Extracted text (via pymupdf)
93940 characters
The definition of demand that may reasonably be expected to occur during the useful life of an airport’s
key components (e.g., runways, taxiways, terminal buildings, etc.) is an important factor in facility plan‐
ning. In airport master planning, this involves projecting potential aviation activity for at least a 20‐year
timeframe. Aviation demand forecasting for Chandler Municipal Airport (CHD) will primarily consider
based aircraft, aircraft operations, and peak activity periods.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has oversight responsibility to review and approve aviation
forecasts developed in conjunction with airport planning studies. FAA will review individual airport fore‐
casts with the objective of comparing them to its Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) and the National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Even though the TAF is updated annually, in the past there was
almost always a disparity between the TAF and master planning forecasts. This was primarily because
the TAF forecasts are the result of a top‐down model that does not consider local conditions or recent
trends. While the TAF forecasts are to be a point of comparison for master plan forecasts, they serve
other purposes, such as asset allocation by the FAA.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-1
When reviewing a sponsor’s forecast (from the master plan), the FAA must ensure that the forecast is
based on reasonable planning assumptions, uses current data, and is developed using appropriate fore‐
cast methods. As stated in FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems (NPIAS), forecasts should be:
Realistic;
Based on the latest available data;
Reflective of current conditions at the airport (as a baseline);
Supported by information in the study; and
Able to provide adequate justification for airport planning and development.
The forecast process for an airport master plan consists of a series of basic steps that vary in complexity
depending upon the issues to be addressed and the level of effort required. The steps include a review
of previous forecasts, determination of data needs, identification of data sources, collection of data,
selection of forecast methods, preparation of the forecasts, and documentation and evaluation of the
results. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5070‐6C, Airport Master Plans, outlines seven standard steps
involved in the forecast process, including:
1) Identify Aviation Activity Measures: The level and type of aviation activities likely to impact
facility needs. For general aviation, this typically includes based aircraft and operations.
2) Review Previous Airport Forecasts: May include the FAA Terminal Area Forecast, state or re‐
gional system plans, and previous master plans.
3) Gather Data: Determine what data are required to prepare the forecasts, identify data sources,
and collect historical and forecast data.
4) Select Forecast Methods: There are several appropriate methodologies and techniques availa‐
ble, including regression analysis, trend analysis, market share or ratio analysis, exponential
smoothing, econometric modeling, comparison with other airports, survey techniques, cohort
analysis, choice and distribution models, range projections, and professional judgment.
5) Apply Forecast Methods and Evaluate Results: Prepare the actual forecasts and evaluate for
reasonableness.
6) Summarize and Document Results: Provide supporting text and tables as necessary.
7) Compare Forecast Results with FAA’s TAF: Based aircraft and total operations are considered
consistent with the TAF if they meet the following criteria:
o Forecasts differ by less than 10 percent in the five‐year forecast period, and 15 percent in
the 10‐year forecast period, or
o Forecasts do not affect the timing or scale of an airport project, or
o Forecasts do not affect the role of the airport as defined in the current version of FAA Order
5090.3, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems.
Aviation activity can be affected by many influences on the local, regional, and national levels, making it
virtually impossible to predict year‐to‐year fluctuations of activity over 20 years with any certainty.
Therefore, it is important to remember that forecasts are to serve only as guidelines, and planning must
remain flexible enough to respond to a range of unforeseen developments.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-2
The following forecast analysis for the airport was produced following these basic guidelines. Existing
forecasts are examined and compared against current and historic activity. The historical aviation activ‐
ity is then examined along with other factors and trends that can affect demand. The intent is to provide
an updated set of aviation demand projections for the airport that will permit airport management to
make planning adjustments as necessary to maintain a viable, efficient, and cost‐effective facility.
The forecasts for this master plan will utilize a base year of 2019 with a long‐range forecast out to 2040.
NATIONAL AVIATION TRENDS
Each year, the FAA updates and publishes a national aviation forecast. Included in this publication are
forecasts for the large air carriers, regional/commuter air carriers, general aviation, and FAA workload
measures. The forecasts are prepared to meet the budget and planning needs of the FAA and to provide
information that can be used by state and local authorities, the aviation industry, and the general public.
The current edition upon preparation of this chapter was FAA Aerospace Forecasts – Fiscal Years 2019‐
2039, published in April 2019. The FAA primarily uses the economic performance of the United States
as an indicator of future aviation industry growth. Similar economic analyses are applied to the outlook
for aviation growth in international markets. The following discussion is summarized from the FAA Aer‐
ospace Forecasts.
Since its deregulation in 1978, the U.S. commercial air carrier industry has been characterized by boom‐
to‐bust cycles. The volatility that was associated with these cycles was thought by many to be a struc‐
tural feature of an industry that was capital intensive but cash poor. However, the great recession of
2007‐09 marked a fundamental change in the operations and finances of U.S. airlines. Since the end of
the recession in 2009, U.S. airlines revamped their business models to minimize losses by lowering op‐
erating costs, eliminating unprofitable routes, and grounding older, less fuel‐efficient aircraft. To in‐
crease operating revenues, carriers initiated new services that customers were willing to purchase and
started charging separately for services that were historically bundled in the price of a ticket. The indus‐
try experienced an unprecedented period of consolidation with three major mergers in five years. The
results of these efforts have been impressive: 2018 marked the tenth consecutive year of profitability
for the U.S. airline industry. Prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic, there was confidence that U.S. airlines
have finally transformed from a capital intensive, highly cyclical industry to an industry that generates
solid returns on capital and sustained profits.
The biggest factor affecting aviation trends currently is the COVID‐19 pandemic. The effect of the pan‐
demic on the aviation industry has been most devastating to the commercial airline operators with seg‐
ments of the general aviation industry, such as charters, air taxi, and fractionals, appearing to maintain
pre‐pandemic levels and in many cases, showing increases as people sought alternatives to flying com‐
mercial. At this point, uncertainty persists on what the long‐term impacts of the pandemic will be on
the aviation industry.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-3
ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
According to the FAA forecast, the economic growth of the U.S. is projected to increase by 2.9 percent
in 2019 and 2.8 percent in 2020. Over the next 20 years, the annual gross domestic product (GDP) of
the U.S. is expected to increase by 1.8 percent. U.S. carrier profitability is projected to remain steady or
increase as demand supported by a stable economy offsets rising energy and labor costs. Over the long
term, the aviation industry is expected to remain competitive and profitable with an increasing demand
for air travel and airfares growing more slowly than inflation.
Prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the economy was recovering from the most serious economic down‐
turn and slow recovery since the Great Depression. Fundamentally, demand for aviation is driven by
economic activity. As economic growth picks up, so will growth in aviation activity. Overall, the FAA
forecast calls for passenger growth over the next 20 years to average 1.8 percent annually. Oil prices
averaged $64 per barrel in 2018, edging down to $61 in 2019, and the forecast assumed continued in‐
creases reaching $98 per barrel by the end of the forecast period in 2039. It remains to be seen how the
FAA will adjust these projections based on the impacts of COVID‐19.
FAA GENERAL AVIATION FORECASTS
The long‐term outlook for general aviation is stable to optimistic, as growth at the high‐end offsets con‐
tinuing retirements at the traditional low end of the segment. The active general aviation fleet is forecast
to remain relatively stable between 2019 and 2039. While steady growth in both GDP and corporate
profits results in continued growth of the turbine and rotorcraft fleets, the largest segment of the fleet
– fixed‐wing piston aircraft – continues to shrink over the forecast.
The FAA forecasts the fleet mix and hours flown for single engine piston aircraft, multi‐engine piston
aircraft, turboprops, business jets, piston and turbine helicopters, light sport, experimental, and others
(gliders and balloons). The FAA forecasts “active aircraft,” not total aircraft. An active aircraft is one
that is flown at least one hour during the year. From 2010 through 2013, the FAA undertook an effort
to have all aircraft owners re‐register their aircraft. This effort resulted in a 10.5 percent decrease in the
number of active general aviation aircraft, mostly in the piston category.
Table 2A shows the primary general aviation demand indicators as forecast by the FAA. Since the FAA
forecast period extends to 2039, the data was extrapolated to generate estimates for 2040 to match up
with the long‐range period of this master plan.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-4
TABLE 2A
FAA General Aviation Forecast
Demand Indicator
2019
2040*
CAGR
General Aviation Fleet
Total GA Fleet
213,375
212,065
‐0.03%
Total Fixed Wing Piston
142,295
116,266
‐0.96%
Total Fixed Wing Turbine
24,895
36,519
1.84%
Total Helicopters
10,895
15,429
1.67%
Total Other (experimental, light sport, etc.)
35,290
43,851
1.04%
General Aviation Operations
Total GA Operations
26,895,650
28,625,434
0.30%
Local
12,672,345
13,571,495
0.33%
Itinerant
14,223,305
15,053,939
0.27%
* 2040 data was extrapolated since FAA forecasts only go through 2039.
CAGR: compound annual growth rate (2019‐2040)
Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast ‐ Fiscal Years 2019‐2039
General Aviation Aircraft Fleet Mix
For 2019, the FAA estimated there were 142,295 piston‐powered aircraft in the national fleet. The total
number of piston‐powered aircraft in the fleet is forecast to decline by 0.96 percent from 2019‐2040,
resulting in 116,266 by 2040. This includes a decline of 1.0 percent annually for single engine pistons
and 0.4 percent for multi‐engine pistons.
Total turbine aircraft are forecast to grow at an annual growth rate of 1.8 percent through 2040. The
FAA estimates there were 24,895 fixed‐wing turbine‐powered aircraft in the national fleet in 2019, and
there will be 36,519 by 2040. This includes annual growth rates of 1.3 percent for turboprops and 2.2
percent for business jets.
Total helicopters are forecast to grow at an annual growth rate of 1.7 percent annually through 2040.
The FAA estimates there were 10,895 helicopters in 2019, which are forecast to grow to 15,429 by 2040.
This includes annual growth rates of 1.9 percent for piston helicopters and 1.6 percent for turbine heli‐
copters.
The FAA also forecasts experimental aircraft, light sport aircraft, and others. Combined, there were
35,290 other aircraft in 2019 that are forecast to grow to 43,835 by 2040 for an annual growth rate of
1.0 percent.
While the fleet remains level, the number of general aviation operations at towered airports is projected
to increase from 26.9 million in 2017 to 30.3 million in 2039 with an average increase of 0.8 percent per
year as growth in turbine, rotorcraft, and experimental hours more than offset a decline in fixed‐wing
piston hours.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-5
General Aviation Operations
The FAA also forecasts total operations based upon activity at control towers across the U.S. Operations
are categorized as air carrier, air taxi/commuter, general aviation, and military.
