Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Announces Runway Safety Improvements  
User currently offlineDUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2603 times:

From att.net

[WASHINGTON - The Federal Aviation Administration announced measures Monday to improve runway safety, including the installation at major airports of lights that signal pilots when a runway is safe to enter.

The announcement by Acting FAA Administrator Robert Sturgell comes amid criticism of FAA officials by federal lawmakers and others over an alarming rate of runway incursions at airports.

“Severe runway incursions are down,” Sturgell said in remarks prepared for delivery at a morning press conference. “And, we’re putting technology and procedures in place to keep it that way. We’re making changes on the runway and in the cockpit that are going to make a significant difference.”



Sturgell was also expected to face questions about two near-collisions in less than a week at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. The near-collision on Friday — involving a Delta Air Lines and a Comair flight — prompted the agency to immediately change the way takeoffs and landings are sequenced on perpendicular runways.

In December, congressional investigators warned that air travelers face a high risk of a catastrophic collision on U.S. airport runways because of faltering federal leadership, malfunctioning technology and overworked air traffic controllers.

Since 1990, 63 people have died in six U.S. runway collisions. Monday’s announcement was aimed at reducing runway incursions, defined as an event in which any aircraft, vehicle or person intrudes in space reserved for takeoff or landing.

The FAA’s previous definition of “runway incursion” did not did not include serious runway errors such as the one that led to the Aug. 27, 2006, crash of a Comair jet in Lexington, Ky. The pilots mistakenly traveled down a runway too short for takeoff and the aircraft crashed, killing 49 of the 50 people aboard.

The runway safety system announced Monday involves lighting systems to be installed at 21 airports over the next three years. The lights change color to signal when a runway is safe to enter or cross, according to a description posted on the FAA’s Web site.

Airports selected for the program are Atlanta, Baltimore-Washington, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago-O’Hare, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Denver, Detroit, Ft. Lauderdale, Houston Intercontinental, John F. Kennedy, LaGuardia, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Newark, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Diego, Seattle and Washington-Dulles.]

Curious to see how this works...

[Edited 2008-07-14 11:21:14]


AIRLINERS.NET MODERATORS SUCK MOOSE DICK!!!!
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21515 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2546 times:

I'm all for improved safety and I'm glad the FAA is acting, but this article is trying to find catastrophe when there hasn't been any.

Quote:
Since 1990, 63 people have died in six U.S. runway collisions. Monday’s announcement was aimed at reducing runway incursions, defined as an event in which any aircraft, vehicle or person intrudes in space reserved for takeoff or landing.

Why pick 1990? And my assumption is that because they didn't mention commercial aircraft, most or all have been GA aircraft at GA airports (also, because the number of deaths is so low for 6 collisions, presumably involving 12 planes). How many commercial collisions on runways involving death have happened in the last 10 years? I can't recall any, but there may be. Somebody know?

Quote:
The FAA’s previous definition of “runway incursion” did not did not include serious runway errors such as the one that led to the Aug. 27, 2006, crash of a Comair jet in Lexington, Ky. The pilots mistakenly traveled down a runway too short for takeoff and the aircraft crashed, killing 49 of the 50 people aboard.

Because it's not a runway incursion! Why would they change that? And do those 49 count above?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2475 times:



Quoting DUALRATED (Thread starter):
prompted the agency to immediately change the way takeoffs and landings are sequenced on perpendicular runways.

A week after denying there was any problem. Idiots!



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2449 times:



Quote:
Why pick 1990?

