The FAA has redesigned the airspace in and around New York City in effort to increase capacity, reduce delay and complexity. This is part of the 'Next Generation' technology system rollout. The industry is hoping for a doubling in air traffic in just 10 years. This project reduces safety in order to increase capacity. With this project the FAA has also elected to change the ground routes for the first time in 50 years. The final project being implemented does not achieve its objectives, is deeply flawed and exacts enormous impacts to the most people on the ground.
The project suffered over the years since it's inception in 1989. Personnel changes, funding issues and project management breakdowns plagued the project. They failed to conduct essential studies. The project was audited by the Inspector General twice with alarming results. The project continued towards implementation due to political and industry pressure.
The redesign incorporates controversial actions including the use of restricted airspace, reducing safe distance between the aircraft in flight and on the runways, reducing cruising altitudes over populated areas, intentionally excluding air traffic controllers, pilots, and impacted communities in the planning process, ignoring professional comment put forth by the office of the Inspector General and failing to conduct cost analysis or risk VS. gain studies. These issues notwithstanding, due to intense political pressure, the implementation is rolling out during a staffing crisis at the control tower. Initial changes have begun in 2007 and will implement fully in 2011.
The project, which will affect 29 million residents across 5 states, introduces severe noise and air pollution to thousands of communities. Some communities in NJ and NY will have 600 flights a day flying directly over their homes. The environmental and economic consequences of this Project have not been fully researched or discussed with the affected communities by the FAA.
Significant downsides exist with this ill-conceived Project including increase of fuel consumption, overuse of airport facilities, potential national security risks, environmental damages, air quality degradation and noise pollution.
WHO WILL PAY FOR THIS PLAN?
PILOTS - who will be flying aircraft closer to one another under the guidance of an overworked underpaid controller using outdated technology. Less room for error means higher workload. If the near misses turn to fatalities, then pilot error will be blamed, not airspace redesign.
MILLIONs UNDER NEW FLIGHT PATHS - who will have their quality of life, and air quality impacted. The EIS delivered by the FAA was totally inadeqaute and flawed.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS - who have been categorically ignored by the FAA during this process. This plan substantially increases their workload. This is being rolled out during a staffing crisis when thousands of controllers are retiring.
PASSENGERS - who will continue to deal with flight delay, suffer through more near misses.
AIRPORTS - Area airports are already operating over capacities. This plan will be costly to the airports. This plan also invites litigious action by communities impacted by aircraft noise. The Port Authority is vulnerable as they have not adopted the 150 pt. program for noise abatement.
THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY - The true costs of implementing a plan which destroys the quality of life and safety of so many people will ultimately fall on the airlines. The airlines are inviting litigious action. In the EU, some communities are charging flyover fees. Thei drives the cost.
PASSENGER SAFETY- Reducing safe distance between aircraft when near misses are critically high before precision guided software is installed in the cockpit and control tower is unconscionable.
UNDERLYING COMMUNITIES - Those who purchased homes directly under the current flight paths 50 years ago, like Staten Island, may get some relief. Residents who purchased homes away from airports and flight paths will now suffer directly from the FAA' s plan.
Our Airspace recognizes the need for restructuring the Airspace to meet the demands of airport expansion efforts, new technology and decreased complexity. This calls for a well-structured and researched project with full congressional backing and substantial risk analysis and community review.
In 1998, the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) initiated the National Airspace System Redesign to maintain safety, decrease delays, and reduce congestion in the American airspace, particularly in the crowded airspace between Philadelphia and Boston.
Testifying before the House of Representatives in October 1999, then-FAA Administrator Jane Garvey promised that the "Redesign is expected to take approximately eight years to be implemented across the entire country, but tangible benefits are expected in the eastern portion of the United States within five years."
Over the years the project was delayed numerous times and suffered a change in command and restructuring. Severe problems were found with the project. The level of complexity grew substantially and many of the people who had structured the program are no longer working on the project.
The chief benefit of the program is increasing capacity in the airspace. After 2000 the Northeast increasingly suffered Flight delay. After levels returned to pre-2001, flight delay again became a major crisis. This was due in part by the rapid growth of airlines like Jet Blue, and the overuse of the airports by the airlines through a regulation loophole.