General aviation operations, both local and itinerant, declined significantly as a result of the 2008‐2009
recession and subsequent slow recovery. Through 2040, total general aviation operations are forecast
to grow 0.30 percent annually. This includes annual growth rates of 0.33 percent for local general avia‐
tion operations and 0.27 percent for itinerant general aviation operations. Itinerant general aviation
operations are expected to increase from 14.2 million in 2019 to 15.1 million in 2040. Local general
aviation operations are expected to grow from 12.7 million in 2019 to 13.6 million in 2040.
Exhibit 2A presents the historical and forecast U.S. active general aviation aircraft and operations.
General Aviation Aircraft Shipments and Revenue
The 2008‐2009 economic recession had a negative impact on general aviation aircraft production, and
the industry has been slow to recover. Aircraft manufacturing declined for three straight years from
2008 through 2010. According to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), there is op‐
timism that aircraft manufacturing will stabilize and return to growth, which has been shown since 2011.
Table 2B presents historical data related to general aviation aircraft shipments.
TABLE 2B
Annual General Aviation Airplane Shipments
Manufactured Worldwide and Factory Net Billings
Year
Total
SEP
MEP
TP
J
Net Billings ($millions)
2009
2,283
893
70
446
874
19,474
2010
2,024
781
108
368
767
19,715
2011
2,120
761
137
526
696
19,042
2012
2,164
817
91
584
672
18,895
2013
2,353
908
122
645
678
23,450
2014
2,454
986
143
603
722
24,499
2015
2,331
946
110
557
718
24,129
2016
2,267
890
129
582
666
20,432
2017
2,325
936
149
563
677
20,201
2018
2,443
954
185
601
703
20,564
SEP ‐ Single Engine Piston; MEP ‐ Multi‐Engine Piston; TP ‐ Turboprop; J ‐ Turbofan/Turbojet
Source: General Aviation Manufacturers Association 2018 Annual Report
Worldwide shipments of general aviation airplanes increased in 2018 with a total of 2,443 units delivered
around the globe compared to 2,325 units in 2017. Worldwide general aviation billings also increased.
In 2018, $20.5 billion in new general aviation aircraft were shipped compared to $20.20 billion in 2017.
Business Jets: General aviation manufacturers delivered 703 business jets in 2018, as compared to 677
units in 2017. The industry’s continued investment in new products helped maintain the delivery rate for
business jets. Nearly two‐thirds of business jet shipments were to North American customers in 2018.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-6
Exhibit 2A
NATIONAL U.S. COMMERCIAL FLEET FORECASTS
Exhibit 2A
NATIONAL GENERAL AVIATION/AIR TAXI FORECASTS
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
2018E
2024
2029
2039
AAGR
2019-2039
U.S. GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS
Itinerant
14,130,000
14,412,000
14,606,000
15,012,000
0.3%
Local
12,354,000
12,870,000
13,081,000
13,526,000
0.3%
Total GA Operations
26,485,000
27,282,000
27,687,000
28,538,000
0.3%
2018E
2024
2029
2039
AAGR
2019-2039
U.S. AIR TAXI
Air Taxi/Commuter Operations
Itinerant
7,126,000
5,484,000
5,752,000
6,361,000
-0.6%
Operations (in millions)
Air Taxi (in millions)
2018E
2024
2029
2039
AAGR
2019-2039
U.S. ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT
Fixed Wing
Piston
Single Engine
129,885
123,145
116,360
105,195
-1.0%
Multi-Engine
13,040
12,805
12,575
12,085
-0.4%
Turbine
Turboprop
9,925
10,135
10,770
12,810
1.3%
Turbojet
14,585
17,025
19,110
23,050
2.2%
Rotorcraft
Piston
3,335
3,775
4,150
4,950
1.9%
Turbine
7,370
8,075
8,700
10,225
1.6%
Experimental
27,365
29,465
30,880
33,040
0.9%
Sport Aircraft
2,665
3,420
4,100
5,555
3.5%
Other
4,715
4,820
4,865
4,890
0.2%
Total Pistons
146,260
139,725
133,085
122,230
-0.9%
Total Turbines
31,880
35,235
38,580
46,085
1.8%
Total Fleet
212,885
212,665
211,510
211,800
0.0%
Notes: An active aircraft is one that has a current registration and was flown at least one hour during the calendar year.
Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast - Fiscal Years 2019-2039
Aircraft (in thousands)
Forecast
50
100
150
200
250
300
2039
2034
2029
2024
2019
‘18
2015
2010
5
10
15
20
25
30
2039
2034
2029
2024
2019
‘18
2015
2010
‘18
Historical
Forecast
Total Operations
Local Operations
Itinerant Operations
LEGEND
Forecast
2
4
6
8
10
2039
2034
2029
2024
2019
‘18
2015
2010
Forecast
‘18
Historical
‘18
Forecast
Historical
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-7
This page intentionally left blank
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-8
Turboprops: In 2018, 601 turboprop airplanes were delivered to customers around the world, an in‐
crease from the 563 that were delivered in 2017. Overall, the turboprop market is still significantly
stronger over the past five years compared to years prior to 2011. Approximately 50 percent of turbo‐
prop shipments were to North American customers.
Pistons: Single‐engine piston deliveries increased slightly from 936 units during 2017 to 954 in 2018.
Multi‐engine piston deliveries also increased from 149 in 2017 to 185 in 2018. Approximately 62 percent
of piston airplane shipments were to North American customers in 2018.
U.S. PILOT POPULATION
There were 633,317 active pilots certificated by the FAA at the end of 2018. All pilot categories, except
for rotorcraft‐only and recreational‐only certificates, continued to increase. With the exception of stu‐
dent pilots and airline transport pilots (ATP), the number of active general aviation pilots is projected to
decrease about 13,250 (down 0.2 percent annually) between 2018 and 2039. The ATP category is fore‐
cast to increase by 25,755 (up 0.7 percent annually). The FAA has currently suspended the student pilot
forecast for the second year in a row.
RISKS TO THE FORECAST
While the FAA is confident that its forecasts for aviation demand and activity can be reached, this is
dependent on several factors, including the strength of the global economy, security (including the
threat of international terrorism), and oil prices. Higher oil prices could lead to further shifts in consumer
spending away from aviation, dampening a recovery in air transport demand.
As stated previously, the rapid spread of the COVID‐19 that began in early 2020 now presents a new risk
without clear historical precedent. It is not known at this point how the virus will affect aviation in the
long‐term; however, impacts were felt in 2020 and have carried over into 2021. The long‐term impact of
COVID‐19 on the aviation industry will not be understood until the full spread or intensity of the human
consequences, as well as the breadth and depth of possible economic fallout, is known.
FORECASTING APPROACH
The development of aviation forecasts proceeds through both analytical and judgmental processes. A
series of mathematical relationships is tested to establish statistical logic and rationale for projected
growth. However, the judgment of the forecast analyst, based upon professional experience, knowledge
of the aviation industry, and assessment of the local situation, is important in the final determination of
the preferred forecast. The most reliable approach to estimating aviation demand is through the utili‐
zation of more than one analytical technique. Methodologies frequently considered include trend line/
time‐series projections, correlation/regression analysis, and market share analysis. The forecast analyst
may elect to not use certain techniques depending on the reasonableness of the forecasts produced
using other techniques.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-9
Trend line/time‐series projections are probably the simplest and most familiar of the forecasting tech‐
niques. By fitting growth curves to historical data, then extending them into the future, a basic trend
line projection is produced. A basic assumption of this technique is that outside factors will continue to
affect aviation demand in much the same manner as in the past. As broad as this assumption may be,
the trend line projection does serve as a reliable benchmark for comparing other projections.
Correlation analysis provides a measure of direct relationship between two separate sets of historical
data. Should there be a reasonable correlation between the data sets, further evaluation using regres‐
sion analysis may be employed.
Regression analysis measures statistical relationships between dependent and independent variables,
yielding a “correlation coefficient.” The correlation coefficient (Pearson’s “r”) measures association be‐
tween the changes in the dependent variable and the independent variable(s). If the “r2” value (coeffi‐
cient determination) is greater than 0.95, it indicates good predictive reliability. A value less than 0.95
may be used, but with the understanding that the predictive reliability is lower.
Market share analysis involves a historical review of the airport activity as a percentage, or share, of a
larger regional, state, or national aviation market. A historical market share trend is determined, provid‐
ing an expected market share for the future. These shares are then multiplied by the forecasts of the
larger geographical area to produce a market share projection. This method has the same limitations as
trend line projections but can provide a useful check on the validity of other forecasting techniques.
Forecasts will age the farther one is from the base year and the less reliable a forecast may become,
particularly due to changing local and national conditions. Nonetheless, the FAA requires that a 20‐year
forecast be developed for long‐range airport planning. Facility and financial planning usually require at
least a ten‐year view, since it often takes more than five years to complete a major facility development
program. However, it is important to use forecasts which do not overestimate revenue‐generating ca‐
pabilities or understate demand for facilities needed to meet public (user) needs.
A wide range of factors is known to influence the aviation industry and can have significant impacts on
the extent and nature of aviation activity in both the local and national markets. Historically, the nature
and trend of the national economy has had a direct impact on the level of aviation activity. Recessionary
periods have been closely followed by declines in aviation activity. Nonetheless, over time, trends
emerge and provide the basis for airport planning.
Future facility requirements, such as hangar, apron, and terminal needs, are derived from projections of
various aviation demand indicators. Using a broad spectrum of local, regional, and national socioeco‐
nomic and aviation information, and analyzing the most current aviation trends, forecasts are presented
for the following aviation demand indicators:
Based Aircraft
Based Aircraft Fleet Mix
General Aviation Operations
Air Taxi and Military Operations
Operational Peaks
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-10
EXISTING FORECASTS
Consideration is given to any forecasts of aviation demand for the airport that have been completed in
the recent past. For CHD, the previous forecasts reviewed are those in the FAA Terminal Area Forecast
(TAF) and the 2007 master plan.
FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECAST (TAF February 2019)
On an annual basis, the FAA publishes the TAF for each airport included in the National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems (NPIAS). The TAF is a generalized forecast of airport activity used by FAA for internal
planning purposes primarily. It is available to airports and consultants to use as a baseline projection
and important point of comparison while developing local forecasts. The TAF was published in February
2019 and is based on the federal fiscal year (October‐September).
Table 2C presents the 2019 TAF for CHD. It is important to note that the TAF based aircraft count is
significantly lower than the current FAA‐validated count from the based aircraft registry. The TAF re‐
flects 160 based aircraft, while the registry reflects 441 based aircraft. The total operations count used
in the TAF, however, is only 346 operations less than what was reported by the CHD ATCT for 2019 (ATCT
reported 220,662 operations in 2019). The FAA may choose to submit the forecasts developed for this
master plan to headquarters to update the TAF.
