ML19224A330

NRC Testimony Re Us Air Carrier & Military Accident & Traffic Data

ML19224A330
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	11/17/1978
From:	NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:
Shared Package
ML19224A328	List: ML19224A326 ML19224A329 ML19224A330 ML19224A333 ML19224A334
References
NUDOCS 7812270040
Download: ML19224A330 (45)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:,,,.>., g . h ;-}v., \\ ~- ~ fgY y \\ ? 4 j

• ?'

%.? c. \\ UtilTED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter af ) ) METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et _a_l. ) DOCKET NO. 50-320 ) (Three Mile Island Nuclear Staticn, ) Unit 2) ) NRC STAFF TESTIMONY REGARDING U. S. AIR CARRIER AND MILITARY ACCICENT AND TRAFFIC DATA Panel consisting of 1. Dr. Jacques B. J. Read 2. Gordon L. Chipman, Jr. 3. Peter T. Melia 4 Ray E. Byers 5. Bertram Caval "/ ~279 7mm Vf

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Accident Data........... 1 3. TrafficData............................................. 22 C. Testimony by Federal Aviation Administration Regarding Operations at Harrisburg Inter-na t i o n a l A i rp o r t........................................ 31 .-onn _ r[ Ast U A. Accident Data Question: Dr. Road, please givs an exclanation of ccmcn terms used in the testimo7y. (J't) Answer: As defined by the FAA and NTSB in the glossary of tems in their annual reports, the tem " operation" is used in a variety of contexts. Applied to a control tower operator, approach controller, or air route traffic controller, an operation is an act of positive control over an aircraft's activities. In accident reports, one or more chases o# oceration are specified. While parked on the ground, an aircraft is said to be in a static phase of operation. In searching accident records, static and taxi pnasas have been ignored, since they hold no ha::ard of crashing. After static and taxi phases of operation, a departing aircraft executes a takeoff roll down the runway. Curing this roll, decisions are made on the basis of the indicated air speed of the aircraft, judged by the ability of the aircraft to successfully cont'nue 'n the event of 2 single engine failure. If acceleration on the runway is adecuate, tne aircraft will rotate, or assume a nose-high attitude. If acceleration is not adequate, the takeoff will be aborted _. After rotation, the vertical forces on the aircraft increase and it begins its initial climb. Curing takeoff and initial climo, the wing flaos are extended to increase the low speed lift-to-drag ratic. Initial climo generally is finished at about 140% of stall speed and about 2,0C0 feet altitude. The next

hase is climb-to-cruise, in which-tne aircraft enters the 3,000 to 18,000 foot altitude region of the low-level federai air.vay system until cernitted to rise to the jet routes above 13,000 feat anere turoines are v - ogy3 g

(1. .a-

1-at their most efficient-. The aircraft flies at nor al cruise, then becomes cescendi g as it re-enters the icw-level route system. About 20 miles or more frem the destination the accroach controllers must be con-tacted for per-ission to enter the airspace within five miles and 3,000 feet altitude of the airport. If permission is not granted, the aircraft executes a holding pattern outside this :' 'gace. When permitted, the aircraft makes an initial accreach, usually being allowed to descend to celow 3,000 feet. (Inder instrument conditions, the aircraft overflies the " outer marker", located about 5 miles frem the end of runway, wnich is defined electronica7:f. The final accroach, with flaps extended, is executed at or just a ove landing speeds. At the threshold the aircraft is less than 50 feet at]ve the runway, and descends to touch-down, and decelerates during i+.s landinc roll, or accelerates to abort the landing and execute a co-around. Q. Dr. Read, what sources of information were used to cbtain accident cata? (JR) A. Inforaticn on air carrier accidents for che years 1956 to 1^65 was obtained frcm air carrier accident recorts ccr: riled by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). In 1966 :ne National Transcar-tatien Safety Scard (NTSB) was created by the Cecar* ment of Transportaticn Act and was given authori*y for investigating and recorting air carrier accidents. Ccnsecuently, for one years 1966 to 1977, air carrier accident recorts were ccmciled by the NTSB. O. Did you atterct to verify the data obtained frcm ne CAB anc NTSB by other sourcas of infor ation? i~282 (JR) A. Yes, I attenoted to obtain information and data frem insurance ccmcanies. Mcwever, I found that no usable informaticn was avtil-able from ccmcanies wni.h issue aircraft insurance. Airlines typically use layers of insurance and re-insurance, with seme of the larger airlines being partially sel#-insured. Hence the loss experience of insurance cemoanies wculd not be simply related to the accident rates desired here. In addition, it is general insurance practice not to pcol aircraft loss excerience with other insurance c:mpanies and dat any specific crash data kept by an insurance ccmcany was regarded as preprietary information. The second source of data utilized to verify the data cbtained from tne CAB and NTSB was a table of 'J. S. air carrier accidents ccmciled by the Applicant (See, Table 1 of Vallance's Testimony). This data was presented to tne NRC Staff and Intervencrs at a meeting iald between the three parties on October 26, 1973. Q. Explain the methodolcgy used to call the infor ation and data related to air carrier accidents from tne above sources. (JR) A. I obtained all the air carrier accident resumes (1,514) prepared by the cab and NTSB for the period 1956 - 1977 and selected all accident resumes that involved aircraft destructicn and or occucant fatali ty. These selected restzes totaled 268. The 268 ac:icen s were een listed on a year-to-year basis wnich was then cercarec with de table of similar accidents prepared by the Acolicant to see if there was agreement in the accidents cnosen. Bis c:maariscr indicated that there were discrepancies beween the Acclicant's ~ J 203

4_ and the Staff's data. The discrepancies acceared largely to be the result of differences in definitions. For example, the Apolicant included helicepter accidents whereas the Staff only considered fixed-wing aircraft accidents. All differences involved small air-craft, and occurred predominantly during early years (1956 - 1959). A list of discrepancies folicws: -T ~ IDE

!J Date 1.oca tion Connient Og a 1966 y 1/2 Alaska flot included in Appilcants' Table 1. Included in Staff's Tabic 1 because I the aircraf t was destroyed. (explanation 1) 7/2 Alaska tiot included in Applicants' Table 1. Included in Staff's Table 1 because the aircraf t was destroyed and there was an occupant fatality. (explanation 2) 12/12 Panama explanation 1 12/16 Call fornia explanation 1 1957 1/19 Idlewild, N. Y. explanation 2 1/31 Suniana, Ca. Included in Applicants' Table 1 but not Staff's Table 1 because Staff tuuld find no record of this accident. 3/10 Louisville,Ky. explanation 1 11/6 Gua tan:ala explanation 2 10/19 farmingdale Included in Applicants' Table 1 but not Staf f's Table 1 because Hell 44 is a helicopter and Staff only included fixed win 9 aircraf t. 3/2 Alaska explanation 2 3/22 Alaska explanation 2 6/19 Canada explanation 1 6/22 Alaska explanation 2 9/14 Alaska explanation 1