Now that flight delay and passenger rights are national debates, and runway space is finite, the airline industry is increasingly impatient for increasing capacity. They are increasingly looking outside the scope of normal expansion efforts. The Airspace Redesign is their only hope to continue with their profit model, which includes expanding operations with smaller planes, adding new fleets and scheduling more flights.
The essential problem then becomes flight safety and runway space. There is only so much runway. LGA can't expand due to topographical limitations. JFK, and Newark are fighting their neighbors to expand which is time consuming. The industry is scrambling for a solution. This capacity increase program could be disastrous on many levels, yet they are supporting it because it is part of their profit model.
The FAA and DOT have failed essentially in producing a legal balanced and safe plan to implement. Now all the key players are unhappy.
The airlines, who have invested in creating a profit model built on expansion, are being offered congestion pricing and caps on operations by the DOT. This is not what they asked the FAA to provide. The politicians who have lobbied for airport expansion efforts for regional operations into the NYC area will have to go back to the towns to tell them they can't schedule all the flights they promised. The FAA is being pushed to implement an unsafe flawed program by those politicians who need the expansion.
Who pays then for these mistakes? Certainly in this case, 29 million people on the ground, and the unknown increased risk of an 'Aluminum Shower'
OurAirspace is asking the industry to be patient for a solution to flight delay. We are asking for temporary caps and/or congestion pricing until key changes are implemented. In return, we would lobby congress and the White House for increased spending for key Next Generation concepts including technology updates in the control tower, and in the cockpit.
OurAirspace asks to include the communities on the ground during roundtable discussions on major redesign efforts and capacity increases. The communities on the ground will economically pay for any increases otherwise, and will seek restitution without representation. Representatives from these communities must be involved moving forward.
FAA's CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
A very real conflict of interest exists within the FAA. They are charged with ensuring safety and promoting Industry. The airline industry is a profit center.
The conflict would be removed if the agency were to separate the role of Safety from the role of promotion and marketing, and then provide an oversight committee and checks and balance system to ensure that both interests are adequately addressed.
The system is structured in such a way which permits flawed projects to reach the implementation stage. This is very dangerous. The project discussed is exemplary.
For instance, no public Risk vs. Gain studies exist for this project. No project cost analysis exists. The environmental impact studies are flawed and inaccurate. No emergency DR processes have been executed. Communities were not involved. No fuel jettison on land studies were provided. Studies conducted by other regional centers of the FAA have not been incorporated into consideration. Yet, the plan has implemented.
We can not blame the project managers or the engineers or the marketing department who has been circulating incorrect information about the project to the press.
The FAA's mission is needs to be redefined as promoting safety, ahead of efficency. The project needs to halt implementation and the studies must be conducted in order for the FAA to protect the safety of those in the air and on land.
PROJECT DESIGN
During the FAA's beginning design phase many studies were conducted giving guidance on design, development and execution of the specific projects within the redesign initiative.
With research, airport operational changes, the total requested budget for fiscal year 2007 to redesign the airspace is 3 Billion 142 million US tax payer dollars.
ADVISORS TO FAA ON DESIGN & PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
National Parks Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG)COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY PATHWAYS ASSESSING THE INTEGRATED PLAN FOR A NEXT GENERATION AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
HUDSON, Chair, Rolls-Royce North America (retired), Indianapolis
COOK, T.C.I., Dallas, Texas 1
CORDLE, Airline forecasts, LLC, Clifton, Virginia
DAVIS, Aviation Consultant, Daytona Beach, Florida
HAYHURST, The Boeing Company (retired), Bellevue, Washington
MARCHI, Airports Council International – North America, Washington, D.C.
PRITCHETT, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
SOLIDAY, United Airlines (retired), Valparaiso, Indiana
TOOKES II, Raytheon International, Inc. (retired), Florida
WAITZ, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
WISLER, GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati, Ohio
It is evident however that the plan being implemented does not take the expert advice and guidance outlined in the following reports:
Noise impact: Noise impact should be calculated for the entire study area. The value of quiet, or conversely, the cost of noise, is more difficult to quantify than the added cost of aircraft fuel utilized due to arrival or departure delays. However, full and fair weighting requires dollar impact values as well as descriptive measures of all considerations. A noise impact study should include but not be limited to:
• Population in each DNL contour band
• Total impacted population (DNL45 or greater)
• Total real estate value in each DNL contour band
• Value change in each DNL contour band Physiological and psychological effects of aircraft noise: The airspace redesign project should include information and analysis on speech interference, sleep interference, and other quality of life effects caused by aircraft noise Stakeholder equity: An impartial study demands an assessment of the equity of all stakeholders. The airlines and PANYNJ have an enormous investment in air travel to and from Newark. This investment, along with operating costs, must be reflected in airline ticket prices and facilities charges. The general public has a major stake in air travel, particularly through indirect subsidies and reliance on air travel for business and private necessities.