TABLE 2C
2019 FAA Terminal Area Forecast
Chandler Municipal Airport
2019
2025
2030
2040
CAGR
2019‐2040
ANNUAL OPERATIONS
Itinerant
Air Carrier
0
0
0
0
‐‐
Air Taxi
2,784
2,784
2,784
2,784
0.0%
General Aviation
68,293
68,706
69,916
72,402
0.3%
Military
213
213
213
213
0.0%
Total Itinerant
71,290
71,703
72,913
75,399
0.3%
Local
General Aviation
148,964
151,488
153,378
157,233
0.3%
Military
62
62
62
62
0.0%
Total Local
149,026
151,550
153,440
157,295
0.3%
Total Operations
220,316
223,253
226,353
232,694
0.3%
BASED AIRCRAFT
Based Aircraft
160
193
224
301
3.1%
Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), February 2019
The TAF for CHD shows total operations increasing from 220,316 annually to 232,694 by 2040 for an
annual growth rate of 0.3 percent. Air taxi and military categories show a flat‐line projection. CHD does
not report any air carrier operations now or in the future. Based aircraft are projected in the TAF to
grow at a CAGR of 3.1 percent through 2040 adding 141 new planes.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-11
PREVIOUS FORECASTS
Forecasts of aviation activity at CHD were previously prepared within the 2007 Airport Master Plan and
the 2018 Arizona State Aviation System Plan (SASP). Table 2D summarizes both forecasts of operations
and based aircraft at CHD. Regarding the previous master plan, the CHD ATCT counts for 2019 report a
total of 220,662 operations and the based aircraft count is at 441, which are lower than the base year of
the last master plan. As has been previously noted, since the completion of the previous master plan, a
national recession caused a significant reduction in aviation activity not only at CHD but across the coun‐
try. As a result, the projections from the previous master plan are no longer relevant.
TABLE 2D
Previous Forecasts
Chandler Municipal Airport
Year
Itinerant Operations
Local Operations
Total Operations
Based Aircraft
2007 Airport Master Plan (2005 Base Year)
2005
65,606
169,505
235,111
457
2010
74,939
193,661
268,600
515
2015
85,625
221,275
306,900
581
2020
97,817
252,783
350,600
656
2025
111,767
288,833
400,600
740
2018 Arizona State Aviation System Plan Update (2016 Base Year)
2016
78,750
142,180
220,930
440
2021
89,880
162,290
252,170
481
2026
102,590
185,230
287,820
524
2036
133,650
241,310
374,960
619
Sources: 2007 Master Plan; 2018 Arizona State Aviation System Plan Update
The SASP projections were prepared more recently accounting for the effects of the recession. The SASP
forecasted operations to grow by approximately 32,000 and based aircraft to grow by 41 by 2021. Through
2019, activity at CHD has not met these projections with operations remaining relatively static in the
220,000 range and the number of based aircraft declining from the figure reported for 2016 in the SASP.
Based on recent activity trends at CHD and the time that has passed since the preparation of these previous
forecasts, it is necessary to develop new forecasts utilizing the most current information available.
GENERAL AVIATION FORECASTS
General aviation encompasses all portions of civil aviation except commercial service and military oper‐
ations. To determine the types and sizes of facilities that should be planned to accommodate general
aviation activity at the airport, certain elements of this activity must be forecast. These indicators of
general aviation demand include based aircraft, aircraft fleet mix, operations, and annual operations.
The number of based aircraft is the most basic indicator of general aviation demand. By first developing
a forecast of based aircraft for the airport, other demand indicators can be projected. The process of
developing forecasts of based aircraft begins with an analysis of aircraft ownership in the primary general
aviation service area through a review of historical aircraft registrations. An initial forecast of county‐
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-12
wide registered aircraft is developed and will be used as one data point to arrive at a based aircraft
forecast for the airport.
BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST
Forecasts of based aircraft may directly influence needed facilities and the applicable design standards.
The needed facilities may include hangars, aprons, taxilanes, etc. The applicable design standards may
include separation distances and object‐clearing surfaces. The size and type of based aircraft are also an
important consideration. The addition of numerous small aircraft may have no effect on design stand‐
ards, while the addition of a few larger business jets can have a substantial impact on applicable design
standards.
Because of the numerous variables known to influence aviation demand, several separate forecasts of
based aircraft are developed. Each of the forecasts is then examined for reasonableness and any outliers
are discarded or given less weight. The remaining forecasts collectively will create a planning envelope.
A single planning forecast is then selected for use in developing facility needs for the airport. The se‐
lected forecast of based aircraft can be one of the several forecasts developed or, based on the experi‐
ence and judgement of the forecaster, it can be a blend of the forecasts.
Based Aircraft Inventory
Documentation of the historical number of based aircraft at the airport has been somewhat intermittent.
For many years, the FAA did not require airports to report the number of based aircraft. It is only in
recent years that the FAA has established a based aircraft inventory in which it is possible to cross‐refer‐
ence based aircraft claimed by one airport with other airports. The FAA is now utilizing this based aircraft
inventory as a baseline for determining how many and what type of aircraft are based at any individual
airport. This database evolves daily as aircraft are added or removed, and it does not provide an annual
history of based aircraft. It is the responsibility of the sponsor (owner) of each airport to input based
aircraft information into the FAA database (www.basedaircraft.com).
Airport staff has undertaken a comprehensive physical count and submitted the count to the FAA for
validation. The FAA has validated 441 based aircraft (including helicopters) at CHD. The mix of aircraft
is comprised of 379 single‐engine pistons, 26 multi‐engine piston aircraft, six (6) multi‐engine turbo‐
props, eight (8) business jets, and 22 helicopters.
As shown on Exhibit 2B, based aircraft at CHD are registered to addresses spread throughout the Phoenix
metropolitan area and across 36 different states throughout the country. Approximately 74 percent of
based aircraft at CHD are registered to addresses in the metropolitan area. Within the communities that
make up the metropolitan area, based aircraft are distributed as follows:
Chandler – 137
Gilbert – 48
Phoenix – 46
Tempe – 31
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-13
Exhibit 2B
BASED AIRCRAFT DISTRIBUTION
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
§¨¦
10
§¨¦
17
§¨¦
10
§¨¦
17
£
¤
60
£
¤
60
Source: ESRI Basemap Imagery (2018), BasedAircraft.com, FAA Registered Aircraft Database
Maricopa County
Pinal County
Chandler based aircraft are registered to addresses
in 36 states (including AK, HI, & District of Columbia)
Phoenix
Mesa
Paradise
Valley
Scottsdale
Tempe
Chandler
Sun Lakes
Queen Creek
Gilbert
LEGEND
Chandler Municipal Airport
NPIAS Airport
CHD Based Aircraft Address
Municipal Boundary
County Boundary
Primary/ Interstate Highways
Primary US and State Highways
0
5
10
Miles
Chandler
Municipal Airport
Chandler
Municipal Airport
Phoenix
Sky Harbor Intl.
Phoenix
Sky Harbor Intl.
Deer Valley
Deer Valley
Scottsdale
Scottsdale
Phoenix-Mesa
Gateway
Phoenix-Mesa
Gateway
Falcon Field
Falcon Field
Chandler
Municipal Airport
Phoenix
Sky Harbor Intl.
Stellar
Stellar
Airpark
Airpark
Stellar
Airpark
Stellar
Airpark
Deer Valley
Scottsdale
Phoenix-Mesa
Gateway
Falcon Field
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-14
Mesa – 23
Sun Lakes – 9
Scottsdale – 6
Queen Creek – 3
Despite competing with five other reliever airports1 and five general aviation airports2 in the region, CHD
has managed to attract users from across the metropolitan area. For this reason, the Phoenix metropol‐
itan area is considered CHD’s based aircraft service area for purposes of this study.
Registered Aircraft Forecast
Aircraft ownership trends for the primary service area (Phoenix metropolitan area) typically dictate the
based aircraft trends for an airport. Since aircraft registration data is only available at the county level,
aircraft registration data from Maricopa County will be used to represent the service area. The metro‐
politan area also extends into Pinal County; however, the overwhelming majority of based aircraft are
registered within Maricopa County, so Pinal County has been excluded. As such, a forecast of registered
aircraft in Maricopa County is developed for use as an input to the subsequent based aircraft forecast.
In addition to the projections summarized below, several regressions were also prepared considering
independent variables ranging from population, income, and employment. None of the resulting regres‐
sions produced an r2 value of better than 0.70, which indicates poor correlation. Therefore, the regres‐
sions were not included in the discussion to follow.
Table 2E presents the history of registered aircraft in Maricopa County from 2009 through 2019. These
figures are derived from the FAA aircraft registration database that categorizes registered aircraft by
county based on the zip code of the registered aircraft. Although this information generally provides a
correlation to based aircraft, it is not uncommon for some aircraft to be registered in the county but
based at an airport outside the county or vice versa.
Over the ten‐year period, aircraft registrations in Maricopa County have declined from almost 5,000 in
2009 to 3,744 in 2019, a drop of 24.9 percent. The fleet mix breakout shows that single‐engine piston
aircraft, while still accounting for most registered aircraft, has dropped by the largest total number of
aircraft. The multi‐engine piston category has dropped by the largest percentage (42.2 percent), which
matches the national trend. Jet aircraft is the only category that had growth over the period, growing
from 296 in 2009 to 305 in 2019. Like most areas of the country, the decline in registered aircraft since
2009 is in part attributable to two primary factors: the impact of the 2008‐2009 recession and FAA’s re‐
registration process, which took place between 2010 and 2013. Now that the actual number of regis‐
tered aircraft has been identified, several projections of future registered aircraft are considered for the
20‐year planning horizon.
1 Falcon Field; Scottsdale Airport; Glendale Municipal; Phoenix Goodyear; and Phoenix Deer Valley
2 Stellar Airpark; Memorial Airfield; Sky Ranch; Pleasant Valley Airport; and Buckeye Municipal
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-15
TABLE 2E
Registered Aircraft Fleet Mix in Maricopa County
Chandler Municipal Airport
Year
Single‐Engine
Piston
Multi‐Engine
Piston
Turboprop
Jet
Helicopter
Total
2009
3,723
438
160
296
370
4,987
2010
3,680
439
141
288
351
4,899
2011
3,608
419
130
293
353
4,803
2012
3,215
360
137
314
302
4,328
2013
2,937
337
142
337
265
4,018
2014
2,927
332
134
204
257
3,854
2015
2,949
314
130
220
242
3,855
2016
3,006
316
157
249
246
3,974
2017
3,005
302
139
261
250
3,957
2018
2,824
254
153
274
231
3,736
2019
2,831
253
139
305
216
3,744
10 year % Change
‐24.0%
‐42.2%
‐13.1%
3.0%
‐41.6%
‐24.9%
Compound Annual Growth Rate from 2009 to 2019:
‐2.8%
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry Database; FAA Census of U.S. Civil Aircraft
Trend Line/Historic Growth Rate Projection
Utilizing the last 10 years of registered aircraft data, a trendline projection was completed. This resulted
in 822 registered aircraft by 2040 (‐2.83% CAGR). A five‐year trend projection was also prepared, which
eliminates years (2010‐2013) when there were fluctuations due to the FAA changing aircraft registration
requirements. The five‐year trendline projection results in 3,233 registered aircraft by 2040 (‐0.7%
CAGR).