Date Location Come n t_

p r-1953 S/ 31 Alaska explanation 2

w I

9/19 Alaska explanation 2 11/16 Colorado explanation 2 1959 1/20 Alaska explanation 2 1/8 Bristol, Tn. Included in Applicants' Table 1 but not Staff's Table 1 because Staf f could find no record of this accident. 2/20 San francisco, Ca. explanation 1 4/10 Juneau, AK explanation 1 6/21 Ireland explanation 1 6/16 Alaska explanation 1 7/3 Alaska explanation 2 9/12 Honduras explanation 2 11/16 Louisiana explanation 2 1960 1/16 Holivia, NC explanation 2 6/3 Alaska explanation 1 7/27 Chicago, 11 Inclutled in Applicants' Table 1, but not Staff's Table 1 because S-58 is a helicopter and Staff only included fixed wing aircraf t.

Date Location Conne_n t Q w 1961 CC 10/4 Lemont, 11 Included in Appilcc.nts' Table 1, but not Staf f's Table 1 because is Bell-47 is a belicopter and Staf f only included fixed wing aircraf t. I 1962_ 8/22 Wilmington explanation 1 1963 10/14 Jamaica, N.Y. Included in Appilcants' Table 1 but not Staff's Table 1 because Vertol 107-11 is a helicopter and Staff only included fixed wing. 1965 4/15 Moraga, CA Included in Appilcants' Table 1 but not Staff's Table 1 because Vertol 7 5 62 a is a helicopter and Staff only included fixed wing. 4/16 San francisco, t. Included in Applicants' Table 1 but not Staff's Table 1 because Vertol S 62 a is a helicopter and Staff only included fixed wing. 1968 5/22 paramount, CA. Included in Applicants' Table 1 but not Staff's Table 1 because Vertol S61-L is a helicopter and Staff only included fixed wing. 8/14 Compton, CA. Included in Applicants' Table 1 but not Staff's Table 1 because Vertol S61-L is a helicopter and Staff only included fixed wing. 1972 6/29 Appieton, Wisc. Applicants' Table 1 does not include DilC-6 while Staff's Table I does. This was a midair collision which did include both aircraf t. Q. What infor tation is contained in Table l? (JR) A. Table 1 lists the 268 destruction and/or fatality accidents by year, giving for er.ch +he time, place, phase of operation, aircraf t, and an indication of the nature of the accident and the use for which the aircraft was being flown at the time of the accident. Q. What infomation is contained in Table 2? (JR) A. Table 2 lists those accidents in Table 1 which occurred in the contiguous 48 states. Q. What informaticn is contained in Table 3? (JR) A. Table 3 lists those accidents in Table 2 which did not occur in interairport flight or while taxiing. Q. What information is contained in Table 4? (JR) A. Table 4 lists those accidents in Table 3 which imoacted or other-wise led to the destruction of the aircraft within 5 miles of the airport in use. Included also are tne range and bearing of the location of destruction relative to the runway, and other infor-mation, where pertinent. In several accidents, for example, the location of the destructis.r was chosen by the pilot or determined by terrain features unique to that airport. Q. Subsequent to the Staff's November 17, 1973 submittal of its tables setting out accident data, have any of those tables been revised? , - o f 39 (JR) A. Yes, a revised Table 4 has been prepared. Q. Dr. Read, explain briefly the differences between Ta' le o revised o and Taoie a wnich was served as Staff testimony on Novemoer 17, 1978 and describe wny Table 4 was revised. (JR) A. In attempting to oetermine the spatial distribution of the various (GC) accidents which occurred within 5 miles of an airport for U.S. carriers in the contiguous U.S., I started with the data presented in Mr. Vallance's testimcny in Table 1. A version of this table was provided to the Staff in our earlier discus: ions in preparing for this case. The accident reports themselves do not contain information givino the saatial dis-tributi:n, range, bearing, for accidents in any consistent fashion. It is very difficult to extract this data from the NTSB and FAA files. I personally have gone through, in preparing Table 1, the resumes of all accidents for U.S. carriers in the period 1956-1977. This involves scme 1500 reportea accidents. To specifically identify each one in wnich there was a fatality and/or the aircraft was destroyed for those in landing or takeoff Dhase of operation I attempted to go through the available file data at NTSB to obtain additional information, particularly spatial distribution. Many of these records are not available. However, in many cases, particularly those in which the accident occurs on the runway, this fact can be gleaned from the accident report resumes. Taking applicant's table as a starting point, I personally went through all of the available accident files for each of the accidents on acpli-cant's Table I, and from the available files and from the resume information I confir ed tnat the distance and bearing set forth in that 'OP9 ( table were reasonably accurate to the extent that that fact could he ascertained from the available information. In some cases I could not confirm the range and bearing given by applicant and my deterninations are noted in Table 4. After preparing this table, we had a number of discussions with Mr. Eisenhut and Dr. Abramson and Dr. Moore, the Staff statisticians, and C# as a result of those discussions, it was determined that we would attemot in this case to make a more precise correlation of saatial distribution in terms of radial distance and in terms of angular bearing rather than to rely simply upon a more simplified version of a correlation based on radial distance only or on the far more simplistic model which merely uses the 60 sector out to a distance of 5 miles and to assume the distribution to be homogeneous in that sector, the model which was criticized by the Appeal Board in ALAB-486. As a result of these dis-cussions, it became apparent that a greater degree of confidence in the information concerning spatial distribution of accidents was neeced than my personal review of the files enabled me alone to provide. At tnis point I requested help from Mr. Chicman in obtaining assistance in scrutinizing the available accident records. Q. Mr. Chipman, would you clease explain what you did when called upon by Dr. Read to provide this additional help? -7 ~,TO (JR) A. Yes. We inTnediately contacted the file personnel at the NTSB and (GC) asked them to cbtain for our review all of the available " files" from their archives concerning the 61 off runway accidents of the 103 accidents set forth in Table 4 of th< infonnation provided by the Staff on November 17, 1973. There were available a total of 33 of a requested 61 files. Public Inquiries personnel at the NTSB have infonned me that they are unable to locate files on the remain-ing accidents. In some of these cases, the file consisted of a file folder with a few sheets of paper describing the accident. In some cases there was an accident report of some 10 to 20 pages, and in some the files included transcripts of the hearings conducted concerning the accident and detailed reports - files 1 to 2 cuoic feet in volume. I assigned two members of my staff to work with me to go through all of this information to confirm specifically the distance, be: ring and other relevant information for each of thJse accidents with available files. Most of the files provided specific location information on distance and bearing, including an identification of whether