Residents in neighborhoods bordering the airport have their life savings invested in their homes that are impacted by airport operations. State agencies, such as New Jersey Transit, the New Jersey Turnpike and the New Jersey Department of Transportation, have billions of dollars invested in the intermodal transportation network of which Newark International Airport is a key element. The interests of all stakeholders must be represented at the table as the FAA launches the redesign of the New Jersey and New York airspace.
Project Flaws
Pros
>Increases air and noise pollution to over 29 million residents and thousands of Parks.
>Substantial increase in collision risk not addressed.
>Planes will flying at lower altitudes and closer together
>Air Traffic Controllers not consulted during key design phases
>No Risk vs. Gain Study
>Numerous modeling anomalies
>Areas newly impacted during "Mitigated Solutions" have received no study or review
>No Cost Analysis
>NEPA and other environmental laws ignored
>Substantial costs to airports to implement with no guidance
>FAA has re-classified land use without any review, research or study
>May cut 3 minutes delay per flight
>Benefits the Airlines saving them $248 Million
>600,000 who decided to purchase homes knowing they were directly under flight paths may see relief.
PROJECT SCOPE
The entire Airspace of the Untied States is in the process of being redesigned (NAS). The PANYNJ airspace which affects 129 million people is only the first in an effort to redesign the nation's airspace.
The structure of airspace has stayed virtually the same for the last several decades. However, demands on this airspace have significantly increased. The number of aircraft has grown, as has the diversity in the performance and type of aircraft operating (e.g., regional jets). These advances create both the need and the opportunity to revamp the airspace to meet evolving customer service objectives. Increased flexibility is needed to address volume, congestion, and weather in en route airspace. Operational efficiency can be compromised without this flexibility.
Anticipated Operational Change Description The Airspace Management Program (AMP) is the FAA initiative to review, redesign, and restructure the nations airspace. AMP will leverage new technologies, equipage, infrastructure and procedural developments to maximize benefits and system efficiencies. Modernization of airspace through AMP is characterized by the migration from constrained ground-based navigation to the freedom of a Required Navigation Performance (RNP)-based system. Airspace redesign projects include changing routes, sector structures, and airspace management techniques.
FEDERAL AUDIT OF PROGRAM
The Inspector General of the GAO executed an audit of the Redesign Project in 2003 in response to notice of inefficiencies at the FAA brought forth by members of Congress and DOT internally. The public audit details the major flaws Which the FAA agreed were present:
The Inspector General of the GAO is in process of auditing this project. Two GAO studies are underway.
KNOWN RISKS
The airspace redesign employs changes which reduce safety by an unknown measure to increase airspace capacity. Risk analysis studies have been requested by the Inspector General. No Risk vs. Gain studies have been released. Freedom of Information Act Requests have been made for this data by several entities.
Here are the key safety risks requiring further analysis involved with this project. These are increasingly important due to the expected tripling in volume by 2025.
ICAO mandates separation minima based upon wake vortex categories that are, in turn, based upon the Maximum Take Off Mass (MTOM) of the aircraft.
These minima are categorized are as follows:
• Light - MTOM of 7,000 kg or less;
• Medium - MTOM of greater than 7,000 kg, but less than 136,000 kg;
• Heavy - MTOM of 136,000 kg or greater.
There are a number of separation criteria for take-off, landing and en-route phases of flight based upon these categories. Air Traffic Controllers will sequence aircraft making instrument approaches with regard to these minima. Aircraft making a visual approach are advised of the relevant recommended spacing and are expected to maintain their own separation.
Common minima are:
Take-off An aircraft of a lower wake vortex category must not be allowed to take off less than two minutes behind an aircraft of a higher wake vortex category. If the following aircraft does not start its take off roll from the same point as the preceding aircraft, this is increased to three minutes.