Over the last five years, the number of registered aircraft in Maricopa County has a CAGR of ‐0.6 percent.
By applying this CAGR to the current number of registered aircraft, a forecast emerges resulting in 3,315
by 2040.
Share of U.S. Active General Aviation Aircraft
Maricopa County’s 3,744 registered aircraft in 2019 represents approximately 1.755 percent of the U.S.
active general aviation fleet of aircraft. If the county maintained a constant market share, it would result
in 3,721 registered aircraft by 2040 (‐0.03% CAGR). Since the historic trend reflects a decreasing market
share, another projection that maintains this trend was prepared, which results in registered aircraft
declining to 2,718 by 2040 (‐1.51% CAGR). The market share of U.S. active general aviation aircraft pro‐
jections is included in Table 2F.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-16
TABLE 2F
Registered Aircraft Projections – Market Share of U.S. Active GA Aircraft
Chandler Municipal Airport
Year
Registered Aircraft
U.S. Active
GA Aircraft
% of U.S. Active
GA Aircraft
2009
4,987
223,876
2.228%
2010
4,899
223,370
2.193%
2011
4,803
220,453
2.179%
2012
4,328
209,034
2.070%
2013
4,018
199,927
2.010%
2014
3,854
204,408
1.885%
2015
3,855
210,031
1.835%
2016
3,974
211,794
1.876%
2017
3,957
211,757
1.869%
2018
3,736
212,885
1.755%
2019
3,744
213,375
1.755%
Constant Market Share
2025
3,728
212,435
1.755%
2030
3,709
211,355
1.755%
2040
3,721
212,065
1.755%
Decreasing Market Share
2025
3,476
212,435
1.636%
2030
3,209
211,355
1.518%
2040
2,718
212,065
1.282%
Sources: FAA Aerospace Forecasts 2019‐2039; Coffman Associates analysis
Ratio of Registered Aircraft to Population
The number of registered aircraft in an area often fluctuates based upon population trends. In 2019,
Maricopa County had 0.86 registered aircraft per 1,000 residents. Over the past 10 years, this ratio has
declined slightly as a result of a growing population and a decline in total registered aircraft. Two pro‐
jections have been prepared based upon maintaining the current ratio constant over the forecast period
and continuing the trend of a declining ratio. Maintaining the constant ratio (0.86) through 2040 results
in 4,896 registered aircraft (1.29% CAGR). A decreasing ratio projection is a more likely scenario since
population growth typically outpaces registered aircraft growth. This scenario results in 4,175 registered
aircraft by 2040 (0.52% CAGR).
Registered Aircraft Forecast Summary
Table 2G summarizes the seven registered aircraft forecasts for Maricopa County. Five of the seven re‐
sulted in a declining CAGR, which based on recent history is not an unreasonable scenario. However, since
the end of 2013, which is when the effects of the FAA’s new aircraft registration requirements were most
greatly felt, registrations have had as many years of increasing numbers as decreasing (three up and three
down). The down years were much more drastic than the up years, but it also provides some confidence
that aircraft registrations may be stabilizing with potential to grow in the future assuming population
growth occurs as forecast and economic conditions continue to improve. As mentioned, it is common for
population growth to outpace registered aircraft growth; therefore, for this reason, the decreasing ratio
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-17
of registered aircraft per 1,000 population will be carried forward as the selected forecast. This modestly
optimistic forecast results in 3,841 registered aircraft in 2025; 3,935 in 2030, and 4,175 in 2040.
TABLE 2G
Registered Aircraft Forecast Summary
Chandler Municipal Airport
Projection Sources
2025
2030
2040
CAGR 2019‐2040
5‐Year Trend
3,629
3,497
3,233
‐0.70%
10‐Year Trend
2,768
2,119
822
‐6.97%
5‐Year Growth Rate
3,616
3,513
3,315
‐0.58%
Constant % of U.S. Active Aircraft
3,728
3,709
3,721
‐0.03%
Decreasing % of U.S. Active Aircraft
3,476
3,209
2,718
‐1.51%
Constant Aircraft per 1,000 Population
4,098
4,378
4,896
1.29%
Decreasing Aircraft per 1,000 Population
3,841
3,935
4,175
0.52%
Boldface indicates selected forecast.
CAGR: Compound annual growth rate
Source: Coffman Associates analysis
Based Aircraft Market Share of Registered Aircraft Forecast
Utilizing the forecast of registered aircraft in Maricopa County, a market share forecast of based aircraft
at CHD has been developed. In 2019, the 441 aircraft based at CHD represented 11.78 percent of the
aircraft registered in Maricopa County. By maintaining this market share as a constant through the plan‐
ning years, a forecast emerges resulting in 492 based aircraft by 2040 (0.5% CAGR). An evaluation of
various historical points (2005, 2009, and 2016) indicates that CHD’s market share has grown slightly
over time. Therefore, an increasing market share projection was also prepared with the assumption that
this historic trend would continue to the point that CHD’s market share would reach 16 percent of county
registrations. This increasing share projection results in 668 based aircraft by 2040 (2.0% CAGR). Table
2H presents the two market share projections.
TABLE 2H
Based Aircraft Market Share of Registered Aircraft Forecast
Chandler Municipal Airport
Year
CHD Based Aircraft
Maricopa County Registered
Aircraft
CHD Market Share %
2005
457
4,825
9.47%
2009
378
4,987
7.58%
2016
440
3,974
11.07%
2019
441
3,744
11.78%
Constant Market Share
2025
452
3,841
11.78%
2030
463
3,935
11.78%
2040
492
4,175
11.78%
Increasing Market Share
2025
493
3,841
12.83%
2030
547
3,935
13.89%
2040
668
4,175
16.00%
Source: Coffman Associates analysis
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-18
Statewide TAF Growth Rate Projection
For all NPIAS airports in Arizona, the FAA projects an annual growth rate in based aircraft of 1.49 percent.
Assuming CHD’s based aircraft count increases at the state’s TAF rate, the count would reach 602 by
2040 (1.49% CAGR).
Historic Growth Rate Projection
According to based aircraft records, CHD’s count has grown in the last 10 years from 378 in 2009 to 441
in 2019, which is a CAGR of 1.56 percent. Assuming CHD maintains this growth rate over the course of
the forecast period, the count grows to 610 by 2040.
Socioeconomic Growth Projections
Based aircraft growth is often related to population and economic activity of the service area. For this
reason, based aircraft projections tied to projected growth in population, employment, and gross re‐
gional product (GRP) for Maricopa County were also prepared. Through 2040, population in the county
is projected to increase at a CAGR of 1.29 percent; employment is projected to have a CAGR of 1.79
percent; and GRP is projected to have a CAGR of 2.68 percent. Applying these CAGRs result in 577 based
aircraft for population, 640 for employment, and 769 for GRP by 2040.
Selected Based Aircraft Forecast
Selecting a based aircraft forecast is ultimately based on the judgement of the forecast analyst. A se‐
lected forecast should be reasonable and based upon a sound methodology. The methodology pre‐
sented in this analysis first examines the history of aircraft ownership in Maricopa County, the primary
based aircraft service area. Utilizing the selected registered aircraft projection, a market share analysis
was conducted based upon maintaining a constant market share and an increasing market share over
the forecast period. Additional projections considered the FAA TAF’s projection for based aircraft growth
in the state, maintaining CHD’s 10‐year growth rate, and growth rates based on key socioeconomic indi‐
cators (population, employment, and GRP). Each of these seven projections are summarized in Table 2J.
Another important consideration is whether an airport has a hangar waiting list, which indicates what
the current demand level is for new based aircraft. CHD maintains a current waiting list for hangar space
that includes 112 individuals. Waiting lists are not verified so the actual demand is likely less than the
total number of names on the list; however, this number indicates strong demand for new based aircraft.
The selected based aircraft forecast should account for this potential growth plus room for additional
demand that is not represented on the waiting list.
As has been mentioned previously, based aircraft levels are typically tied to economic conditions and
availability of hangar space. CHD will likely not see significant based aircraft growth unless new hangar
facilities are constructed. CHD has ample developable property for new hangars both on the north and
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-19
south sides of the airfield so the potential for available hangar space should not be a limiting factor in
future based aircraft levels. Economic conditions within the county are also projected to increase at
strong rates. Therefore, the employment growth rate projection has been selected as the preferred
forecast. The selected forecast is reasonably optimistic and assumes CHD can continue to gain market
share of registered aircraft in the county and that continued employment growth in the local area will
drive demand for more based aircraft.
Exhibit 2C graphically presents the seven based aircraft forecasts that comprise the planning envelope.
TABLE 2J
Based Aircraft Forecast Summary
Chandler Municipal Airport
Projection
2025
2030
2040
2019‐2040
CAGR
10‐Year Growth Rate
484
522
610
1.56%
Constant Market Share of County Registrations
452
463
492
0.52%
Increasing Market Share of County Registrations
493
547
668
2.00%
State TAF Growth Rate
482
519
602
1.49%
County Population Growth Rate
476
508
577
1.29%
County GRP Growth Rate
517
590
769
2.68%
County Employment Growth Rate
490
540
640
1.79%
Boldface indicates selected forecast.
CAGR: Compound annual growth rate
Source: Coffman Associates analysis
BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX FORECAST
It is important to understand the current and projected based aircraft fleet mix at an airport to ensure
the planning of proper facilities. For example, the addition of one or several larger turboprop or business
jet aircraft to the airfield can have a significant impact on the separation requirements and the various
obstacle‐clearing surfaces.