such bear-ing was to the right or to the left of the relevant runway. Table 4 was revised to reflect this infonnation. Table 4A describes the confirmed accidents and provides some additional available information concerning speed of impact and weight of piane. The 1/6/69 Bradford, Pa. accident did have a detailed file provided but was deleted as discussed in the response to the subsecuent ouestion. Thus Table JA has only 32 entries. $ ~ ' g o-{ Q. Mr. Chipman, would you describe very brief!y what the differences are between Table 4 filed on Noveder 17, 1978 and Table 4 Revised? (JR) A. Yes, first the column entitled Injury on Table 4 was revised to title it (SC) Fatality ar.d a typographical error on the following pages in the title of this column was similarly modified. In addition, we deleted scme accidents shown on Table 4 We deleted the 2/1/59 Kerrville., Tx. acci-dent, since the accident occurs beyond 5 miles. We deleted the 1/6/69 Bradford, Pa. accident, since our detailed review indicates that that accident occurred beyond 5 miles. We deleted the 1/19/57 accident at Idlewild, since basically this event involved a stolen airplane. The mechanic took a joy ride. Since this event was an unauthorized use of the airplane, all of us engaging in this review considered the relevance of events of this type and concluded that there really was r.o way in wnich they were parallel or in the same character as the other accidents, and we could not determine how to use the'1 appropriately for projecting events at Harrisburg. Similarly, the 4/13/62 accident at Dallas, Tx. which involved an improper use of an airplane - an unlicensed supervisor of maintenance took the plane up himself to check it out - again is not an accident relevara to accidents of U.S. carriers in their cperaticns. In any event both planes crashed cn the runway and are not relevant to TMI. We deleted the 1/08/61 accident in Avalon, Calif., since that accident involved an amphibian airplane which encountered severe swells during the course of a takeoff. Wa deleted the 10/14/65 accident at Piqua, Ohio. This was an accident resulting frcm running out of fuel during the course of the flight and an emergency landing cn a highway. The plane burned when it hit a hignway pylon and an automociie. There ' '?ch was really no airport involved; it was a landing on a highway. We noted in some cases, where it was obvious from the reports, that a particular landing was in fact controlled by the pilot even thcugh he did not land at his intended location. We have changed the 7/28/66 Newark accident from a takeoff accident to a landing accident, and we have changed its coordinates. We also have added an explanation for the reason for this change. This accident entailed an engine failure during the course of takeoff. The pilot then attempted to land on another runway at the airport and did not make it. We have characterized it as an accident in the course of the landing and give coordinates from the intended point of landing. They are accurately available from the detailed recort in the file on this accident. We have added a footnote with respect to the 7/6/77 St. Louis, Missouri accident. The bearing has been changed for the following accidents: 01/04/60 Boston, MA 04/22/66 Ardmore, OK 10/29/60 Toledo, OH 10/14/70 Huntington, WV 03/01/62 Jamaica Bay, NY 11/03/73 Boston, MA 05/18/65 Knob Nostra, M0 An identification of right or lef t bearing has been added for tne folicw-ing accidents: 09/17/61_ Chicago, IL 12/24/68 Bradford, PA 11/08/61 Richmond, VA 12/27/68 Chicago, IL 03/30/67 Kenner, LA 07/23/73 St. Louis, M0 The distance and bearing have been changed for the following accidents: 11/30/62 New York, NY 05/30/72 Ft. Worth, TX 12/24/64 San Francisco, CA 'i I?[){} Distance only has been changed for the following accidents: 03/12/64 Mile City, MT 03/03/72 Albany, NY 01/ 31 /67 San Antonio, TX 02/08/76 Van Nyes, CA For those range and bearings, se were able to confirm that the locations set forth in Table 4, which were based on accident summary reports, are generally accurate to within 1/2 mile. Out of the 32, we were able to confirm 3 accidents whose distances changed by more than 1/2 mile. With respect to angular distribution, there were 5 which varied by more than 10. Two other accidents which occurred on or just off the end of the runway had angular changes greater than 10 but this is due to the diffi-culty of consistently determining an angle when r is very small. These events are not typical and the error would not affect the crash proba-tility for accidents away from the airport. Of ccurse, as a result of our detailed review and the revisions indicated above, acpropriate corresponding revisions should be made in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 5 which were submitted on November 17, 1978. ~"r ~ r000 Q. Mr. Chipman, has the Staff developed a saatial distribution of crashes near runways? (JR) A. Yes, as shown in Table 4 Revised the range and bearings of crashes have been determined. This information has been clotted in Figure I which displays all crashes in the righthand quadrant (looking away from the end of the runway) since the angular displacement left or right of the runway centerline frequent'y could not be determined. Table a Revised has been broken down into Tables 4 Revised A, 4 Revised S, 4 Revised C, and J Revised D wnich shcw, in tabular form, takeoff and landing accidents for scheduled and non-scheduled operations. The information from these taoles has been plotted on Figures lA, IB, IC and ID which graphically depict tnis b rea k down. Q. Mr. Chipman, would you please describe hcw the data on saatial distribution of crashes near runways das de',eloced ~cr use in determining a crash densit/? (GC) A. The first step was to tabulate for takeoffs and landings separately all of the locations for relevant accidents fcr whicn the location was known. This information is shcwn in Tables 9A and 98. AcciGents on the runway were not considered. The data was tabulated from Table 4 levised Since the direc* ion ~~ '>ru-E / < - s,) of angular displacement left or rign: of the runway canterline was often not known, all data was shown in the O to 90 degree quadrant looking away 'rcm the end of the runway. Q. What information is contained in Table 5? (JR) A. Table 5 lists those accidents in Table 4 which involved an air-craft of a type capable of flight at over 200,000 pounds. Incitded, where known, are further details concerning imoact velocity and angle. Q. What was the rationale for selecting the infornation used in preparing the accident data tables? (JR) A. A stepwise process was used to determine the data set aoplicable to the Staff's evaluation of the potential for a damaging aircraft crash at the Three Mile Island facility. The acolicable data set for thisevaluation was determined as follows: a. All U.S. Air Carrier accident records for the years 1956-1977 were collected. These data included all accidents vorldwide and totalleo 1514 accidents. b. In order to evaluate die hczard to the Three Mile Island facility from flights from the Harrisburg Airport, only aircraft that crashed out of control were deemed applicable. The data set was therefore reduced to include only those c rashes where an occupant was killed er where the aircra#t ~ -: - *, c) t. 4 (-s t : U