Wake turbulence can occasionally, under the right conditions, be heard by ground observers. On a still day, heavy jets flying low and slow on landing approach may produce wake turbulence that is heard as a dull roar/whistle. Often, it is first noticed some seconds after the direct noise of the passing aircraft has diminished. The sound then gets louder, sometimes becoming as loud as was the original direct sound of the aircraft. Nevertheless, being highly directional, wake turbulence sound is easily perceived as originating a considerable distance behind the aircraft, its apparent source moving across the sky just as the aircraft did. It can persist for 30 seconds or more, continually changing timbre, sometimes with swishing and cracking notes, until it finally dies away.
NASA Won't Disclose Air Safety Survey Oct. 22 2007
By RITA BEAMISH
Associated Press Writer
MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. (AP) - Anxious to avoid upsetting air travelers, NASA is withholding results from an unprecedented national survey of pilots that found safety problems like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than the government previously recognized.
NASA gathered the information under an $8.5 million safety project, through telephone interviews with roughly 24,000 commercial and general aviation pilots over nearly four years. Since ending the interviews at the beginning of 2005 and shutting down the project completely more than one year ago, the space agency has refused to divulge the results publicly.
Just last week, NASA ordered the contractor that conducted the survey to purge all related data from its computers.
The Associated Press learned about the NASA results from one person familiar with the survey who spoke on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss them.
A senior NASA official, associate administrator Thomas S. Luedtke, said revealing the findings could damage the public's confidence in airlines and affect airline profits. Luedtke acknowledged that the survey results "present a comprehensive picture of certain aspects of the U.S. commercial aviation industry."
The AP sought to obtain the survey data over 14 months under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
"Release of the requested data, which are sensitive and safety-related, could materially affect the public confidence in, and the commercial welfare of, the air carriers and general aviation companies whose pilots participated in the survey," Luedtke wrote in a final denial letter to the AP. NASA also cited pilot confidentiality as a reason, although no airlines were identified in the survey, nor were the identities of pilots, all of whom were promised anonymity.
Among other results, the pilots reported at least twice as many bird strikes, near mid-air collisions and runway incursions as other government monitoring systems show, according to a person familiar with the results who was not authorized to discuss them publicly.
The survey also revealed higher-than-expected numbers of pilots who experienced "in-close approach changes" _ potentially dangerous, last-minute instructions to alter landing plans.
Officials at the NASA Ames Research Center in California have said they want to publish their own report on the project by year's end.
"If the airlines aren't safe I want to know about it," said Rep. Brad Miller, R-N.C., chairman of the House Science and Technology investigations and oversight subcommittee. "I would rather not feel a false sense of security because they don't tell us."
Discussing NASA's decision not to release the survey data, the congressman said: "There is a faint odor about it all."
Miller asked NASA last week to provide his oversight committee with information on the survey and the decision to withhold data.
Air Traffic Controller Staffing at Crisis After Years of Bush’s FAA
by Mike Hall, May 21, 2007
During the past year, we've chronicled — with the help of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA)—the serious problems faced by the men and women who every day safely guide tens of thousands of planes and millions of passenger through the nation's skies.
A staffing crisis—there are 1,100 fewer controllers than three years ago—that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ignored for years is leaving control towers short staffed. The FAA's unilateral imposition of new work rules and pay cuts for new hires is driving both senior and new employees out of the towers, says NATCA.
FAA shift scheduling practices that are decreasing time between shifts are causing not only controller fatigue and morale problems but also are leaving some towers understaffed and forcing others to close for periods of time. All of these problems combine to pose a serious threat to air safety, according to NATCA.
FREE FLIGHT & FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
According to NASA:
Goal: To safely enable major increases in the capacity and productivity of the National Airspace System (NAS), in all weather conditions, through the development of revolutionary operations systems and vehicle concepts.