The current based aircraft fleet mix consists of 379 single‐engine pistons, 26 multi‐engine pistons, six
turboprops, eight jets, and 22 helicopters. As a general aviation reliever airport with a significant level
of flight training activities, CHD should continue to have a high level of piston‐powered aircraft and hel‐
icopters; however, turbine aircraft are also becoming more prevalent. The forecasted growth trends in
the CHD‐based aircraft fleet mix are consistent with FAA projections of the national general aviation fleet
mix. Table 2K presents the forecast fleet mix for based aircraft at CHD.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-20
Helicopter
Multi-Engine piston
Single Engine piston
Turboprop
Jet
BASED AIRCRAFT
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2005
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0
0
0
LEGEND
2007 Master Plan
2018 Arizona State Aviation System Plan
Employment Growth Rate (Selected Forecast)
GRP Growth Rate
Population Growth Rate
State TAF Growth Rate
Increasing Market Share
Constant Market Share
10 year Growth Rate
Based Aircraft
Based Aircraft Fleet Mix
2019
2040
HISTORICAL
FORECAST
379
22
8
6
26
552
40
20
13
15
Exhibit 2C - BASED AIRCRAFT/
BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX FORECAST
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-21
TABLE 2K
Based Aircraft Fleet Mix
Chandler Municipal Airport
Aircraft Type
20191
Percent
2025
Percent
2030
Percent
2040
Percent
SEP
379
85.9%
424
86.5%
469
86.9%
552
86.3%
MEP
26
5.9%
24
4.9%
20
3.7%
15
2.3%
Turboprop
6
1.4%
7
1.4%
9
1.7%
13
2.0%
Jet
8
1.8%
10
2.0%
13
2.4%
20
3.1%
Helicopters
22
5.0%
25
5.1%
29
5.4%
40
6.3%
Total
441
100.0%
490
100.0%
540
100.0%
640
100.0%
SEP – Single‐Engine Piston
MEP – Multi‐Engine Piston
Sources: 2019 fleet mix ‐ FAA Based Aircraft Registry; Projections ‐ Coffman Associates analysis
OPERATIONS FORECAST
Operations at CHD are classified as either general aviation, air taxi, or military. General aviation opera‐
tions include a wide range of activity from recreational use and flight training to business and corporate
uses. Air taxi operations are those conducted by aircraft operating under FAR Part 135, otherwise known
as “for‐hire” or “on‐demand” activity. Air taxi operations typically include commuter, air cargo, air am‐
bulance, and many fractional ownership operations. Military operations include those operations con‐
ducted by various branches of the U.S. military.
It should be noted that the FAA’s forecast of air taxi operations is lower than historic levels due to ongo‐
ing changes to the scheduled airline aircraft fleet mix. Airlines are transitioning away from 50‐seat re‐
gional jets that are counted under the air taxi category to larger jets with seating capacities of 60 seats
or more that are counted under the air carrier category. This airline fleet mix transition should have no
impact on CHD air taxi operations.
Aircraft operations are further classified as local and itinerant. A local operation is a takeoff or landing
performed by an aircraft that operates within sight of an airport, or which executes simulated ap‐
proaches or touch‐and‐go operations at an airport. Generally, local operations are characterized by
training activity. Itinerant operations are those performed by aircraft with a specific origin or destination
away from an airport. Typically, itinerant operations increase with business and commercial use since
business aircraft are used primarily to transport passengers from one location to another.
Several methods have been employed to develop a reasonable planning envelope. The following sec‐
tions present several new operations forecasts. Counts from the CHD airport traffic control tower (ATCT)
were utilized in this analysis.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-22
Historic Growth Rate Projections
CHD’s ATCT count indicate CAGRs of 0.3 percent for itinerant general aviation operations, 0.9 percent
for local general aviation operations, and 3.4 percent for air taxi operations. Assuming these rates re‐
main constant over the forecast period results in 2040 operations projections of 72,200 (itinerant gen‐
eral aviation), 181,900 (local general aviation), and 6,100 (air taxi).
Market Share Projections
Market share analysis compares known historical and forecast data points to arrive at a trend for the
unknown variable (CHD operations). The first forecast considers the current market share of general
aviation (itinerant and local) and air taxi operations at the airport as compared to the FAA national fore‐
cast for operations at towered airports. In 2019, CHD accounted for 0.476 percent of U.S. itinerant gen‐
eral aviation operations; 1.182 percent of U.S. local general aviation operations; and 0.042 percent of
U.S. air taxi operations. By carrying these percentages forward to the plan years, a constant market
share forecast emerges. Table 2L shows the results. The constant market share is considered a low‐
range projection since the historic data indicates that CHD’s market share for each operational category
is growing.
To carry forward historic trends, a mid‐range increasing market share projection was prepared. The mid‐
range projection takes CHD’s 2040 market share of itinerant general aviation operations to 0.580 per‐
cent, which is its 10‐year high. CHD’s 2040 market share of local general aviation operations is taken to
1.230 percent, which is also a 10‐year high. CHD’s 2040 market share of air taxi operations is taken to
0.061 percent, which reflects the increase in market share experienced between 2009 and 2019. The
results of the mid‐range projections are also shown on Table 2L.
High‐range increasing market share projections were also prepared, which consider the potential for
operations to exceed the peak periods and growth rates of the past ten years. The resulting projections
take CHD’s 2040 market shares to 0.600 percent (itinerant general aviation), 1.457 percent (local general
aviation), and 0.080 percent (air taxi). The results of the high‐range projections are shown on Table 2L.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-23
TABLE 2L
Operations Market Share Projections
Chandler Municipal Airport
Year
General Aviation Itinerant
General Aviation Local
Air Taxi
CHD
U.S.
CHD
Market %
CHD
U.S.
CHD
Market %
CHD
U.S.
CHD
Market %
2010
57,122
14,863,856
0.384%
106,197
11,716,274
0.906%
2,041
9,410,381
0.022%
2011
60,891
14,527,903
0.419%
98,068
11,437,028
0.857%
2,168
9,278,542
0.023%
2012
72,816
14,521,656
0.501%
121,951
11,608,306
1.051%
2,490
8,994,371
0.028%
2013
77,234
14,117,424
0.547%
131,231
11,688,301
1.123%
2,430
8,803,412
0.028%
2014
76,702
13,978,996
0.549%
138,887
11,675,040
1.190%
1,852
8,439,713
0.022%
2015
80,604
13,886,711
0.580%
137,425
11,691,338
1.175%
1,707
7,894,945
0.022%
2016
77,860
13,904,397
0.560%
141,586
11,632,078
1.217%
1,749
7,579,584
0.023%
2017
71,440
13,838,029
0.516%
119,204
11,731,596
1.016%
3,215
7,179,301
0.045%
2018
73,107
14,130,495
0.517%
151,972
12,354,014
1.230%
3,148
7,125,556
0.044%
2019
67,647
14,223,305
0.476%
149,754
12,672,345
1.182%
2,990
7,196,959
0.042%
Constant Market Share ‐ Low Range
2025
68,700
14,450,204
0.476%
152,600
12,911,636
1.182%
2,300
5,534,735
0.042%
2030
69,700
14,645,457
0.476%
155,100
13,124,605
1.182%
2,400
5,809,266
0.042%
2040
71,600
15,053,939
0.476%
160,400
13,571,495
1.182%
2,700
6,426,228
0.042%
CAGR
0.27%
0.33%
‐0.48%
Increasing Market Share ‐ Mid Range
2025
72,500
14,450,204
0.502%
154,100
12,911,636
1.194%
3,400
5,534,735
0.061%
2030
77,300
14,645,457
0.528%
158,300
13,124,605
1.206%
3,600
5,809,266
0.061%
2040
87,400
15,053,939
0.580%
166,900
13,571,495
1.230%
3,900
6,426,228
0.061%
CAGR
1.23%
0.52%
1.27%
Increasing Market Share ‐ High Range
2025
73,200
14,450,204
0.507%
161,500
12,911,636
1.251%
3,900
5,534,735
0.070%
2030
78,800
14,645,457
0.538%
173,200
13,124,605
1.319%
4,400
5,809,266
0.075%
2040
90,300
15,053,939
0.600%
197,700
13,571,495
1.457%
5,100
6,426,228
0.080%
CAGR
1.38%
1.33%
2.58%
CAGR – Compound Annual Growth Rate
Source: U.S. Operations – FAA Aerospace Forecasts 2019‐2039 (2040 extrapolated); Historic CHD operations – CHD ATCT
counts; CHD projections ‐ Coffman Associates analysis.
Statewide TAF Growth Rate Forecast
FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the NPIAS, provides a method for estimating future operations
at an airport by applying the statewide TAF growth rate. While this is typically used for non‐towered
airports, it does provide a useful method for checking the reasonableness of other forecasts and, if de‐
termined to be the most reasonable, can be the selected forecast. For all NPIAS airports in Arizona, the
FAA projects an annual growth rate of 0.16 percent for itinerant general aviation operations, 0.44 per‐
cent for local general aviation operations, and 0.57 percent for air taxi operations in the state. Applying
these growth rates results in projections taking CHD’s 2040 operations to 70,000 (itinerant general avi‐
ation), 164,300 (local general aviation), and 3,400 (air taxi).
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-24
Operations Forecast Summary
Table 2M summarizes each of the new projections prepared for itinerant and local general aviation op‐
erations and air taxi operations at CHD. The selected forecasts for each category represent healthy yet
modest growth scenarios for CHD in which itinerant general aviation operations grow to 87,400 by 2040;
local general aviation operations grow to 181,900 by 2040; and air taxi operations grow to 5,100 by 2040.
Exhibit 2D graphically presents the operations projections that comprise the planning envelope. The
FAA TAF is included for comparison.
TABLE 2M
Operations Forecast Summary
Chandler Municipal Airport
Projections
2019
2025
2030
2040
2019‐2040
CAGR
Itinerant General Aviation
10‐Year Growth Rate
67,647
68,900
70,000
72,200
0.31%
Constant Market Share – Low‐Range
68,700
69,700
71,600
0.27%
Increasing Market Share – Mid‐Range
72,500
77,300
87,400
1.23%
Increasing Market Share – High‐Range
73,200
78,800
90,300
1.38%
Arizona 2019 TAF Growth Rate
68,300
68,900
70,000
0.16%
CHD 2019 TAF
68,706
69,916
72,402
0.32%
Local General Aviation
10‐Year Growth Rate
149,754
158,300
165,800
181,900
0.93%
Constant Market Share – Low‐Range
152,600
155,100
160,400
0.33%
Increasing Market Share – Mid‐Range
154,100
158,300
166,900
0.52%
Increasing Market Share – High‐Range
161,500
173,200
197,700
1.33%
Arizona 2019 TAF Growth Rate
153,800
157,200
164,300
0.44%
CHD 2019 TAF
151,488
153,378
157,233
0.23%
Air Taxi
10‐Year Growth Rate
2,990
3,700
4,300
6,100
3.45%
Constant Market Share – Low‐Range
2,300
2,400
2,700
‐0.48%
Increasing Market Share – Mid‐Range
3,400
3,600
3,900
1.27%
Increasing Market Share – High‐Range
3,900
4,400
5,100
2.58%
Arizona 2019 TAF Growth Rate
3,100
3,200
3,400
0.61%
CHD 2019 TAF
2,784
2,784
2,784
‐0.34%
Boldface indicates selected forecast
CAGR – Compound Annual Growth Rate
Source: Coffman Associates Analysis
Military Operations Forecast
Military aircraft can and do utilize civilian airports across the country. CHD does, on occasion, have ac‐
tivity by military aircraft. Forecasts of military activity are inherently difficult to predict because of the
national security nature of their operations and the fact that their missions can change without notice.
