Bill Hough
2006-04-27 18:00:50 UTC
This sounds too good to be true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was sent to you by someone who found it on SFGate.
The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/27/EDGNSGUC731.DTL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, April 27, 2006 (SF Chronicle)
A shorter runway solves a long problem
Stanford M. Horn
A solution to San Francisco International Airport's flight-delay problem
could be at hand. San Francisco's fog-prone airport has adequate capacity
to handle some 60 arrivals an hour on parallel runways in good weather
but, once the fog rolls in, it must shut down one runway because the
runways are too close together to land two planes safely, thus halving
landings to 30 arrivals an hour. This results in multi-hour delays for SFO
passengers that ripple across the U.S. air-transportation system.
Suppose, on foggy or cloudy days, that the Federal Aviation Administration
closed the initial 2,000 or 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 feet of SFO's very
long runway 28R and had planes begin their landings near the runway's
midpoint, that is, with 10,000 or 9,000 or 8,000 or 7,000 feet of runway
remaining. Then the federal rule requiring 4,300 feet of horizontal
separation between planes shouldn't be a problem, because planes
approaching the right runway would always be hundreds of feet above those
approaching the left runway.
SFO's runway 28R -- one of four runways -- is about 12,000 feet long, with
an additional 1,000-foot buffer zone at the end. Many major airports in
the United States and elsewhere have 6,000-foot or shorter runways with
smaller or no buffer zones and safely land thousands of planes daily.
These airports include busy Chicago Midway (as short as 5,100 feet), John
Wayne in Orange County (5,700 feet), Burbank (5,800 feet), Salt Lake City
(5,900) and Reagan Washington (4,900). Reno's is 6,100 feet long. New York
La Guardia -- one of the nation's busiest airports -- has 7,000-foot
runways. Almost every domestic plane scheduled into SFO actually could
land comfortably on runways of those lengths, and they do so safely
elsewhere every day.
What makes this idea timely is that, just last year, the FAA changed its
rules to allow more closely spaced aircraft in flight. The FAA now allows
two planes, each traveling toward the same mid-air intersection, to be
separated vertically by just 1,000 feet. In SFO's case, the two
approaching planes would never cross each other's paths (because they
would be traveling parallel to each other) and would never close on each
other (because they would be traveling at about the same speed). Their
altitudes, when abreast of each other, would be many hundreds of feet
apart.
So planes headed toward runway 28R would have no traffic flying near their
altitude on their left. Planes headed toward runway 28L would have no
traffic near their altitude on their right. Therefore, the 4,300-foot
separation rule -- which envisions planes approaching at the same altitude
to different nearby runways -- shouldn't logically apply.
A favorable FAA interpretation of the rule could safely solve a big
problem both here and nationwide -- and should be able to be put into
effect in days or weeks. This is a solution that avoids filling the bay to
create new runways (as proposed in the past), or embarking on more
time-consuming and hugely expensive studies on the delay problem (as done
in the past to the tune of $75 million).
A second Instrument Landing System and a second approach-lighting system
could guide aircraft to the shortened-runway when it is in use. During
periods of shortened-runway use, the extra-long 28L runway would always be
available at its full length for landings by planes that need the full
distance, and both would be available at full length for takeoffs.
Bay Area communities situated below the landing flight path could expect
less airplane noise because of the higher landing altitudes.
Most important, the assurance of on-time operations could bring airlines
and passengers that have spurned SFO back. The airport -- in contrast to
the rest of the Bay Area's improving economy since the Sept. 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks -- continues to suffer from a 20 percent drop in
passengers. The loss of 8 million travelers over five years is one of the
worst records in the world.
The cost of implementing this idea would be zero, in terms of heavy
construction. There would be a very small cost for approach lighting, a
second instrument landing system part-way down the runway and a few
gallons of paint. In an emergency, the Armed Forces typically do that sort
of job in few days.
The airport spent millions on consultants and studies during the past six
years to try to solve the flight-delay problem, but came up with no
solution. It should get behind this proposal and, drawing on the influence
of the Bay Area's congressional delegation, lobby the FAA to promptly
authorize its adoption.