NASA research will provide:
* Safe, clear-weather airport capacity in instrument-weather conditions
* Hardware and software decision support tools to enable the "free flight" concept in the NAS
* Critical technologies to enable scheduled civil tiltrotor service, to add capacity and reduce delays
FAA research will provide:
* Surveillance, navigation and landing applications of Global Positioning System technology
* Enhanced aviation weather forecasting capabilities-knowing accurately when and where aviation weather hazards will occur
* Insight into the future roles of pilots and controllers as the NAS evolves towards free flight
* Redesign of the nation's airspace and airport approaches/departures to fully utilize the advances of technology
* Automation tools to support collaborative decision making between air carriers and the FAA and to allow more flexible flight planning
* Exploration of new wake vortex detection and tracking technology
sidebar menu
Efficiency (Capacity)
Introduction
The current air transportation system in the United States is experiencing significant delays, decreased efficiency, and increased costs. This is especially true during adverse weather conditions. Over the next 20 years, the demand for air travel is expected to double, making these problems much more severe unless new capabilities are developed and made operational. To assure that these problems do not become reality, major new improvements to the air transportation system are required. NASA and the FAA are collaborating in these efforts to ensure the efficiency, safety, and cost-effectiveness of the future National Airspace System.
Airplane taxing down runway
Airplane lined up on the taxiway awaiting take-off.
Goal: To safely enable major increases in the capacity and productivity of the National Airspace System (NAS), in all weather conditions, through the development of revolutionary operations systems and vehicle concepts.
NASA research will provide:
* Safe, clear-weather airport capacity in instrument-weather conditions
* Hardware and software decision support tools to enable the "free flight" concept in the NAS
* Critical technologies to enable scheduled civil tiltrotor service, to add capacity and reduce delays
FAA research will provide:
* Surveillance, navigation and landing applications of Global Positioning System technology
* Enhanced aviation weather forecasting capabilities-knowing accurately when and where aviation weather hazards will occur
* Insight into the future roles of pilots and controllers as the NAS evolves towards free flight
* Redesign of the nation's airspace and airport approaches/departures to fully utilize the advances of technology
* Automation tools to support collaborative decision making between air carriers and the FAA and to allow more flexible flight planning
* Exploration of new wake vortex detection and tracking technology
FAA POC:
Steven J. Brown
202-267-7111
NASA POC:
Dr. J. Victor Lebacqz
650-604-5792
vlebacqz@mail.arc.nasa.gov
Web Site:
www.asc.nasa.gov
Free Flight Phase I
The FAA's Free Flight Phase I (FFP1) program will introduce modernization into the national airspace incrementally-taking a building block approach to fielding new system to provide benefits to users as soon as possible. The goal of FFP1 is to move toward free flight operations by deploying systems based on current R&D prototypes that provide core free flight capabilities. The result will be near-term realization of air traffic management capabilities that have early benefits for service provides and National Airspace System users. FFP1 products will be operational at selected facilities by the close of 2002.
NASA has conducted the enabling research for 3 of the 5 tools under the FAA's Free Flight Phase 1 program.
Traffic Management Advisor-Single Center
Traffic Management Advisor-Single Center (TMA-SC) is based on the research and prototypes of NASA. As deployed under FFP1, TMA-SC provides enroute air traffic controllers and traffic management specialists with computer automation and graphical tools to coordinate arrival traffic. The TMA-SC reduces airspace system delays by enhancing arrival throughput and efficiency of air traffic operations in the extended terminal airspace surrounding major airports-without decreasing safety or increasing controller workload. Efficiency and throughput increases translate into fuel savings to airlines and reduced passenger delays to the public.
Prototypes of TMA have been deployed at five airports, and will be deployed to eight ARTCCs. Remote TMA displays (with no processing or TMA interactive capability) will be deployed to TRACONs and adapted airport towers associated with each TMA site.
American Airlines has expressed great interest in completing the deployment of TMA-SC.
FAA POC:
John Rekstad
202-233-2107
john.rekstad@faa.gov
NASA POC:
Dr. Heinz Erzberger
650-604-5425
herzberger@mail.arc.nasa.gov
Web Site:
www.ctas.arc.nasa.gov
Surface Movement Advisor
Surface Movement Advisor Free Flight Phase 1 (SMA FFP1) facilitates the sharing of aircraft arrival information with airlines to augment decision-making regarding the surface movement of aircraft.
* Although the SMA concept is based on the NASA research, the SMA FFP1 implementation is significantly different from the NASA prototype currently in use at Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport.
* Automated radar terminal system data is available to airlines so they will have predicted knowledge of aircraft arrival information that can be used to compute an aircraft's estimated touchdown time.
* SMA FFP1 information has been available at Philadelphia International and Detroit Metropolitan Airports since mid-December 1998.
* Future SMA FFP1 sites are: Chicago O'Hare, Dallas-Fort Worth, Newark, and Teterboro Airports.