Thus, it is typical for the FAA to use a flat‐line forecast for military operations. For CHD, the FAA TAF
projects itinerant military and local military operations to remain static at 213 and 62, respectively, over
the forecast period. These TAF estimates are also utilized for the master plan forecast.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-25
Exhibit 2D
OPERATIONS PROJECTIONS
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
GENERAL AVIATION LOCAL OPERATIONS FORECASTS
AIR TAXI OPERATIONS FORECASTS
GENERAL AVIATION ITINERANT OPERATIONS FORECASTS
ITINERANT OPERATIONS
LOCAL OPERATIONS
AIR TAXI OPERATIONS
30,000
‘09
2010
2015
2020
Historical
Forecast
Historical
Forecast
Historical
Forecast
2025
2030
2035
2040
‘09
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
‘09
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
60,000
90,000
120,000
150,000
50,000
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
LEGEND
10-Year Growth Rate
Constant Market Share - Low Range
Increasing Market Share - Mid Range (Selected Forecast)
Increasing Market Share - High Range
Arizona TAF Growth Rate
CHD FAA TAF
2007 Master Plan
2018 Arizona State Aviation System Plan
LEGEND
10-Year Growth Rate (Selected Forecast)
Constant Market Share - Low Range
Increasing Market Share - Mid Range
Increasing Market Share - High Range
Arizona TAF Growth Rate
CHD FAA TAF
2007 Master Plan
2018 Arizona State Aviation System Plan
LEGEND
10-Year Growth Rate
Constant Market Share - Low Range
Increasing Market Share - Mid Range
Increasing Market Share - High Range (Selected Forecast)
Arizona TAF Growth Rate
CHD FAA TAF
10 Year
e
ge
Increasing Market Share High Range (Selected Forecast)
Arizona TAF Growth Rate
CHD FAATAF
g
CHD FAA TAF
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-26
Total Operations Forecast Summary
Table 2N presents the summary of the selected operations forecasts.
TABLE 2N
Total Operations Forecast Summary
Chandler Municipal Airport
Itinerant
Local
Year
Air
Carrier
Air Taxi
General
Aviation
Military
Total
General
Aviation
Military
Total
Total
Operations
2019
0
2,990
67,647
199
70,836
149,754
72
149,826
220,662
2025
0
3,900
72,500
213
76,613
158,300
62
158,362
234,975
2030
0
4,400
77,300
213
81,913
165,800
62
165,862
247,775
2040
0
5,100
87,400
213
92,713
181,900
62
181,962
274,675
CAGR
‐‐
2.58%
1.23%
0.32%
1.29%
0.93%
‐0.71%
0.93%
1.05%
CAGR = Compound annual growth rate
PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS
Many aspects of facility planning relate to levels of peaking activity – times when an airport is busiest.
For example, the appropriate size of terminal facilities can be estimated by determining the number of
people that could reasonably be expected to use the facility at a given time. The following planning
definitions apply to the peak periods:
Peak Month ‐‐ The calendar month when peak aircraft operations occur.
Design Day ‐‐ The average day in the peak month.
Design Hour ‐‐ The peak hour within the design day.
The peak month is an absolute peak within a given year. All other peak periods will be exceeded at
various times during the year. The peak period forecasts represent reasonable planning standards that
can be applied without overbuilding or being too restrictive.
Tower operations data provides an understanding of the peak operational periods for the airport. Over
the last three years, the peak month has averaged 10.4 percent of annual operations. The design day is
the peak month average divided by the number of days in the peak month. The peak months for the last
three years have been a month with 31 days; thus, the peak month is divided by 31 days. The busy day
during the average week of the peak month was 41 percent more than the design day. The design hour
averaged 15.16 percent of design day operations. Table 2P summarizes the peaking operational char‐
acteristics for the airport.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-27
TABLE 2P
Peaking Characteristics
Chandler Municipal Airport
Peak Period
2019
2023
2028
2038
Annual Operations
220,662
234,975
247,775
274,675
Peak Month
22,930
24,410
25,740
28,540
Busy Day
1,042
1,131
1,192
1,321
Design Day
740
803
846
938
Design Hour
115
125
132
146
Source: Coffman Associates analysis
FORECAST SUMMARY
This chapter has outlined the various activity levels that might reasonably be anticipated over the plan‐
ning period. Exhibit 2E presents a summary of the aviation forecasts prepared in this chapter. The base
year for these forecasts is 2019, with a 21‐year planning horizon to 2040. The primary aviation demand
indicators are based aircraft and operations. Based aircraft are forecast to increase from 441 in 2019 to
640 by 2040 (1.79% CAGR). Total operations are forecast to increase from 220,662 in 2019 to 274,675
by 2040 (1.05% CAGR).
Projections of aviation demand will be influenced by unforeseen factors and events in the future. There‐
fore, it is not reasonable to assume that future demand will follow the exact projection line, but over
time, forecasts of aviation demand tend to fall within the planning envelope. The forecasts developed
for this master planning effort are considered reasonable for planning purposes. The need for additional
facilities will be based upon these forecasts; however, if demand does not materialize as projected, then
implementation of facility construction can be slowed. Likewise, if demand exceeds these forecasts,
then implementation of facility construction can be accelerated.
FORECAST COMPARISON TO THE TAF
The FAA reviews the forecasts presented in this aviation planning study for comparison to the Terminal
Area Forecast. The forecasts are considered consistent with the TAF if they meet the following criteria:
Forecasts differ by less than 10 percent in the 5‐year forecast period, and 15 percent in the 10‐
year forecast period, or
Forecasts do not affect the timing or scale of an airport project, or
Forecasts do not affect the role of the airport as defined in the current version of FAA Order
5090.3, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems.
If the forecasts exceed these parameters, they may be sent to FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C. for
further review. Table 2Q presents the direct comparison of the master planning forecasts with the TAF
published in February 2019.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-28
Exhibit 2E
FORECAST SUMMARY
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
BASE YEAR
FORECAST
2025
2019
2030
2040
Itinerant
Air Taxi
2,990
3,900
4,400
5,100
General Aviation
67,647
72,500
77,300
87,400
Military
199
213
213
213
Subtotal
70,836
76,613
81,913
92,713
Local
General Aviation
149,754
158,300
165,800
181,900
Military
72
62
62
62
Subtotal
149,826
158,362
165,862
181,962
Total Operations
220,662
234,975
247,775
274,675
PEAKING
Peak Month
22,930
24,410
25,740
28,540
Busy Day
1,042
1,131
1,192
1,321
Design Day
740
803
846
938
Design Hour
115
125
132
146
BASED AIRCRAFT
Single-Engine Piston
379
424
469
552
Multi-Engine Piston
26
24
20
15
Turboprop
6
7
9
13
Jet
8
10
13
20
Helicopter
22
25
29
40
Total Based Aircraft
441
490
540
640
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
TOTAL OPERATIONS FORECAST
BASED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX
Helicopter
Multi-Engine piston
Single Engine piston
Turboprop
Jet
2040
2019
2010
200
150
100
50
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Operations (in thousands)
Total Local
Total Itinerant
379
22
8
6
26
552
40
20
13
15
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-29
TABLE 2Q
Forecast Comparison to the Terminal Area Forecast
Chandler Municipal Airport
BASE YEAR
FORECAST
2019
2025
2030
2040
Operations
Master Plan Forecast
220,662
234,975
247,775
274,675
2019 FAA TAF
220,316
223,253
226,353
232,694
% Difference
0.16%
5.12%
9.04%
16.55%
Based Aircraft
Master Plan Forecast
441
490
540
640
2019 FAA TAF
160
193
224
301
% Difference
93.51%
86.97%
82.72%
72.05%
CAGR: Average annual growth rate
TAF: Terminal Area Forecast (published February 2019)
Total operations are within the FAA range for consistency. The based aircraft forecasts are higher than
the TAF and are not within the FAA range for consistency. The baseline for based aircraft must be con‐
sistent with what is documented in the FAA based aircraft database (www.basedaircraft.com). Cur‐
rently, there are 441 validated based aircraft at the airport, thus this is the starting point for the based
aircraft forecast. The FAA should update the TAF to reflect the actual number of validated based aircraft.
The forecasts are not expected to affect the timing or scale of any major airport projects, and the role of
the airport as a reliever general aviation facility is not expected to change.
AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT/RUNWAY CLASSIFICATION
The FAA has established several aircraft classification systems that group aircraft types based on their
performance (approach speed in landing configuration) and design characteristics (wingspan and landing
gear configuration). These classification systems are used to determine the appropriate airport design
standards for specific airport elements, such as runways, taxiways, taxilanes, and aprons.
AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION
The selection of appropriate FAA design standards for the development and location of airport facilities
is based primarily upon the characteristics of the aircraft which are currently using, or are expected to
use, an airport. The critical design aircraft is used to define the design parameters for an airport. The
design aircraft may be a single aircraft type or a composite aircraft representing a collection of aircraft
with similar characteristics. The design aircraft is classified by three parameters: Aircraft Approach Cat‐
egory (AAC), Airplane Design Group (ADG), and Taxiway Design Group (TDG). FAA AC 150/5300‐13A,
Airport Design, describes the following airplane classification systems, the parameters of which are pre‐
sented on Exhibit 2F.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-30
TAXIWAY DESIGN GROUP (TDG)
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
TDG-1A
TDG-1B
TDG-2
TDG-4
TDG-6
TDG-5
TDG-7
TDG-3
MAIN GEAR WIDTH (FEET)
COCKPIT TO MAIN GEAR (FEET)
Category
Approach Speed
A
less than 91 knots
B
91 knots or more but less than 121 knots
C
121 knots or more but less than 141 knots
D
141 knots or more but less than 166 knots
E
166 knots or more
Group #
Tail Height (ft)
Wingspan (ft)
I
<20
<49
II
20-<30
49-<79
III
30-<45
70-<118
IV
45-<60
118-<171
V
60-<66
171-<214
VI
66-<80
214-<262
RVR* (ft)
Flight Visibility Category (statute miles)
VIS
3-mile or greater visibility minimums
5,000
Not lower than 1-mile
4,000
Lower than 1-mile but not lower than ¾-mile
2,400
Lower than ¾-mile but not lower than ½-mile
1,600
Lower than ½-mile but not lower than ¼-mile
1,200
Lower than ¼-mile
AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY (AAC)
AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP (ADG)
VISIBILITY MINIMUMS
*RVR: Runway Visual Range
Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design
Exhibit 2F
AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION PARAMETERS
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
A/B-III
12,500 lbs.
or less
over 12,500 lbs.