-i7-was destroyed even if there were no occupant fatalities. This resulted in 268 accidents remaining from the list in (a) above. These 268 accident records are summarized in Table 1. c. Because aircort operation conditions, flying conditions, and flight control assistance varies greatly worldwide, it was determined that all accidents that occurred outside the contiguous United States were not applicable. Accordingly, the 268 data points in Table 1 were examined and the table was modified to include only those accidents that occurred in the contiguous U. S. The result is Table 2 which includes a total of 197 accidents. d. A number of the 197 accident records in Table 2 included accidents which occurred in flight away from (beyond 5 miles) airports as well as accidents involving taxiing on runways. Since these are not relevant to our calculation of a crash frequency at the Three Mile Island site, tney have been eliminated from Table 2. The result is Table 3 which contains 103 accident records. These same data are listed in Table 2 along with the range and bearing of the location of the accident relative to the end of the runway. This table has later been revised to eliminate several accidents ac additional accident details became available. Revised Table 4 contains 97 accidents. . *g {)*] e. From evaluation of the location of accidents contained in Revised Table 4, it was noted that a number of crashes occurred on the runway. Such accidents are noted to occur at location r=0, 0=0. Since these accidents do not contribute to the calculation o# c ras.1 likelihood at a site away from the air-port, they are not included in our Tables 9A and 98 which plots relevant crash locations for takeoff and landings (55 crashes), f. Table 5 of our November 17, 1978 filing lists only those aircraft crashes from Table 4 where the aircraft weighed over 200,000 pounds. The Staff has concluded that the 55 accident data points (see

e. above) are the applicable set of data for determining accident rates for the various tyces of U.S. air carrier air-cra f t.

This takeoff and landing data can be further subdivided for scheduled and non-scheduled aircraft (see Tables JA, 48, 4C, and 4D). There 55 crash reccrds can be examined to develop a crash distribution for landings and for takeoff accidents. Q. Have you requested infor-nation from the Military regarding its use of heavy aircraft? (JR) A. Yes, We requested information concernii.g military aircraft from the Pennsylvania Air National Guard (PANG) at Middletown and from the Military Airlift Ccmand (MAC) at Belleville, Illinois. "j ' 'ff3 The PANG confirmed the airport management's opinion that all heavy military aircraft at Harrisburg have been and are expected to be those of MAC. MAC supplied treffic information of heavy aircraft under its control at Harrisburg International Airport for the past five years. Accident rates for MAC heavy aircraft were obtained from the USAF Inspection and Safet/ Center at Norton AF3. Also requestea were accident data concerning the E4A. The Army Depot at New Cumberland believes that future traffic will continue to be erratic within the same approximate range as in past years, dependent upon the demand for helicopter repair generated by Army uni ts elsewhere. The correspondence with MAC Headquarters is attached, and their response is compiled as Tables 6 and 7. Q. Dr. Read, as I understand Table 7, there was cre crash of a large military aircraft which occurred off runway within 5 miles of an ai rpo rt. Is that correct? (JR) A. Yes. A CSA crashed in Vietnam in 1975 approximately 2 miles from Tan Son Nhut airport, attemoting to make a landing in a damaged conditicn. Q. Do you consider that this accident should be taken into account in projecting a crash rate that such aircraft might encounter under the conditions of operation at Harristurg? (JR) A. No. The particular crash is one about which there was a great deal of news cu /erage at that time. You may recall the news s to ri es. It was C5A " Galaxy" used to airlift Vietnamese orphans "/'093 from Vietnam shortly before the cerican withdrawal. The conditions were those of a hurried evacuation under the hostile conditions exist-ing in Vietnam at that time. The plane tcok off and about 40 miles out a cargo hatch opened and equipment parts swept out by decom-pression damaged the tail section. The pilot returned the plane to the vicinity of Tan Son Nhut. Landing gear was lowered, but he could not reach the airport. The pilot was able to avoid a heavily populated area and tried to land in a rice paddy, but the plane exploded on landing. About half the 305 aboard survived. The crash landing was under sufficient control so that the oilot was able to avoid a heavily populated area and save about half of the passengers. I believe that these conditons are not like the conditions of coeration that mignt be encountered at Harrisburg. Q. Then is it aporopriate to disregard potential crashes of large military aircraft at Harrisburg? (JR) A. Nc. But, in the absence of sufficient data to comoute crash rates for heavy military aircraft for operations at a domestic small hub airport, we believe that it is reasonable to consider the exoected crasn rates of heavy military transport aircraft to be the same as those of heavy non-scheduled U. S. civilian ai rcra f t. h'~000 Q. Has the Staff developed data associating the nunters of takeoffs and landings with the numoer of accidents listed in Table a Revised? A. Yes, Table 8 contains rows for scheduled, non-scheduled and total air carrier traffic in the contiguous U.S. For each row, fi ve items of information are supplied, these are: the millions of takeoffs and landings associated with that traffic, the numoers of landing and takeoff accidents contained in Table 4 Revised, and ratios of the nt;mbers of each type of accident to the numbers of times that particular ODeration was cerformed. As s umo tions needed in preparing this table are explained in the footnotes, and at the end of this table are summary totals and SLbtotals for use in identifying trends in time. Q. Describe any trends the Staff has identified in the accident data. A. Schedaled air carrier service has beccme significantly safer during the past 22 years. Non-scheduled traffic has also become safer, but to a less significant degree. The magnitude of non-scheduled traffic has declined slightly, while scheduled traffic has increased. While not reflected in Table 8, the air carrier industry has greatly increased it gross product, i.e., p issenger-miles, without corresconding increases in numbers of fligh ts or aircraft in service. -q:- 3{q B. Traffic Data Q. What sources of information were used to obtain traffic data? A. For years prior to 1966, data was taken from the CAB publications listed in footnote 1 to Table 8. For years since the formation of NTSB in 1966, data w,is taken from its publication, wh ch are i also listed in that footnote. Prior to 1958, certification was not required for non-scheduled service, and no reccrd of non-scheduled traffic magnitude was made. The regulations and definitions under which non-scheduled traffic was recorted has changed repeatedly during the cast 20 years, and estimation of this traffic magnitude was made by the methods outlined in foot-note 2. Q. Has the Staff developed a set of cata showing the scheduled and non-scneduled air carrier traffic from 1956 to 1977? A. Yes, in Table 8, the third column is such traffic as measured in numbers of landings plus takeoffs. Q. Identify the U.S.-made civilian aircraft that could weigh over 200,000 pounds at takeoff. (JR) A. Table 10 lists U.S.-made civilian passenger aircraft that may or do weigh over 200,000 pounds at takeoff In thi" Table the empty and maximum landing weights are certain, while the other data are approximate, and depend upon temoerature, humidity, "/ ~ [3(Ik$ flap setting, local wind velocity, and fuel load. For example, the Boeing Model 707, Series 120, is susceptible to landing gear collapse if landed at over 190,000 pounds, i.e., with over 72,000 pounds of payload and fuel aboard. This plane could weigh 285,000 pounds at takeoff, but would do so only if it were expected to fly 4,600 miles (i.e., consume 68,000 pounds of fuel) before land-ing. However, for purposes of conservatism in this analysis all of these aircraft have been considered as heavy aircraft. Q. Are there any foreign-made aircraft over 200,000 pounds that frequent U.S. airspace? (JR) A. Yes, the foreign-made A300B (European Airbus), the Ilyushin-62 Concorde SST, and Vickers VC10 have also flown or will fly in U.S. airspace and have maximum gross takeoff weights in excess of 200,000 pounds. Due to their rarity, the above planes and the Convair 990 are not now used, or expected to be used, by carriers, scheduled or non-scheduled, now serving Harrisburg. In addition, it should be noted that mcst 3707 and DC-8 aircraft are expected to be retired in the 1980's. Q. Of the civilian aircraft listed in Table 10 which are currently scheduled or do, in fact, use Harrisburg International Airport? (JR) A. Of the above-listed civilian aircraft, only a B707 operated by TWA is currently scheduled to serve Harrisburg International Airaort. The use s.. ,(

