airport delay and capacity. The FAA uses ASPM results to create performance benchmarks for airports each year. Since 2005, use of ASPM data has been a well-supported methodology to calculate aircraft delays, accepted by both government and industry as the most valid, accurate and reliable metric. Other than during January 2017, the average delay per operation for MSP was below the national average throughout 2017, averaging about 5.4 minutes of delay from January-November. Data for December were not available at the time of this analysis. When compared to other large hub U.S. airports as shown in Table A-2, MSP ranked 19th overall in 2017 in terms of highest average delay per operation, down from its 2016 ranking at 15th. TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS AND CAPACITY ENHANCEMENTS AT MSP The FAA continuously explores potential capacity-enhancing development/technology in an effort to increase airport efficiency and reduce delay. When advances are identified, efforts are made to implement the technology at the busiest airports. This section describes these efforts as they apply to MSP. Installation of ASDE-X at MSP was completed in 2009 and provides seamless coverage for complete aircraft identification information. This equipment also allows for future implementation and upgrade to Next Generation (NextGen) navigation technology (Automatic Dependence Surveillance – Broadcast, “ADS-B”); ADS-B uses a Global Navigation Satellite System to broadcast critical information. Federal policy requires aircraft operating in capacity-constrained airspace, at capacity-constrained airports or in any other airspace deemed appropriate by the FAA, to be equipped with ADS-B/Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (ADS-B/CDTI) technology by 2020. This includes MSP. Performance-based Navigation/Area Navigation (PBN/RNAV) As part of the FAA’s NextGen initiative to modernize the national airspace system, in 2011 the agency began to pursue advanced aircraft navigation technology at MSP in the form of PBN flight procedures. By 2015 the FAA focused these efforts on implementing RNAV and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) arrival procedures at MSP. On November 19, 2012, after extensive public involvement led by the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC), the MAC supported implementation of MSP RNAV arrival procedures and partial implementation of MSP RNAV departure procedures. The MAC withheld its support for RNAV departure procedures for MSP Runways 30L and 30R due to a large volume of residents and elected officials expressing concern about concentrating departure flights over certain residential areas in Minneapolis and Edina. As a result, the FAA indicated it would need to conduct a safety risk management evaluation for partial implementation of RNAV at MSP. On February 19, 2014, the results of the FAA’s safety risk management evaluation concluded partial implementation of RNAV departures introduces unsafe risk factors. Specifically, moving forward with implementation of RNAV departure procedures for Runways 12L, 12R and 17 without implementation of RNAV departure procedures on Runways 30L and 30R was determined unsafe. Therefore, the FAA concluded that RNAV departure procedures would not be implemented at MSP at this time. In response to the FAA’s safety risk management findings, on March 6, 2014 the NOC passed a resolution regarding future RNAV standard departure procedure design and implementation efforts at MSP. The resolution specified that further consideration of RNAV departure procedures at MSP must be structured in a way that takes into account proven successes at other similarly-situated airports and incorporates community outreach efforts. The resolution also specifically expressed support for the implementation of the RNAV and RNP arrival procedures at MSP. On March 17, 2014 the MAC board of commissioners took unanimous action supporting the NOC resolution and forwarded it to the FAA. The FAA moved forward with the approved RNAV and RNP arrival procedures incorporating Optimized Profile Descents (OPD); publication of the RNAV and RNP arrival flight procedures and air traffic control implementation began in March 2015 and was fully implemented by April 2015. OPDs occur when pilots reduce aircraft power settings and maintain a continuous descent into the airport rather than using more traditional procedures that involve power adjustments and descending in steps, reducing fuel and carbon emissions. In 2017, MAC staff completed an evaluation to quantify the benefits of OPDs. The findings were endorsed by the FAA and showed that the OPDs provide the largest carbon emission reduction in documented history at MSP with a savings of approximately 2.9 million gallons of fuel per year resulting in 28,465 fewer metric tons of carbon dioxide. Ongoing Precision Instrument Approach Capabilities In addition to runway separation and configuration, airfield capacity can be affected greatly by how the runways are equipped for inclement weather. A number of precision instrument approaches continue to be available at MSP as summarized in Table A-3. Precision Instrument Approaches Table A-3 MSP CAT 1 CAT 2 CAT 3 Runways 30R 30L 12L 12R 35 Notes: The term decision height is defined as the height at which a decision must be made during a precision approach to either continue the landing maneuver or execute a missed approach. Precision approaches are categorized based on decision height and the horizontal visibility that a pilot has along the runway. Visibility values are expressed in statute miles or in terms of runway visual range (RVR) if RVR measuring equipment is installed at an airport. The different classes of precision instrument approaches are: i. Category I (CAT I) – provides approaches to a decision height down to 200 feet and a basic visibility of ¾ statute miles or as low as 1,800 feet runway visual range (RVR). ii. Category II (CAT II) – provides approaches to a decision height down to 100 feet and an RVR down to 1,200 feet. iii. Category IIIa (CAT IIIa) – provides approaches without a decision height (down to the ground) or a decision height below 100 feet and an RVR down to 700 feet. iv. Category IIIb (CAT IIIb) – provides approaches without a decision height or a decision height below 50 feet and an RVR down to 150 feet. v. Category IIIc (CAT IIIc) – provides approaches without a decision height and RVR. This will permit landings in “0/0 conditions,” that is, weather conditions with no ceiling and visibility as during periods of heavy fog. Source: MSP Airfield Operations, FAA x xi