Aircraft
TDG
Aircraft
TDG
A-I
B-I
A/B-II
B-II
less than
150,000 lbs.
C/D-I
C/D-III
D-V
C/D-II
Note: Aircraft pictured is identified in bold type.
• Beech Baron 55
1A
• Beech Bonanza
1A
• Cessna 150, 172
1A
• Eclipse 500
1A
• Piper Archer, Seneca
1A
• Beech Super King Air 350
2
• Cessna Citation CJ3(525B),
Bravo (550), V (560)
2
• Cessna Citation CJ4 (525C) 1B
• Cessna Citation
Latitude/Longitude
1B
• Embraer Phenom 300
1B
• Falcon 10, 20, 50
1B
• Falcon 900, 2000
2
• Hawker 800, 800XP,
850XP, 4000
1B
• Pilatus PC-24
1B
• Beech Baron 58
1A
• Beech King Air 90
1A
• Cessna 421
1A
• Cessna Citation CJ1 (525)
1A
• Cessna Citation 1(500)
2
• Embraer Phenom 100
1B
• Bombardier Dash 8
3
• Bombardier Global 5000,
6000, 7000, 8000 2
• Falcon 6X, 7X, 8X
2
• Beech Super King Air 200
2
• Cessna 441 Conquest
1A
• Cessna Citation CJ2 (525A)
2
• Pilatus PC-12
1A
• Gulfstream V
2
• Gulfstream G500, 550,
600, 650 (D-III)
2
irbus A319-100, 200
3
oeing 737 -800, 900,
BBJ2 (D-III)
3
MD
MD 8-83, 88 (D(D I-IIIII)
4
bus A300-100, 200, 600
5
eing 757-200
4
eing 767-300, 400
5
-11
6
bus A330-200, 300
5
us A340-500, 600
6
eing 747-100 - 400
5
eing 777-300
6
eing 787-8, 9
5
• Lear 25, 31, 45, 55, 60
1B
• Learjet 35, 36 (D-I)
1B
• Challenger 600/604/
800/850
1B
• Cessna Citation VII, X+
1B
• Embraer Legacy 450/500
1B
• Gulfstream IV, 350, 450 (D-II) 2
• Gulfstream G200/G280
1B
• Lear 70, 75
1B
er
0 lblblblbs.s.s
C/D
• Ai
• Bo
• M
15
15
15
150,0,0
D-III
over
150,000 lb
C/D-III
• Airb
• BoB e
• Boe
• MD-
/
C/D IV
/D-IV
• Airb
• AiA brb
• Boe
• Boe
• Boe
D-V
b
-V
Exhibit 2F continued
AIRCRAFT REFERENCE CODES
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Aircraft Approach Category (AAC): A grouping of aircraft based on a reference landing speed (VREF), if
specified, or if VREF is not specified, 1.3 times stall speed (VSO) at the maximum certificated landing
weight. VREF, VSO, and the maximum certificated landing weight are those values as established for the
aircraft by the certification authority of the country of registry.
The AAC generally refers to the approach speed of an aircraft in landing configuration. The higher the
approach speed, the more restrictive the applicable design standards. The AAC, depicted by a letter A
through E, is the aircraft approach category and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational charac‐
teristics). The AAC generally applies to runways and runway‐related facilities, such as runway width,
runway safety area (RSA), runway object free area (ROFA), runway protection zone (RPZ), and separation
standards.
Airplane Design Group (ADG): The ADG, depicted by a Roman numeral I through VI, is a classification of
aircraft which relates to aircraft wingspan or tail height (physical characteristics). When the aircraft
wingspan and tail height fall in different groups, the higher group is used. The ADG influences design
standards for taxiway safety area (TSA), taxiway object free (TOFA), taxilane object free area, apron
wingtip clearance, and various separation distances.
Taxiway Design Group (TDG): A classification of airplanes based on outer‐to‐outer Main Gear Width
(MGW) and Cockpit to Main Gear (CMG) distance. The TDG relates to the undercarriage dimensions of
the design aircraft. The TDG is classified by an alphanumeric system: 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The
taxiway design elements determined by the application of the TDG include the taxiway width, taxiway
edge safety margin, taxiway shoulder width, taxiway fillet dimensions, and, in some cases, the separation
distance between parallel taxiways/taxilanes. Other taxiway elements, such as the taxiway safety area
(TSA), taxiway/taxilane object free area (TOFA), taxiway/taxilane separation to parallel taxiway/taxilanes
or fixed or movable objects, and taxiway/taxilane wingtip clearances, are determined solely based on
the wingspan (ADG) of the design aircraft utilizing those surfaces. It is appropriate for taxiways to be
planned and built to different TDG standards based on expected use.
The back side of Exhibit 2F summarizes the classification of the most common aircraft in operation today.
Generally, recreational and business piston and turboprop aircraft will fall in AAC A and B, and ADG I and
II. Business jets typically fall in AAC B and C, while the larger commercial aircraft will fall in AAC C and D.
AIRPORT AND RUNWAY CLASSIFICATIONS
Airport and runway classifications, along with the aircraft classifications defined previously, are used to
determine the appropriate FAA design standards to which the airfield facilities are to be designed and
built.
Runway Design Code (RDC): A code signifying the design standards to which the runway is to be built.
The RDC is based upon planned development and has no operational component.
The AAC, ADG, and runway visual range (RVR) are combined to form the RDC of a runway. The RDC
provides the information needed to determine certain design standards that apply. The first component,
depicted by a letter, is the AAC and relates to aircraft approach speed (operational characteristics). The
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-33
second component, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the ADG and relates to either the aircraft wingspan
or tail height (physical characteristics), whichever is most restrictive. The third component relates to the
available instrument approach visibility minimums expressed by RVR values in feet of 1,200 (⅛‐mile),
1,600 (¼‐mile), 2,400 (½‐mile), 4,000 (¾‐mile), and 5,000 (1‐mile). The RVR values approximate standard
visibility minimums for instrument approaches to the runways. The third component reads “VIS” for
runways designed for visual approach use only.
Approach Reference Code (APRC): A code signifying the current operational capabilities of a runway
and associated parallel taxiway with regard to landing operations. Like the RDC, the APRC is composed
of the same three components: the AAC, ADG, and RVR. The APRC describes the current operational
capabilities of a runway under particular meteorological conditions where no special operating proce‐
dures are necessary, as opposed to the RDC, which is based upon planned development with no opera‐
tional component. The APRC for a runway is established based upon the minimum runway‐to‐taxiway
centerline separation.
Departure Reference Code (DPRC): A code signifying the current operational capabilities of a runway
and associated parallel taxiway with regard to takeoff operations. The DPRC represents those aircraft
that can takeoff from a runway while any aircraft are present on adjacent taxiways, under particular
meteorological conditions with no special operating conditions. The DPRC is similar to the APRC, but is
composed of two components: AAC and ADG. A runway may have more than one DPRC depending on
the parallel taxiway separation distance.
Airport Reference Code (ARC): An airport designation that signifies the airport’s highest Runway Design
Code (RDC), minus the third (visibility) component of the RDC. The ARC is used for planning and design
only and does not limit the aircraft that may be able to operate safely at an airport. The current Airport
Layout Plan (ALP) for CHD identifies the ARC as B‐II.
CRITICAL DESIGN AIRCRAFT
The selection of appropriate FAA design standards for the development and location of airport facilities
is based primarily upon the characteristics of the aircraft which are currently using, or are expected to
use, an airport. The critical design aircraft is used to define the design parameters for an airport. The
design aircraft may be a single aircraft or a composite aircraft representing a collection of aircraft classi‐
fied by the three parameters: AAC, ADG, and TDG.
The first consideration is the safe operation of aircraft likely to use an airport. Any operation of an air‐
craft that exceeds design criteria of an airport may result in a lesser safety margin; however, it is not the
usual practice to base the airport design on an aircraft that uses the airport infrequently.
The design aircraft is defined as the most demanding aircraft type, or grouping of aircraft with similar
characteristics, that make regular use of the airport. Regular use is 500 annual operations, excluding
touch‐and‐go operations. Planning for future aircraft use is of importance, since the design standards
are used to plan separation distances between facilities. These future standards must be considered
now to ensure that short‐term development does not preclude the reasonable long‐range potential
needs of the airport.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-34
According to FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design, “airport designs based only on existing aircraft can
severely limit the ability to expand the airport to meet future requirements for larger, more demanding
aircraft. Airport designs that are based on large aircraft never likely to be served by the airport are not
economical.” Selection of the current and future critical design aircraft must be realistic in nature and
supported by current data and realistic projections.
AIRPORT DESIGN AIRCRAFT
There are three elements for classifying the airport design aircraft. The three elements are the AAC,
ADG, and the TDG. The AAC and ADG are examined first, followed by the TDG.
The FAA’s Traffic Flow Management System Count (TFMSC) database captures an operation when a pilot
files a flight plan and/or when flights are detected by the National Airspace System, usually via radar. It
includes documentation of commercial traffic (air carrier and air taxi), general aviation, and military air‐
craft. Due to factors, such as incomplete flight plans, limited radar coverage, and VFR operations, TFMSC
data does not account for all aircraft activity at an airport by a given aircraft type. However, the TFMSC
does provide an accurate reflection of IFR activity. Operators of high‐performance aircraft, such as tur‐
boprops and jets, tend to file flight plans at a high rate. Exhibit 2G presents the TFMSC operational mix
at the airport for turboprops and jets since 2009. According to this data, operations at CHD within AAC
B and ADG II have exceeded the 500 operations threshold each year since 2009. Operations within AAC
C at CHD have grown in the past couple years; however, they are still well below the 500 annual opera‐
tions threshold.
Airport Design Aircraft Summary
The current aircraft approach category is “B.” The current airplane design group is “II.” The most active
B‐II airplane at CHD is the Beechcraft King Air 200/300/350, which are TDG 2 aircraft. Therefore, the
current airport design aircraft is classified as B‐II‐2. The future airport design aircraft is planned to
remain as B‐II‐2 represented by small to mid‐sized business jet aircraft such as the Cessna Citation Jet
CJ4 or Citation X. As a general aviation reliever, CHD’s operations portfolio is anticipated to remain
within the AAC A/B and ADG I/II categories. Operations for AAC C/D and ADG III are not anticipated to
exceed 500 annual operations in the future.