* SMA FFP1 is expected to enhance airline gate and ramp operations that could lead to prevention of gridlock and reduction of taxi delays.
* Northwest Airlines is using one of FAA's proof of concept displays in their system operations center and reap tremendous benefit from it. NWA believes they can save between three and four aircraft diversions per week at Detroit Metropolitan Airport.
FAA POC:
202- 233-2106
ken.klasinski@faa.gov
NASA POC:
Dr. Heinz Erzberger
650-604-5425
herzberger@mail.arc.nasa.gov
Web Site:
www.ctas.arc.nasa.gov
USER Request Evaluation Tool
The USER Request Evaluation Tool (URET) provides to air traffic controllers automatic conflict detection, trial planning for assistance with conflict resolution or user requests, conformance monitoring of current flight trajectory, and some electronic flight data capability.
Through URET's strategic notification and trial planning capabilities, a controller has more lead time to assess traffic situations and identify appropriate conflict-free resolutions. The additional lead time allows a controller to properly assess and confidently approve more pilot-requested flight plan amendments, knowing they will be conflict-free. URET will be deployed incrementally to seven ARTCCs in order to incorporate functional improvements and user feedback.
FAA POC:
Tom Spellerberg
202-233-2111
tom.spellerberg@faa.gov
Passive Final Approach Spacing Tool
Passive Final Approach Spacing Tool (pFAST) is based on the research and prototypes of NASA. As deployed under Free Flight Phase 1, pFAST will provide decision-support and tactical management tools for TRACON controllers and Traffic Management Coordinators (TMCs). pFAST allows more efficient use of both arrival and departure runways during periods of peak load. It enhances the controllers' situation awareness, especially during heavy-demand periods. A NASA pFAST prototype is in use at the Dallas-Fort Worth TRACON. This will be replaced with the FAA's implementation of pFAST at Dallas-Fort Worth and several more TRACONs during FFP1. Remote pFAST displays (with no processing or pFAST interactive capability) will be deployed to adapted airport towers associated with each pFAST site.
American Airlines has expressed great interest in completing the deployment of pFAST. The improved efficiencies translate to fuel savings and more on-time arrivals.
FAA POC:
John Rekstad
202-233-2107
john.rekstad@faa.gov
NASA POC:
Dr. Heinz Erzberger
650-604-5425
herzberger@mail.arc.nasa.gov
Web Site:
www.ctas.arc.nasa.gov
Collaborative Decision Making
The ability to forecast and share airport and airspace demand is constrained by the unavailability of up-to-date intent information from NAS users. As a result, the FAA and NAS users lack an accurate common situational awareness on which to base flight planning decisions and improve NAS utilization.
The near term objectives for CDM are to:
* Validate estimated reduction in delays resulting from increased information sharing across all airports in the U.S.
* Evaluate and institutionalize new procedures that improve flight routing under severe weather avoidance conditions and congestion
* Continue the expansion of joint FAA/Industry information exchange mechanisms
* Release FAA real time sensor and resource status data to improve efficiency
The FAA's Free Flight Phase 1 Special Program Office is addressing the goals and objectives of CDM by continuing to engage the user community to achieve the consensus capabilities articulated by RTCA. Specifically, FFP1 continues to interact with the operational community to ensure that all capabilities deployed address real operational concerns.
FAA POC:
Steve Alvania
202-233-2142
steve.alvania@faa.gov
Safe Flight 21
The Safe Flight 21 program is a joint government/industry initiative designed to demonstrate and validate, in a real-world environment, the capabilities of advanced communication, navigation, and surveillance, and air traffic procedures associated with free flight. The program will demonstrate the following free flight operational enhancements selected by RTCA, using automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) as an enabling technology:
* Weather and other information in the cockpit.
* Affordable means to reduce controlled flight into terrain (cfit)
* Improved capability for approaches in low visibility conditions
* Enhanced capability to see & avoid adjacent traffic
* Enhanced capability to delegate aircraft separation authority to the pilot
* Improved capability for pilots to navigate airport taxiways
* Enhanced capability for controllers to manage aircraft and vehicular traffic on the airport surface
* Surveillance coverage in nonradar airspace
* Improved separation standards
The Safe Flight 21 program will also take safety, efficiency, capacity, certification, pilot/controller situation awareness, human factors, spectrum, and affordability issues into account over the course of demonstrating these nine operational enhancements.