_24 of the 3707 aircraft was begun in the Spring of 1978 and is currently on a one flight per day basis. TWA has indicated that the use of a 3707 is incidental, occurring because of aircraf t availability in Chicago. TWA has also indicated that the 3707 operations out of MDT do not have a maximum take-off weight of over 200,000 pounds (see Attachment A). However, for conservatism the staff has included these operations as heavy operations since these aircraft can take-off in excess of 200,000 pounds. T;1erefore, its future use of Harrisburg is speculative. In addition, a private CC-8 aircraft is based at Harrisburg. It is cur-rently owned by 'the Pegasus International Travel Club of Middletown, Pennsylvania which uses the aircraf t approximately 13 times a year. Finally, other civilian heavy aircraft utilize Harrisburg airport for touch-and-go training operations. These operations are expected to continue in the future. For economic reasons, training missions are flown "lignt", i.e., without cargo, passenger:, or icng-haul fuel loads. Consecuently, only toucn-and-go operations by DC-10, L10ll, ard 37a7 aircraft at MDT would involve aircraft over 200,C00 counds. 1 Do nilitary aircraft over 200,L J Jounds use Harrisburg Airnort? (JR) A. Yes, the C-141 and C-5A have and are currently using Harrisburg Airoort. In addition, the E-JA nas used Harrisburg in the cast, but is not excected to in the future. ~~)O(hl Q. How is aircraft traffic recorded by the FAA? (JR) A. Aircraft traffic is recorded in a variety of ways for diverse purooses. Aircraft s 'erations at Harrisburg International Airport (MDT' by the commuter airlines and other commercial operations (e.g., Fede Express) ars counted as " air taxi operations" by the FAA. " Air carrier or tions" clude all operations by trunk, regional and supplemental air carriers, and certain general aviation which is, by virtue of its large size, subject to the same air worthiness and flit standards as air carriers. To obtain a count of Harrisburg operations, it is necessary to sert through FAA forms wnich identify air carrier, air taxi, general aviation, and military aircraf t. For purposes of identifying aircraft over 200,000 pounds mass, however, it is certain that these aircraf t will be identified as either " air carrier" or " military,' regard-less of thair owr.er or operator. Table 11 is a compilation of tcwer ocerations at MDT ob;ained from the FAA's ' Airport Statistics Branch." "Loca!" operations are tnose involving aircraft based at MDT which do not leave the airport vicinity during their flight. Q. Other than the FAA data, is there other data that reflects airoort activities at MDT? (JR) A. Yes. Tables 12 througn 16 show airport activities at Harrisburg of dcmestic certified route air carriers compiled from CAB data for the i 'O($ years 1973 through 1977. This data was obtained from " Airport Activity Statistics of Certified Route Air Carriers", published by the CAB. The CAB does not include commuter and local service air carrier activities in its data, and is chiefly concerned only with route structures and fares. Hence, these tables show only revenue activities by Allegheny and TWA. These tables also show the annual operations { excluding ferry flights) of the TNA B707 aircraft, which is the only scheduled certified aircraft which can exceed 200,000 pcunds mass. In addition, Tables 17 througn 19 reflect CAB charter data for the years 1973 through 1975. This data was obtained from CAS computer tapes located in the National Archives. Due to a faulty ccmouter tape, similar records for tne years 1976 and 1977 could not be obtained or reconstructed. Q. In Table 17 through 19 hcw are the operations of heavy aircraft ccmoutec? (JR) A. The " heavy" coerations are estimated by assuming that each charter carrier that owned a heavy aircraft would decart from "DT using that ai rcraf t. For example, since American Airlines owns B737 and ether heavy aircraft, it was assumed that any charter departure by American Airlines from MDT would be in a heavy aircraft. Obviously, this assumption is conservative because American Airlines, like many other charter carriers operating out of MD'., owns " light" as well as heavy aircraft. Some carriers, e.a., Air New England, do not cwn heavy aircraft and, therefore, any departure by them would not be reflected as a heavy operation. Q. From the above data cor.tained in Tables 12 through 19, is it possible to detemine the nunter of annual heavy operations at MDT? (JR) A. Yes, when military, private charter and non-revenue operations am included with the above data it is possible to compete the number of annual heavy operations at MDT. This computation is reflected in Table 20. For comparison, ii. should be noted that the Applicants, in r ;ordance with their technical specifications for DiI-1, have reported the following heavy operations. Year Heavv Ocerations 1974 1270 1975 1458 1976 1025 1977 1043 It is the Staff's understanding that the above numoers have been obtained from FAA tcwer counts. The Applicants' numbers of heavy ocerations are in excess of those operations set forth on Table 20 and may represent a conservative estimation of heavy operations by MDT tower counts. Q. In Table 20, how were the scheduled heavy operations determined? (JR) A. These operations were computed by adding the 3707 scheduled decartures from Tables 12 through 18 for each year and then multiplying by two to get scheduled ocerations. Q. Hcw were the non-scheduled heavy operations determined? .-y yj (JR' A. These operations were ccmouted by adding the 8707 and L10ll non-scheduled departures frcm Tables 12 through 18 for each year and then multiplying by four since these operations involved #errying an aircraf t into MDT for the non-seneduled service. For example, if T4A centracted for a non-scheduled charter frcm Harrisburg to Paris, it wculd be necessary for T4A to fly an empty aircraft into.vDT to cick up the passengers, fly them to and frca Paris, and then ferry the aircraft to its next operation. This charter by T'4A would involve cnly one revenue departure from "DT (reflected in Tables 12 th rough 16 but act: ally involve four operations at "DT. These non-scheduled ocerations by I'4A would then be added to the off-line charter operations for each year as reflected in Tables 17 through 19. Q. Hcw were the military heavy ;perations reflected on Table 20 cetermined? (JR) A. These operations are ;cmcrised of training missions at VDT by heavy aircraft and the ocer tions of Pegasus. Training operations were estimated oy 90T tower cersonnel. Pegasus acerations were estimated by fuel purchases. Q. Does Table 20 show any trend insofar as the number of annual heavy operations at MDT? (JR) A. Yes, heavy operations have been declining at MDT over the past five years (from 1484 operations in 1973 to 596 operations in 1977). This decline is largely due to a cecrease in TAA flights and off-line charters involving heavy aircraft. g 3 (' g Military aircraft usage at MDT is due primarily to cargo operations and training using transport aircraft, predcminantly by C-130 aircraft. There are no ccmbat aircraft activities or aerial refueling tracks in the vicinity wnicn might lead to traffic in combat or tanker aircraft usage at MDT. Military cargo operations at MDT are expected to continue into the fore-seeable future at the same approximate rate as in the recent past. Q. Based on the trend noted above and the forecasts made by FAA, does the Staff expect ne nunter of annual operations at MDT by heavy aircraft to change acpreciably in the foreseeable future? (JR) A. No. MDT is expected to maintain its relative position as a small aviation hub into the future. The National Airport System Plans for 1972-1992 and for 1978-1987 do not project MDT to a " medium hub" which would be recuired to see a significant increase in large aircraft us age. Since Harrisburg is not considered a large trans;mrtation market, it probably will not be served by wide-body aircraft. Consecuently, the transportation market at Harrisburg thou'.d centinue to be served by the smaller jets and proceller aircraft. Has the retent trend in the reduction of scneduled route aircraft Q, fares and the overall deregulation of scheduled air carriers had any impact on operations at MDT? (JR) A. No. The reduction of fares for scheduled air carriers has had no impact en the numhe r of operations by scheduled air carriers. Mcwever, it has led to a reducticn in revenues to succlemental carriers ard, in the last 12 months, 2 non-scheduled users of MDT have ceased Ocerations (Dve-seas National and Saturn Airlines). Two other sucolemental carriers, which utili::e MDT (World and Capitol International Airaaysi have been awarded scheduled routes ; however, ncne of these routes depart frca MDT. 7p In addition, recent years have seen more frequent scheduled flignts between fewer served locations, with a declinir.g non-scheduled market fraction. This has been made possible by growth in snort-haul air travel, This trend has due

