heavy Acft Gate
Immigration
33
Baggage Claim
CUSTOMS
Customs
0
L
? b
select
#
Exit
Heavy Acft Gate
Passengers exiting
from the Terminal
Heavy Acft Gate
Entrance to
Landside
facilities
Transfer
Passengers are
seperated here
Transfer
Passengers Count
Arriving Aircraft Gates
41
Sample Landside Simulation Results

Analysis using the Airport Terminal Simulation Model
30 immigration counters
Normal service times (=1.0 and =0.25 minutes)
Total No. Passengers at

Immigration Counters
500
7 Boeing 747-400 at 85% Load
400
5 VLCA at 85% Load
300
200
100
0
0
30
60
90
Time (minutes)
120
150
42
Airport Gate Interface Challenges
VLCA aircraft could employ dual-level boarding gates to

provide acceptable enplanement performance
Terminal
VLCA
Boei ng 7 47 - 40 0
Dual-level Boarding Gates
24.87 m
1 4o
75.67 m
VLCA
Terminal
Boei ng 7 47 - 40 0
Dual-level Boarding Gates
24.87 m
1 4o
75.67 m
43
Noise Impacts
Sound Exposure Level (dBA)
High by-pass ratio turbofan engines with maximum

takeoff thrust of 315-350 kN will be necessary to power
VLCA aircraft
The engine size will probably be determined by takeoff
run and engine-out climb requirements
125
VLCA Thrust Rating (kN)
44.55
103.20
100
115.43
174.35
229.31
246.98
75
311.76
315.60
50
100.00
1000.00
10000.00
Slant
Range
(m) (m)
Slant
Distance
44
DNL Takeoff Contours

Larger engines coupled with smaller initial climb rate
capability (compared to twin and three-engine aircraft)
could result in expanded noise contours at most airports
L dn = 5 5 Prof iles
MD-1 1 ( GE)
Prof ile
VLCA Profile
Runway
20 00
40 00
6000
8000
10000
Scale in met ers
45
Pavement Design Impacts

Multiple triple-in-tandem landing gear configurations
are likely to be used for VLCA applications
Pavement Thickness (cm)
180
160
DC9-50
140
B727-200
120
Landing Gear
Configuration
VLCA
100
B747-400
80
60
40
Quadruple + Triple-in-Tandem
20
1
6 8 10
CBR Value
20
30
40
Subgrade Strength, CBR
46
Systems Engineering Model

Administration & Sales Cost
Depreciation Ground Equipment
Aircraft Life Cycle IOC

~
Property and Equipment Cost
Fleet Purchases
Fleet Size
Annual IOC
Servicing Flight OPS
Fleet Additions
Fleet Retirement
Maintenance Cost
Average Utilization
Aircraft Life Cycle DOC
Depreciation Cost
Insurance Cost
Flight Operations Cost
Annual DOC
Crew Expenses
Fuel Oil Costs
Annual Fuel Consumption
Fuel Unit Cost
Average Utilization
47
Sample Application of the Model

Desired Range in Km.
and (n.m.)
Aspect Ratio
Cruise Mach Number
VLCA Capacity (pass.)
MTOW kN (lbs)
Wingspan (m.)
Airfield Pavement Section
Improvement
Noise Mitigation
Runway Improvement
Taxiway Improvement
90 Degree Exit Improv.
Runway Blast Pad Area
Improvement
Terminal Apron Area Improvement
Land Acquisition Cost
10,186
(5,500)
9.5
0.85
650
3,830 (860,000)
70
12,965
(7,000)
9.5
0.85
650
5,385 (1,210,000)
82
13,890
(7,500)
9.5
0.85
650
6,100 (1,370,000)
87
5,000,000
19,250,000
13,663,234
276,343
7,872,000
19,250,000
13,663,237
384,694
10,000,000
24,319,277
15,413,237
386,622
1,200,000
1,200,000
1,589,673
77,685
113,207
63,869
229,328
297,101
48
Desired Range in Km.

and (n.m.)
Aspect Ratio
Cruise Mach Number
VLCA Capacity (pass.)
MTOW kN (lbs)
Wingspan (m.)
Airfield Geometric Infrastructure Improvement Cost
Terminal Curb Frontage
Improvement Cost
Parking Garage Improvement
Cost
Landside Improvement Cost
International Terminal Infrastructure Improvement Cost
Total Airport Infrastructure
Improvement Cost
10,186
(5,500)
9.5
0.85
650
3,830 (860,000)
70
12,965
(7,000)
9.5
0.85
650
5,385 (1,210,000)
82
13,890
(7,500)
9.5
0.85
650
6,100 (1,370,000)
87
39,017,641
48,299,715
59,736,701
45,900
45,900
45,900
2,653,750
2,653,750
2,653,750
2,699,650
2,699,650
2,699,650
77,523,165
77,523,165
77,523,165
124,240,456
136,394,530
149,959,516
49
Summary
An integrated life-cycle approach is needed to
estimate the impacts of VLCA aircraft
High-capacity aircraft operating at high-capacity
airports will require some changes to current
design standards
Some of the design standards for airside
infrastructure should be revised to plan ahead for
strategic VLCA aircraft
The effect of reduced airside capacity will not
yield reduced passenger demand flow rates at
airport terminals
50
High capacity airports could benefit from lower

flight frequencies resulting from VLCA operations
if the passenger demand flows are the same
51

FAA Short Course Prelim

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAA Short Course Prelim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Air Transportation Systems

The Aircraft and the System

Falls Church, Virginia

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

Material Presented in this Section

The aircraft and the airport

Aircraft characteristics and their relation to airport

New large capacity aircraft (NLA) impacts

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

Purpose of the Discussion

Introduces the reader to various types of aircraft and their

Importance of aircraft classifications in airport

Discussion on possible impacts of Very Large Capacity

Preliminary issues on geometric design (apron standards)

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

Relevance of Aircraft Characteristics

Aircraft classifications are useful in airport engineering

Most of the airport design standards are intimately

Airport fleet compositions vary over time and thus is

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

Geometric design characteristics (Aerodrome code in

Air Traffic Control operational characteristics (approach

Wake vortex generation characteristics

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

Geometric Design Classification (ICAO)

All single engine aircraft, Some

Commuter aircraft, large business jets

Heavy transport aircraft

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

Geometric Design Classification (FAA in US)

Cessna 152-210, Beechcraft A36

Saab 2000, EMB-120, Saab 340, Canadair

Boeing 737, MD-80, Airbus A-320

Boeing 757, Boeing 767, Airbus A-300

Boeing 747, Boeing 777, MD-11, Airbus A340

A3XX-200 or VLCA (planned)

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

ATC Operational Classification (US)

All single engine aircraft, Beechcraft

Business jets and commuter aircraft

Medium and Short Range Transports

BAC Concorde and military aircraft

a. At maximum takeoff gross mass.

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

Wake Vortex Aircraft Classification

All single engine aircraft, light twins,

Large turboprop commuters, short and

Boeing 757a, Boeing 747, Douglas

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

IATA Aircraft Classification

Embraer 120, Saab 340

Fokker 100, Boeing 717

Boeing B727-200, Airbus A321

Boeing 767-200, Airbus A300-600

Airbus A340-300, Boeing 777-200

Boeing 747-400 high density seating

Used in the forecast of aircraft movements at an airport

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research

Aircraft Classification According to their Intended

General aviation aircraft (GA)

Corporate aircraft (CA)

Commuter aircraft (COM)

Transport aircraft (TA)

NEXTOR - National Center of Excellence for Aviation Research