The potential market for ADS-B implementation is huge. If ADS-B, FIS-B, and TIS-B are included in the NAS Architecture, over 10,000 aircraft and thousands of ground stations may need to be equipped. The international marketplace is just as large. Success of the Safe Flight 21 demonstrations are critical to opening these markets up.
As an enabling technology, ADS-B will provide the means for airborne aircraft to broadcast their position to other aircraft and to ground stations. ADS-B avionics will periodically transmit aircraft location, altitude, velocity and other data derived from either GPS or flight instruments via a digital link. On-board aircraft, ADS-B information will be displayed on a multifunction display, such as a Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI). The intent of broadcasting this information is to increase the pilots' situational awareness of ADS-B equipped aircraft. ADS-B can also be used to provide air traffic controllers a consolidated picture of the controlled airspace. The information provided to controllers will be more frequently updated than that provided by other surveillance equipment. In addition, ADS-B can be used as the enabling technology for Flight Information ServicesÜBroadcast (FIS-B) and Traffic Information ServicesÜBroadcast (TIS-B), which will allow weather and other data available on the ground to be provided to the cockpit. As a result, ADS-B capabilities have the potential to significantly increase flight safety, system capacity, and overall efficiency of flight operations.
The Safe Flight 21 program is based on the principle that government and industry will share in the development of a global air transportation system, as we move into the free flight era.
* The FAA is collaborating with industry via RTCA to ensure that the scope, resources, schedule, and execution of the Safe Flight 21 program reflects government/industry consensus. The vehicle for this collaboration is the RTCA Safe Flight 21 Steering Committee, which includes representatives from the Aircraft Operators and Pilots Association (AOPA), Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), National Air Traffic Control Association (NATCA), Cargo Airline Association (CAA), U.S. Airways, United Airlines, Delta Airlines, and the FAA.
* The FAA and the CAA are entering into a partnership to pool their resources, in a collaborative effort to conduct an operational evaluation of ADS-B capabilities in the Ohio Valley. The CAA began equipping its aircraft in late 1998 as a prelude to in-flight evaluations, focusing on the air-air use of the equipment for see and avoid applications. A subsequent operational evaluation, currently scheduled for Summer 1999, will employ both avionics and ground stations to demonstrate expected operational enhancements to be provided by ADS-B, including the broadcast of TIS and FIS information, and at the same time gather critical data on the three candidate ADS-B links (Mode Select (Mode S) Extended Squitter, and Universal Access Transceiver (UAT), VHF Data Link (VDL) Mode 4) and operational procedures.
* The FAA is working with air carriers in the Bethel, Alaska region, through the "Capstone" initiative, to improve aviation safety while offering greater efficiencies to operators. "Capstone" will concentrate on the evaluation and implementation of three operational enhancements in the region: Weather and Other Information in the Cockpit, Affordable Means to Reduce CFIT, and Enhanced Capability to See and Avoid Adjacent Traffic. An initial operational evaluation is scheduled for Summer 1999, with limited equipage and subsequent operational evaluations following in 2000.
* The FAA is working with United Airlines to evaluate Paired Approach and Runway Incursion Protection ADS-B applications at San Francisco. Simulation studies have been performed, and an operations concept is being developed; Further operational evaluations of these applications are currently in the planning stages.
* The FAA has started soliciting inputs from major potential avionics providers on how to make ADS-B equipment affordable enough to promote wide-spread voluntary equipage.
FAA POC:
Richard Lay
202-267-7768
Richard.Lay@faa.gov
Global Positioning System
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)
Wide Area Augmentation System
The WAAS is a geographically broad augmentation to the basic GPS service designed to improve the accuracy, integrity, and availability of the basic GPS service. Initial benefits will be provided by Phase I WAAS.
When Phase I is operational, WAAS will provide pilots with an en route through precision approach capability. Enroute through non-precision approaches will be available throughout entire service area with an availability of 99.9 percent. Precision approach coverage will be provided in central regions of the continental United States (CONUS) serving approximately 50 percent of CONUS airports. Availability for precision approach is designed to be 95 percent.
Although WAAS offers the potential to replace Very-High-Frequency Omni-Directional Radar (VOR), Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), and Non-Directional Beacons (NDB) in the U.S., further enhancements are needed to the Phase I WAAS before this is possible.