RUNWAY DESIGN CODE
The RDC relates to specific FAA design standards that should be met in relation to a runway. The RDC
takes into consideration the AAC, ADG, and the RVR. In most cases, the critical design aircraft will also
be the RDC for the primary runway.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-35
Current RDC
Runway 4R‐22L, as the primary runway, should be designed to accommodate the overall airport design
aircraft, which has been identified as B‐II‐2. The primary runway is 4,870 feet long, 75 feet wide, and
has non‐precision instrument approaches with visibility minimums as low as one mile on the Runway 4R
end. Based on the current activity, the applicable RDC is B‐II‐5000.
Runway 4L‐22R, as the secondary runway, has been previously planned to accommodate primarily small
aircraft that weigh less than 12,500 pounds. As such, the applicable RDC for the secondary runway is B‐
II‐VIS (small aircraft exclusive).
Future RDC
Since the future critical design aircraft for CHD remains within the B‐II category, the future RDC for Run‐
way 4R‐22L is planned to remain as B‐II‐5000. The future RDC for Runway 4L‐22R is also planned to
remain as RDC B‐II‐VIS (small aircraft exclusive).
APPROACH AND DEPARTURE REFERENCE CODES
The approach and departure reference codes (APRC and DPRC) describe the current operational capa‐
bilities of each runway and the adjacent parallel taxiways, where no special operating procedures are
necessary. Essentially, the APRC and DPRC describe the current conditions at an airport in runway clas‐
sification terms when considering the parallel taxiway.
The parallel taxiway for Runway 4R‐22L is located 400 feet from the runway (centerline to centerline).
Runway 4R has non‐precision instrument approaches with one‐mile visibility minimums. The APRC for
Runway 4R‐22L is D/IV/5000 and D/V/5000 and its DPRC is D/IV and D/V.
Runway 4L‐22R is separated from its parallel taxiway by 240 feet and has no published instrument ap‐
proaches. Therefore, its APRC is B/II/VIS and its DPRC is B/II.
CRITICAL AIRCRAFT SUMMARY
Table 2R summarizes the airport and runway classification currently and in the future. The critical air‐
craft is now defined by those aircraft in ARC B‐II and is expected to remain in this category.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-36
Cirrus Vision Jet
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
8
Eclipse 400/500
4
6
8
22
8
10
18
10
16
8
Epic Dynasty
0
0
0
0
4
2
2
2
0
0
Kodiak Quest
2
10
42
24
18
0
0
4
2
2
Lancair 4
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lancair Evolution/Legacy
6
26
18
20
38
10
4
6
4
36
Piper Malibu/Meridian
26
28
44
72
90
96
82
136
76
66
Socata TBM 7/850/900
106
72
76
32
28
26
30
40
126
250
TOTAL
150
142
188
170
186
144
136
198
228
370
Cessna Caravan
2
2
4
6
4
4
10
12
14
16
De Havilland Twin Otter
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
8
Pilatus PC-12
36
32
40
66
80
110
50
38
100
114
TOTAL
38
34
44
74
84
116
60
50
114
138
Beechjet 400
16
14
18
18
10
14
6
6
0
6
Cessna 425 Corsair
48
30
24
26
20
46
68
40
34
66
Citation CJ1
180
218
176
70
70
70
78
124
90
82
Citation I/SP
2
12
6
22
6
6
10
10
22
8
Citation M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
Citation Mustang
8
4
14
86
84
82
48
18
16
4
Falcon 10
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
Honda Jet
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
28
6
14
King Air 90/100
124
144
62
46
42
56
76
88
88
96
Mitsubishi MU-2
22
16
12
2
4
2
0
4
6
2
Phenom 100
4
22
4
6
18
22
16
8
6
8
Piaggio Avanti
4
10
4
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
Piper Cheyenne
14
12
4
0
6
4
10
0
4
2
Premier 1
0
6
0
2
2
0
4
4
4
0
TOTAL
426
488
324
278
262
302
368
336
280
292
Aero Commander 690
32
14
6
16
84
124
90
116
116
88
Beech 1900
2
2
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
Cessna Conquest
40
54
36
14
22
38
36
20
16
30
Challenger 300
0
0
2
4
0
2
8
12
16
26
Citation CJ2/CJ3/CJ4
74
66
142
166
172
160
166
174
218
188
Citation II/SP/Latitude
4
8
22
8
24
20
36
24
32
46
Citation Longitude
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
Citation V/Sovereign
34
72
114
148
136
152
54
92
102
94
Citation X
0
16
6
14
8
12
10
0
6
8
Citation XLS
74
36
64
32
30
62
132
82
70
46
Dornier 328
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
0
Falcon 20/50
2
2
0
0
4
2
2
6
2
2
Falcon 2000
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
Falcon 900
14
2
0
8
2
0
0
2
0
0
King Air 200/300/350
212
260
180
146
212
230
226
264
348
340
King Air F90
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Phenom 300
0
6
4
2
10
26
36
70
62
50
Swearingen Merlin
0
0
0
2
2
4
0
0
2
0
TOTAL
492
538
580
560
708
836
796
862
998
922
Bombardier Global Express
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Grumman E-2 Hawkeye
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
TOTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
BAe HS 125 Series
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Learjet 20 Series
4
0
0
4
0
8
14
18
4
0
Learjet 31
10
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
4
Learjet 40 Series
6
22
16
2
0
6
2
98
152
250
Learjet 60 Series
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
4
4
0
Westwind II
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
TOTAL
24
22
18
10
2
16
18
122
164
254
Challenger 600/604
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
Citation III/VI
0
2
2
4
2
0
2
2
0
0
Embraer ERJ-135/140/145
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gulfstream 100/150
8
6
2
6
4
4
8
2
6
4
Gulfstream 280
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Hawker 800 (Formerly Bae-125-800)
4
2
10
4
6
4
6
4
4
2
Learjet 70 Series
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
TOTAL
2
10
14
16
14
10
18
12
12
10
Learjet 35/36
4
0
0
0
4
0
6
0
0
0
TOTAL
4
0
0
0
4
0
6
0
0
0
Gulfstream 200
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Gulfstream 450
0
0
2
0
0
0
6
2
4
0
TOTAL
2
0
2
0
0
2
6
2
4
0
ARC
Aircraft Model
2010
2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
A-I
A-II
B-III
C-I
C-II
D-I
D-II
B-I
B-II
ARC
Aircraft Model
2010
2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
ARC CODE SUMMARY
Source: Traffic Flow Management System Counts
Note: ARC- Airport Reference Code
APPROACH CATEGORY SUMMARY
AC
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
A
188
176
232
244
270
260
196
248
342
508
B
918
1,026
904
838
970
1,138
1,164
1,198
1,282
1,214
C
36
32
32
26
16
26
36
134
176
264
D
6
0
2
0
4
2
12
2
4
0
TOTAL
1,148
1,234
1,170
1,108
1,260
1,426
1,408
1,582
1,804
1,986
AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP SUMMARY
DG
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
I
604
652
530
458
454
462
528
656
672
916
II
544
582
640
650
806
964
880
926
1,128
1,070
III
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
TOTAL
1,148
1,234
1,170
1,108
1,260
1,426
1,408
1,582
1,804
1,986
Exhibit 2G
HISTORICAL TURBOPROP AND JET OPERATIONS
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
ARC CODE
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
A-I
150
142
188
170
186
144
136
198
228
370
A-II
38
34
44
74
84
116
60
50
114
138
B-I
426
488
324
278
262
302
368
336
280
292
B-II
492
538
580
560
708
836
796
862
998
922
B-III
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
C-I
24
22
18
10
2
16
18
122
164
254
C-II
12
10
14
16
14
10
18
12
12
10
D-I
4
0
0
0
4
0
6
0
0
0
D-II
2
0
2
0
0
2
6
2
4
0
TOTAL
1,148
1,234
1,170
1,108
1,260
1,426
1,408
1,582
1,804
1,986
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-37
This page intentionally left blank
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-38
TABLE 2R
Airport and Runway Classifications
Chandler Municipal Airport
Runway 4R‐22L
(existing/ultimate)
Runway 4L‐22R
(existing/ultimate)
Airport Reference Code (ARC)
B‐II
B‐II (small airplane)
Airport Design Aircraft
B‐II‐2
B‐II‐2 (small airplane)
Critical Aircraft (Typ.)
Beechcraft King Air 200/300/350 (existing)
Cessna Citation Jet CJ4/Citation X (ultimate)
Beechcraft King Air C/F90
Runway Design Code (RDC)
B‐II‐5000
B‐II‐VIS (small airplane)
Approach Reference Code (APRC)
D/IV/5000 and D/V/5000
B/II/VIS
Departure Reference Code (DPRC)
D/IV and D/V
B/II
Source: FAA AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design
SUMMARY
This chapter has outlined the various activity levels that might reasonably be anticipated over the plan‐
ning period, as well as the critical design aircraft for the airport. Based aircraft are forecast to grow from
441 currently to 640 by 2040. Operations are forecast to grow from 220,662 in 2019 to 274,675 by 2040.
The projected growth is driven by FAA’s positive outlook for general activity nationwide, as well as pos‐
itive outlooks for socioeconomic growth (population, employment, and income/GRP) in the Phoenix
metropolitan area.
The critical design aircraft for the airport was determined by examining the FAA TFMSC database of flight
plans. The current critical design aircraft is described as B‐II‐2 and is best represented by a Beechcraft
King Air 200/300/350, a twin‐engine turboprop typically utilized for business operations or air charters.
The future design aircraft is projected to remain in the same category represented by small to mid‐sized
business jets such as the Cessna Citation Jet CJ4 or Citation X.
As noted previously, the forecasts of aviation demand were developed in 2019 prior to the Covid‐19
pandemic and the associated economic downturn. Commercial aviation throughout the country has
experienced a significant downturn; however certain segments of general aviation, specifically charters,
air taxi, and fractionals have appeared to maintain pre‐pandemic levels and in many cases, were showing
increases as people sought alternatives to flying commercial. Prior to implementation of suggested pro‐
jects identified later in this report, the forecast element may need to be re‐validated. Based upon the
types of aircraft using CHD throughout its history, the proposed existing and ultimate design aircraft are
considered reasonable and valid for planning purposes.
The next step in the planning process is to assess the capabilities of the existing facilities to determine
what upgrades may be necessary to meet future demands. The range of forecasts developed here will
be taken forward in the next chapter as planning horizon activity levels that will serve as milestones or
activity benchmarks in evaluating facility requirements.
Forecasts | DRAFT FINAL
2-39