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19910201-0

My guess they picked 1990 because February 1, 1991, saw America's worst airport ground-collision at LAX. 34 people died, accounting for more than half of the 63 in the official list.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Event=COAG

There's a very good list of accidents due to runway incursions. There don't appear to be any casualties from incursions in the 1980's (1972 is the only one I see!) but starting in 1990, there have been several.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineEBGARN From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2424 times:

US runway incursion fatalities since 1990: 63

US road traffic fatalities since 1990: ~750.000

-Let's see... Where should the safety money be spent? Tricky question, but let's go for the runways!  banghead 



A306,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343/6,A380,B717,B727,B737,B744,B752/3,B763,B772/3/W,C-130,AN26,CRJ900,Il62,DC-8/9/10,MD80's,BaeR
User currently offlineEyeno1 From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2400 times:

Aren't their enough lights on aprons, taxiways and runways already? This would get awfully confusing at night.

User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2344 times:



Quoting EBGARN (Reply 4):
US runway incursion fatalities since 1990: 63

US road traffic fatalities since 1990: ~750.000

-Let's see... Where should the safety money be spent? Tricky question, but let's go for the runways!   

YES YES YES!!

I so look forward to driving in UK next week. Lane discipline, signals used, no junk cars falling apart in front of you.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21515 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2223 times:



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 3):
My guess they picked 1990 because February 1, 1991, saw America's worst airport ground-collision at LAX. 34 people died, accounting for more than half of the 63 in the official list.

Actually, thanks to your list we learn that there was also a NW collision in 1990 where 8 died on a DC9 (nobody died on the NW 727), so they clearly chose 1990 so they could include the ONLY TWO commercial incidents in the USA, which happened 17 and 18 years ago and after which the FAA made changes, and imply that there is an increasing danger today, which is utter hogwash (my word of the week).

It's shifty journalism. Whenever you see an odd looking number (18 years) you have to ask why they chose 18 and not 10, 15 or 20? It's because something happened 18 years ago they want to include.

The only collisions I know of more recently are GA planes landing on each other or clipping each other and people dying. At GA airports. Where none of these measures are going to be implemented, as far as I can tell...

But anything that makes it less likely for planes to collide is not a bad thing. Ultimately though, the ground near misses recently at LAX were due to pilots not listening to instructions clearly given to them by ATC. Will those same pilots pay attention to red lights? Who knows... people are people after all.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2213 times:

It's about time. Overseas airports are taking this seriously, why shouldn't the FAA?


Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlineEBGARN From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2195 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
But anything that makes it less likely for planes to collide is not a bad thing.

I fully agree, even if I made fun of it by using the statistics. I'm spending a lot more time in the air than on the roads.

If such a "traffic light" system had been in place at Linate Airport, Italy in 2001, it could have prevented the worst accident in SAS history (a Cessna Citation accidentally crossed a runway where a SAS MD was taking off).



A306,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343/6,A380,B717,B727,B737,B744,B752/3,B763,B772/3/W,C-130,AN26,CRJ900,Il62,DC-8/9/10,MD80's,BaeR
User currently offlineEVA777SEA From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2174 times:

Where the hell are SFO and MIA and better yet why is SAN on the list?

User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5411 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2132 times:



Quoting EVA777SEA (Reply 10):
Where the hell are SFO and MIA and better yet why is SAN on the list?

You might find this part of the FAA Press Release about the RSL program of interest:

"The lights warn pilots when it is unsafe to cross or enter a runway, and are currently being tested at Dallas Ft. Worth and San Diego International Airports."

(I believe the testing has been going on for a year or 2 now.)

To answer your question about why SAN is an important part of the RSL program, it might be pertinent to remember that Lindbergh Field is the busiest single-runway commercial airport in the US (2nd busiest in the world behind Gatwick I believe) with over 600 operations a day; about half of those are departures which are limited to only 17 hours each day (no takeoffs allowed between 11:30pm and 6:30am.) Obviously the other half are arrivals which have to be fit in between and around the departures on the same runway. Add to that many ground op's requiring a/c to cross the active either under their own power or under tow.

Airport usage graphs on FlightAware verify the fact that on many days (around 11am and noon) flight op's reach 50/hour! That translates to close to 1 departure or arrival every minute on only a single runway! I've been there spotting during those crazy peak times and it is truly something to experience.