• growth in " air taxi" or commuter air service.

been followed at Harrisburg by more frequent flights by scheduled airlines on established routes and a precipitous decline in chartered flights. FAA forecasters expect load factors to increase, with more flignts by "s:raller" planes having a greater fraction of their seats sold, this being aconon-ically favored over " larger" planes operating at the traditional average of half-capacity. v~Dio C. TESTIMCNY SY FEDERAL AVIATICN ACMINISTRATICN REGARDING CPERATICNS AT HARRISBURG INTERNATICNAL AIRPORT Question: Would you please state ; cur names, professional positicns, and business addresses? Answer: 1. My name is Peter T. Melia. I am the Chief of the Planning Section, Harrisburg Airport ;istrict Office located at Capital City Airport, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. 2. My name is Ray E. Byers. I am the Chief, Olmsted Tower, Harrisburg International Airport, Middletown, Pennsylvania. 3. My name is Bertram Caval. I am the Chief, Capital City Tower, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. Cuesticn: Mr. Melia, as Chief of the Planning Section wnat are your professional qualifications and duties? (P3) Answer: I am a graduate civil engineer. As Chief of the Planning Section, I am responsible for all airport plar.ning matters involving the FAA for the states of Pennsylvania and Delaware. These responsibilities would in-clude the siting and construction of air navigational facilities. Prior to my employment in the FAA, I was emoloyed as an engineer in the Facilities / Planning Department of a trunk airlines and as a Project Engineer wl,., a major aviation consulting and engineering firm. 7 ' O.f.1