Stanford M. Horn writes on Bay Area transportation and development issues. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2006 SF Chronicle
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was sent to you by someone who found it on SFGate.
The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/27/EDGNSGUC731.DTL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, April 27, 2006 (SF Chronicle)
A shorter runway solves a long problem
Stanford M. Horn
A solution to San Francisco International Airport's flight-delay problem
could be at hand. San Francisco's fog-prone airport has adequate capacity
to handle some 60 arrivals an hour on parallel runways in good weather
but, once the fog rolls in, it must shut down one runway because the
runways are too close together to land two planes safely, thus halving
landings to 30 arrivals an hour. This results in multi-hour delays for SFO
passengers that ripple across the U.S. air-transportation system.
Suppose, on foggy or cloudy days, that the Federal Aviation Administration
closed the initial 2,000 or 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 feet of SFO's very
long runway 28R and had planes begin their landings near the runway's
midpoint, that is, with 10,000 or 9,000 or 8,000 or 7,000 feet of runway
remaining. Then the federal rule requiring 4,300 feet of horizontal
separation between planes shouldn't be a problem, because planes
approaching the right runway would always be hundreds of feet above those
approaching the left runway.
SFO's runway 28R -- one of four runways -- is about 12,000 feet long, with
an additional 1,000-foot buffer zone at the end. Many major airports in
the United States and elsewhere have 6,000-foot or shorter runways with
smaller or no buffer zones and safely land thousands of planes daily.
These airports include busy Chicago Midway (as short as 5,100 feet), John
Wayne in Orange County (5,700 feet), Burbank (5,800 feet), Salt Lake City
(5,900) and Reagan Washington (4,900). Reno's is 6,100 feet long. New York
La Guardia -- one of the nation's busiest airports -- has 7,000-foot
runways. Almost every domestic plane scheduled into SFO actually could
land comfortably on runways of those lengths, and they do so safely
elsewhere every day.
What makes this idea timely is that, just last year, the FAA changed its
rules to allow more closely spaced aircraft in flight. The FAA now allows
two planes, each traveling toward the same mid-air intersection, to be
separated vertically by just 1,000 feet. In SFO's case, the two
approaching planes would never cross each other's paths (because they
would be traveling parallel to each other) and would never close on each
other (because they would be traveling at about the same speed). Their
altitudes, when abreast of each other, would be many hundreds of feet
apart.
So planes headed toward runway 28R would have no traffic flying near their
altitude on their left. Planes headed toward runway 28L would have no
traffic near their altitude on their right. Therefore, the 4,300-foot
separation rule -- which envisions planes approaching at the same altitude
to different nearby runways -- shouldn't logically apply.
A favorable FAA interpretation of the rule could safely solve a big
problem both here and nationwide -- and should be able to be put into
effect in days or weeks. This is a solution that avoids filling the bay to
create new runways (as proposed in the past), or embarking on more
time-consuming and hugely expensive studies on the delay problem (as done
in the past to the tune of $75 million).
A second Instrument Landing System and a second approach-lighting system
could guide aircraft to the shortened-runway when it is in use. During
periods of shortened-runway use, the extra-long 28L runway would always be
available at its full length for landings by planes that need the full
distance, and both would be available at full length for takeoffs.
Bay Area communities situated below the landing flight path could expect
less airplane noise because of the higher landing altitudes.
Most important, the assurance of on-time operations could bring airlines
and passengers that have spurned SFO back. The airport -- in contrast to
the rest of the Bay Area's improving economy since the Sept. 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks -- continues to suffer from a 20 percent drop in
passengers. The loss of 8 million travelers over five years is one of the
worst records in the world.
The cost of implementing this idea would be zero, in terms of heavy
construction. There would be a very small cost for approach lighting, a
second instrument landing system part-way down the runway and a few
gallons of paint. In an emergency, the Armed Forces typically do that sort
of job in few days.
The airport spent millions on consultants and studies during the past six
years to try to solve the flight-delay problem, but came up with no
solution. It should get behind this proposal and, drawing on the influence
of the Bay Area's congressional delegation, lobby the FAA to promptly
authorize its adoption.
Stanford M. Horn writes on Bay Area transportation and development issues. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2006 SF Chronicle