One further factor at Lindbergh is that there are facilities at both ends, and on both sides, of the active including commercial passenger and cargo a/c, general aviation, and occasional military operations.

Believe me, ANYTHING to help make sure that no a/c enters 9/27 at the wrong time on this very busy postage stamp (661 acres) of an airport, is needed. The RSL System is very necessary at Lindbergh!

bb


User currently offlineEVA777SEA From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2071 times:



Quoting SANFan (Reply 11):

You might find this part of the FAA Press Release about the RSL program of interest:

"The lights warn pilots when it is unsafe to cross or enter a runway, and are currently being tested at Dallas Ft. Worth and San Diego International Airports."

I stand corrected, thanks for pointing that out.

But the question still remains why SFO, being one of the busiest airports in the US with runways that actually intersect, is absent from the list.


User currently offlineRogerroger707 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2033 times:

http://www.comcast.net/data/fan/html...fig=/config/common/fan/default.xml

Here's a video from the Comcast "fan" about the lights system for those interested. It was also discussed this morning on the Today Show.



autobrake max or hit the tracks!
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3471 posts, RR: 47
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1956 times:



Quoting DUALRATED (Thread starter):
Curious to see how this works...

Lousy. DFW Tower already has a PPT demonstration it is showing for training of an airliner crossing an active runway while another airliner is taking off. The crossing acft did NOT follow ATC instructions, did NOT readback those instructions properly, the ATC controller did NOT hear the incorrect readback and the plane entered the active runway AGAINST the lights.... which is exactly what they are supposed to prevent.

As I wrote in my multiple debriefs to the study group: NEVER place "stop lights" oriented in my direction of travel and expect me to stop solely based upon their color.... there WILL be a mishap. If you want me to STOP, then orient the lights ACROSS my direction of travel!

While logical, that is NOT what the government is doing (specifically removed all light orientation across directions of travel leaving only light colors to specify a "stop" or "go" situation) and it will be more millions wasted.

Quoting EVA777SEA (Reply 12):
But the question still remains why SFO, being one of the busiest airports in the US with runways that actually intersect, is absent from the list.

The RSLS will NOT work with intersecting runways as the crossing planes are moving too fast for the system to calculate/display the runway status. Only works for "slow moving" (taxiing) planes. IMHO, a total waste of $$$.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineRyDawg82 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 861 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1888 times:

Here is another program that the FAA is looking at involving utilizing the PAPI's for more than just glide path information...

LGB was the initial testbed for the system, and it will now supplement the RWSL lights at DFW...

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...nits/operations/td/projects/FAROS/


-R



You can take the pup out of Alaska, but you can't take the Alaska out of the pup.
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1801 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
It's shifty journalism.

It seems the predominant kind of journalism any more. Sad. Thanks Rupert.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Runway Safety Buffer Zones posted Fri May 4 2007 02:08:17 by Clipper002
FAA-Shorter Runway For T.F. Green In RI Won't Fly posted Mon Jul 31 2006 19:50:35 by KarlB737
Runway Safety Article (USA TODAY) posted Mon Apr 24 2006 23:49:35 by Goodmanr
FAA Blocks Runway Option At FLL, Reopening Debate posted Fri Apr 7 2006 21:22:24 by KarlB737
Runway Safety Margins posted Fri Dec 9 2005 18:51:28 by AviatorTJ
New Runway Safety System posted Sat Nov 5 2005 22:48:41 by I530j
New Runway Safety System posted Thu Nov 3 2005 17:43:45 by Usnseallt82
Tulips For Runway Safety In AMS posted Wed Dec 15 2004 17:21:55 by BuyantUkhaa
WN, FAA Accused Of Falsifying Safety Reports posted Tue Mar 11 2008 10:24:46 by Cjpark
Is FAA Ignoring Controllers To Safety Detriment? posted Mon Feb 4 2008 21:54:19 by Fanfan