2 _Cuestion: Mr. Byers, as Chief of the Olmsted Tower, what are your professional duties? (RS) Answer: My responsibility as Tower Chief is to provide the safe, orderly and expedit.ious flow of traffic into and out of Harrisburg International Airport. Cuestion: Mcw long have you been in your present position and wnat were your other FAA duties? (RB) Arswer: I have been Chief, Olmsted Tower for four years. P-ior to this duty I was an Air Traffic Control Specialist at Washington National Airport for 16 years and Harrisburg Tcwer, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania for two jears. I also served four years in Military Air Traffic Centrol. Cuestion: Mr. Caval, as Chief of Cap'tal City Tower, what are your professionai duties? (SC) fnswer: My responsibility is also to ortvide the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic into and out of both Capital City Airport and Harrisburg International Airport. Tuestion: Hcw long have you been at your present position and what were your other FAA duties? y.3.m (SC) Answer: I have been Chief of Capital City Tower for the past five years. I began my career in the FAA in 1948 and I have had the following duties: Chief. Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania Tower; FAA representative at McQuire Air Force Base, New Jersey; Military Cperations Officer at Kennedy Air ort; Chief, Peterboro Tower, New Jersey; and Air Traffic Controller at Washingtor National and LaGuardia Airports. Cuestion: For whom are you appearing in this case and what is the general purpose of your testiraony? (FM) Answer: (RS) (SC) We are appearing in response to a request by the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission (NRC) to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to present infor ation concerning the operations at Harrisburg International Airport. In res:cnse to that request we have prepared the following testimony with attacnments that will give a brief description of tne airport, informatien on traffic patterns in the area, and infor-.ation en the number and type of operations at the airtort. A. Descriction of Harrisbura Air ort Cuescion: Where is the locaticn of Harrisburg Interna ~ 1al Airport? (FM) Answer: Harrisburg International Air; ort-Olmsted Field (MDT) is located one mile aest of Middletown, Pennsylvania and accroximately 7 miles southeast of -?~313 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and occupies a 671-acre site bordering on the east bank of the Susquehanna River. The TMI site is approximately 2.5 nautical miles (NM) south-southeast to the end of the nearest runway. Question: Exhibi; , is an aerial color photograph. What does this photograph depict? (PM) Answer: The photograoh is an overhead picture of MDT and the surrounding area. The photograph, which we understand was obtained by the NRC from the Pennsylvania Photogi ar: retry and Survey Office, shows the Harrisburg Air; ort in the center of the picture with the town of Middletown, Pennsylvania to the east and the TMI site with its four cooling towers in the lower right hand corner. Cuestion: Exhibit , is a map composed of two United States Geological Survey maps of *.ne Middletown and Steel;on, Pennsylvania quadrangles. Can you identify MDT cn nis com::osite map? (PM) Answer: Yes, it is located in the center of this mac and is identified as Olmsted Air Force Base, Harrisburg International Airport. Question: Does this map also show CXY and the T'il site? (PM) Answer-Yes, CXY is located in the upper le#t-hand corner directly across tne Susquenanna River from Steelton, Pennsylvania. The TMI cite is located accroximately 2.5 miles SSE frcm the end of :ne nearest runway at "DT. ( 'Obl Question: Exhibit , is described as " Airport Obstruc-tion Chart" for Harrisburg International - Olmsted Field (OC-188). What does this chart show? (ptt) Answer: This chart shows the navigable air space surrounding MDT and the obstruc-tions within that air space in accordance with the federal regulations contained in 14 CFR Part 77. Question: What is the present use of MDT? (RS) Answer-Original'y the site of an aviation s'2pply depot, the airport was formerly Olmsted Air Force Base (named in honor of 1st Lt. Robert S. Olmsted) and transferred to the Ccmmonwealth of Pennsylvania for civilian airport purposes on July 1,1967. The airport serves Harrisburg, York, Middle-town, Lancaster, and other central Pennsylvania localities. MDT receives daily ccreercial service through Allegheny and Trans World Airlines, as well as conruter carriers and acccmodates a full range of charter, cargo sod general aviation activity. The airport is the home base for 26 private aircraft and military aircraft and the Air National Guard units. The Air National Guard aircraft stationed at MDT consist of Cl30s and C121s. Neither of these aircraft exceed 200,000 pounds. However, a private travel club owns a DC-8, an aircraft which can exceed 200,000 pounds, and bases it at MDT.

1. / 'O16 C_ua stion : What are the orientation and length of runways?

(RS) Answer: MDT has one runway contained in an area approximately 10,000 feet long and 200 feet wide and is capable of acccmodating the largest airolanes in the civil aviation fleet. There are two approaches to this runway identified as Runway 31 and Runway 13. These runways are aligned approximately 130-310 degrees magnetic. For m re details, see Attach-ments I and 3. Question: What type of ground control equipment or navi-gational aids are presently utilized at MDT? (PM) Answer: (RS) (SC) For a complete listing of the facilities and equipment in use at MDT, see and Attachment 3, the Airport Master Record at MDT. Of these facilities, a major navigational aid at MDT is the Harrisburg VORTAC (HAR), a very high frequency omnidirectional radio tactical aid to navigation which gives both range and bearing. Under instrument flight an aircraft will make a transition for an instrument approach, being directed by signals from the HAR, Ravine (RAV), or Lancaster (LRP) VORTAC's, along with radar fixes frcm flight control at Capital City Airporc (CXY). The approach control radar operators for MDT are physi-cally located at CXY, as is th, FAA Flight Service Station and the FAA division offices. The instrument landing system (ILS) at MDT faces the northwest, i. e., it is associated with Runway 13. ILS consists of a localizer (LOC) combined ~~ ~ 31.6 J with one or more markers, and is one of three types of low visibility landing aids in common use. At MDT there are two markers, an outer marker with ar. Associated Comcass Locator (LCM) located 6.4 nautical miles from the runway at a magnetic bearing of 306 degrees and a middle marker 0.5 nautical miles from the runway. The localizer is a highly directional beam bearing angular information. It is possible, within a range of several degrees, to tell how far and in what direction the center of the team lies. The scope of the beam expands with range, and hence is easier to find at great distances than close up. LCM's are easier to find and are used to position holding patterns. A property of a localizer antenna is a "back course", i.e., symmetric radiation at 180 degrees. Hence, an instrument approach is possible en Runway 31 using the lacalizer in combination with radar fixes. MDT presently utilizes a Category I ILS which !: designed to bring aircraft to within 2C0 feet altitude and 1800 feet laterally of touchdown after which landing is completed by visual means. However, because of obstruct 0.1s in the immediate vicinity, the established minimum weather conditions at MDT are a 3CO-foot ceiling and 3/4 mile visibility, at whicn point a pilot must see the runway environment to complete the landing. Runway 13 also has equipment to provide a descent profile for vertical guioance during a final approach. The Guide Slope /GS facilities consist of the following: (1) Electronic components emitting signals which provide vertical guidance by reference to airborne instruments during instrument aoproaches such as ILS, or ^'s'3L7 (2; Visual ground aids, such as VASI, which provide vertical guidance for VFR approach or for visual portion of an instrument approach or landing. MDI has both SS and VASI. Question: Are there any plans to upgrade these facilities in the future? (FM) Answer: (RS) The only new equipment planned for MDT in the near future is a full ILS for Runway 31 in 1981. More sophisticated Category II and Category III ILS's are not planned for MDT in the near future Question: How does this equipment compare with airoorts that are of similar size and have similar operations? (?M) Answer: The above-described equipment is comparable to that equipment installed in -irports of similar size and with similar air carrier service. Questicn: What are the prevailing meteorological conditions at MDT? (RB) Answer: Under normal conditions, the prevailing winds are from the West and West Northwest. During periods of low clouds and reduced visibility conditions, winds are normally from the East and Southeast. Operations at MDT are minimally affected by adverse weatner. For examole, "DT has been com-pletely shut down only one day each year for the past two years because of adverse weather conditions. [~O)b Guestion: In general, what is the topography surrounding the area? (PM) Answer: (RB) (BC) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) classifies the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania area as " mountainous." However, there are no unusual topographical features in the area that would be considered a hazard to operations at MDT. As can be seen from the USGS topographical maps, Ex. , MDT is at approximately 300' MSL, whereas the surround-ing hills range from 500' to 1000' MSL. Cuestion: Are there any unique hazards or features assoc-iated with MDT? (PM) Answer: '( RS ) No. MDT is certified by the FAA under Part 139 (14 CFR Part 139) and thus comolies with safety standards and requirements established by FAA for airports serving CAB certified air carriers. B. Landinc and Takeoff Patterns Cuestion: What are the typical takeoff and landing patterns and the speeds at various points on approacnes and takeoffs? (RB) Answer: (BC) Typical patterns and speeds can best be depicted by use of maps. The folicwing maps indicate typical patterns and speeds and their relation-shio to the TMI site: 1. Typical IFR Takeoff Patterns - Attachment 4 2. Typical IFR tcmding Patterns - Attachment 5 i'019 3. Typical speeds at various points - Attachment 6 4. Typical VFR Landings and Takeoffs - Attachment 7 In addition, landing and takeoff speeds vary with each type of aircraft and are based on many factors such as weight, temperature, wind direction and velocity. For a list of Aircraft Approach Categories (Based on approach speed and weight) with corresponding types of aircraft repre-sentative of traffic utilizing MDT, see Attachment 8. Question: What type of standard guidance is given to pilots of aircraft either approaching or departing from MDT? 3 Answer: Since the control areas of MDT and CXY overlap, it is necessary to define the operating procedures and the associated coordination responsi-bilities for the control of traffic in the area. These procedures and responsibilities are set forth in a Letter of Agreement which was made effective on July 1,1978 ( Attachment 9). Essentially the Letter of Agreement sets forth that aircraft approaching MDT will establish con-tact with Harrisburg Approach Control at Capitol City Tower which will advise the aircraft of the approech in use at MDT, When the m craft is ten (10) miles or more from the ai port, Harrisburg Approach Control will forward the follcwing information to Olrst=2 lower: (1) Aircraft identification. ?) Type of approach, if other than aporoach in use. (3) Type of operation, if other than a full stop landing, and issued missed approach crocedures. When the aircraft is five (5) miles from MDT, Harrisburg Approach Con-trol will transfer control of tne aircraft to Olmsted Tower for a visual 7 0.00

