Wingman: More Technological Imagination Is Needed for Runway Capacity

Part of the debate over Chicago O'Hare's runway capacity problem ended in August with the government getting a "voluntarily made" decision to limit flights during certain times of the day.  Remaining, however, is the important question of how to get more runway capacity: Should more runways be built at large airports like O'Hare, or should we develop new airports, either by start-from-scratch construction, or by upgrading existing smaller airports?

Wingman concedes that both of these approaches will be needed in many highly populated areas of the country.  But there is another way of increasing airport capacity that needs more attention – a better use of technology.

FAA Administrator Marion Blakely told Congress recently that eight new runways were opened at the nation’s largest airports over the last five years, and five more will be added by the end of 2006.  While these achievements are laudable, it seems unlikely that a few more highly expensive, and difficult-to-accomplish, new runways will by themselves solve our future capacity problems.  We need more imaginative ways to do more with what we have.

As a start, Wingman suggests we do the following:

1. Prudently challenge all current runway capacity assumptions in light of evolving technology and procedures.
2. Think more creatively about the perceived runway limits of aircraft separation, runway occupancy, and wind-tip vortices.
3. Create additional technology and operational concept incubators to develop new ideas in multiple locations and at several levels.

Challenge Current Runway Capacity Assumptions

James K. Coyne, the president of the National Air Transportation Association suggested to Congress back in April 2001 – when this subject was also the topic du jour – that we should concentrate less on ways of defining the limits on airports and focus instead on inventing new ways to accommodate the needs of all airport users.  Wingman agrees.

Some operational paradigms need to be vigorously challenged as to their continued validity in the light of new technical concepts.

Capacity benchmarks are one of these paradigms.  Traditional thinking about airborne and on-runway separation requirements, missed approaches, wind-tip vortices, and even environmental constraints, should be challenged in light of new technology and procedural concepts.

Think More Creatively About Runway Physical Limits 

Are our current runway capacity assumptions still valid in the context of new technology?  Probably not.

Years after many runway limitations became commonly accepted, a number of new technologies have emerged that might allow those restrictions to be modified.  More accurate navigation, and far-better situational awareness, with accurate traffic position and intent information presented on new cockpit  displays, can safely allow closer spacing between more runways in all conditions. Augmented GPS will allow more approach procedures to more runways and with novel patterns now only vaguely envisioned.  New head-up cockpit displays, supplemented with enhanced or synthetic vision, might allow novel multi-facetted, approach and departure procedures, where airplanes fly in asymmetric formation along several lateral and vertical paths to different parts of the same runway, based on a particular aircraft’s size, weight and performance capabilities.

On the ground pilots could have highly intuitive acceleration and deceleration information on these same displays to judge proximity to other aircraft on the same runway, and what action should be taken if safe surface separation can’t be maintained.

Sound far fetched?  It shouldn’t.  All of these things – with the exception of multiple glide paths and ground acceleration trending displays – would be based on concepts that have been under development for years. And even multiple glide paths and ground energy management, would likely use satellite positioning, flight management systems, and inertial reference systems that are commonly used and well established.  All of the technical nuances and safety checks can’t be detailed here, but you get the idea.

Some will say that safety issues will make ideas like these impossible and therefore fruitless. But serious thinking about new operational concepts and applications of technology can also contribute to safety, both as an intentional objective and as a serendipitous development.

Take wake turbulence for example.  This natural by‑product of a wing’s lift has long been a constraint on the capacity of a busy airport.  But in recent years, work has been going on within NASA, FAA, MITRE, and other places, to find procedures and technology that can mitigate its limitations for both approaches and departures.

A 2003 MITRE analysis showed that significant arrival capacity benefits can be achieved in the near‑term future with procedural changes only, at major airports that have closely spaced parallel runways. And NASA’s AVOSS (Aircraft Vortex Spacing System), which integrated weather sensors, wake sensors, and analytical wake prediction algorithms, might – on average – reduce delays by 15 to 40% at major airports, by allowing operations to proceed, where they can’t without AVOSS information.

On the ground side, new airport technologies that use multilateration and other techniques, combined with better communication between gate managers and ground controllers, each equipped with new decision-making tools, could make taxiing more efficient and safe as well.  In addition, new tools might help operational planners to coordinate with traffic controllers and on-board flight management systems to accurately synchronize arrivals and departures instead of the willy-nilly random fashion currently tolerated.

Airports today accept arrival and departure operations stochastically, where inefficient queues develop during peak demand periods.  Managing that process better with today’s available technology, appears to have substantial potential.

Create Technology and Operational Concept Incubators

Currently, there is a lack of deep thinking on technology and new operational procedures.  This is not a criticism of the important work that FAA, RTCA and other government or industry entities, such as NASA, MITRE, Volpe, are doing.  Rather, it is a suggestion that their important work be supplemented by many conceptual ideas and subsequent evaluations in multiple local “incubators.”  What Alaska Airlines did in Juneau and San Francisco is an example of this, as is the Capstone initiative in Alaska, and what FedEx, UPS and others have done in the Ohio Valley.

More airlines, airports and technology need to be encouraged, perhaps with financial support, to develop and test technology-based procedures. They should have as much independence as possible without prescribed conditions of how it should be accomplished.

Funding

Where would the money come from?  That question can’t be addressed in this brief piece, except to acknowledge its importance.  Nevertheless, there are numerous examples of government and industry programs where financial incentives or direct support have been created.  Given the cost of delays resulting from inadequate capacity, finding appropriate methods of funding solutions to this problem should be possible.  09-13-2004.

Do you agree with Wingman?  Let him know right now!

Click here to become a registered Flt Tech Online subscriber and receive headlines delivered to your e-mail each week

Click here to go back to the headlines