41-landing approlch and/or ILS and/or "back course" approach. If the aircraft is on airport surveillance radar (ASR) Approach, CXY nill maintain control of the aircraft until the aircraft is one mile from end of runway at wnich point control will be transferred to Olmsted Tower. ASR Approach is a radar approach which can give information to a pilot regarding the aircraft's distance frcm the end of the runway and suggest altitudes based on that distance. Cuestion: Is one 'anding or takeoff pattern preferred because of noise control or prevailing wind conditions? (RB) Answer: There are :inimum noise ccmolaints for this airport. Therefore, noise control does not dictate use of a particular approach or decarture. Prevailing wind conditions dictate use of Runway 31 approximately 60 total use, and Runway 13 for the remaining 20%. Question: What happens when a takeoff or landing is aborted? (q3) An s..e r : Aborted takeoffs present no problems at MDT. An aborted landing is treated under the same procedures as an IFR/VFR departure. Cuestion: Are there any published departure or arrival patterns whicn overfly tne TMI site? (RS) Answer: No. There are no Duulished decartura or arrival rcutes that requ. e aircraft : overG y the TMI site. ~7'O71 Guestion: How often is the TMI site overflown by aircraft that may depart from publisned patterns; (RS) Answer: There are no records cn file as to how many aircraft, if any, which do in fact overfly the TMI site. However, under normal takeoff and landing procedures, a heavy aircraft would not overfly the TMI site. Question: What is the relative hazard to aviaticn of the cooling towers at the TMI site and what warn-ings, if any, are given to pilots regarding this hazard? (RS) Answer: (BC) The cooling towers at the TMI site are not considered a hazard to aircraft in flight and, therefore, no advisories or warnings are given to pilots. In addition, it is our opinion that no pilot of a large aircraft would intentionally fly through the cooling tower plume because of the turbulence created in the plum that might effect aircr3ft performance. C. Infor ation on Traffic Cuestion: Is there any infor ation available with respect to the type of aircraft to use MDT for the past 5 years on a year-to-year basis including weight (number of aircraft over 200,000 pounds) and operator (scheduled, non-scheduled, military)? (RB) Answer: The only information typically available regarding airport activity at MDT is set forth on Attachment 10. This information does not include a breakdown of aircraft types or their weight on deoarture. However, we believe that less than 1 percent of tne total traffic is composed of aircraf t heavier tnan 200,000 pounds. "t'O22

J3-Puestion: Is there any information available as to the percentage of takeoffs, landings, and touch-and-go operations? (RS) Answer: The ten months of operations for this year indicate (traffic count) tna: 38*,' were takeoffs, 38% were landings and the remaining 24% were toutn-and-go and/or low approach traffic. Question: Does the FAA discern any trends in the number and type of operation at Harrisburg International Airport? (PM) Answer: (RS) Harrisburg International Airport activities have increased since calendar year 1971 as is evident from Attachment 10. Airport total traffic has increased from a 1976 low of 82,613 operations to a 1977 total count of 104,287 operations. Most of tnis increase is due to an increase in Air Taxi Comnuter and General Aviation traffic. For cne calendar year 1978, the average daily count of traffic indicates that traffic is continuing to increase and should reach a total count of 110,000 plus operations. Projections / traffic into the future wm.d be speculative at tnis point bec use of the uncertainties surrounding the future ownership and con-templated use of the airport. However, the FAA's best estimate of future operations at MDT is contained in its " Terminal Area Forecasts - Fiscal Years 1979-1990" (FAA-AVP-78-6). That forecasts that by 1990 MDT will experience 167,000 total annual operations. See Attachment 11. ~323 <}}