The commissioning of Phase I WAAS for public use will take place in the Fall of 2000; however, in mid-1999 a signal capable of supporting non-safety applications, such as an aid to Visual Flight Rule (VFR) flight, will be available.
Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS)
Wide Area Augmentation System
The other augmentation to the basic GPS service is the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS). Similar to the WAAS concept, which incorporates the use of geostationary communication satellites to broadcast a correction message, the LAAS will broadcast its correction message via very high frequency (VHF) radio datalink from a ground-based transmitter.
The LAAS will meet the more stringent Category II/III requirements that exist at selected locations throughout the U.S. LAAS is intended to complement the WAAS and function together to supply users of the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS) with seamless satellite-based navigation for all phases of flight. In practical terms, this means that at locations where the WAAS is unable to meet existing navigation and landing requirements (such as availability), the LAAS will be used to fulfill those requirements. In addition, beyond Category III, the LAAS will provide the user with a navigation signal that can be used as an all weather surface navigation capability. This will enable the potential use of LAAS as a component of a surface navigation system and an input to surface surveillance/traffic management systems. It is fully expected that the end-state configuration will pinpoint the aircraft's position to within one meter or less, and do so at a significant improvement in service flexibility and user operating costs.
Additionally, both the WAAS and LAAS have the backing of aviation's main user groups-the Air Transport Association (ATA) representing air carriers, and the Aircraft Owner's and Pilot's Association (AOPA) representing general aviation. These groups confirmed their support in an April 1998 press release which stated-"the joint recommendations ask the Federal Aviation Administration to proceed with both wide-area and local-area augmentation systems for Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite navigation." Encouraged by these recommendations and the benefits that can be provided by WAAS and LAAS, the FAA remains strongly committed to these programs.
FAA POC:
Carl McCullough
202-493-4722
NASA: Beyond Free Flight Phase 1 Tools
NASA is developing, with the help of FAA, new tools for even greater efficiency gains for the future National Aviation System:
Free Flight Diagram
Tools for Free Flight Phase I and Beyond
* Active Final Approach Spacing Tool (aFAST): Active FAST is a decision support tool designed to achieve more accurate aircraft separation on final approach. As a follow-on to the previously developed and implemented Passive FAST, aFAST will provide active advisories, namely heading and speed. In addition, aFAST will generate sequencing and scheduling information. Expect 10% additional capacity improvement from pFAST.
* Collaborative Arrival Planning (CAP): CAP is focused on improving air carrier hub operations. Today, arriving aircraft are handled on a first-come, first-serve basis, without regard to air carrier business concerns. Inevitably, air carrier arrival timing miscues, caused by aircraft maintenance, airport congestion, or severe weather, lead to air carrier inefficiencies, such as missed flight connections, inefficient hub operations, and aircraft diversions. Providing air carriers with improved predictive information on their arriving flights and the ability to alter arrival times to prevent timing miscues, are the principal objectives of CAP. The potential annual savings-$75M.
o Enroute/Descent Advisor (E/DA): Enables conflict-free "direct-to" routing and fuel-efficient descent profiles for enroute and transition aircraft.
o Expedite Departure Path (EDP): Provides speed, heading, and climb advisories providing unrestricted climb profiles, reduced near-airport fuel emissions, and increased airport capacity.
o Surface Movement System (SMS): Builds from SMA to achieve additional reductions in surface delays and optimize surface movement, and enhance airport situational awareness of aircraft movements.
NASA POC:
Dr. Heinz Erzberger
650-604-5425
FAA: Beyond Free Flight Phase 1
While FFP1 lays the foundation for addressing many of the efficiency problems of the National Airspace System (NAS), it does not address all of the user needs that will exist in the future. Many of these needs will be generated by the growth of air traffic in the U.S. and worldwide. According to the FAA, air traffic in the U.S. will grow steadily over the next decade. Activity at towered airports in the U.S. in 1998 exceeded 65 million operations. By 2010, the FAA estimates, this number will exceed 81 million.
NASA is working hand-in-hand with FAA and its Federally Funded Research and Development Center (MITRE's Center for Advanced Aviation System Development) to address future air traffic Management (ATM) needs of the NAS. Air traffic management research and development continues to be a critical element of full modernization of the NAS as we move beyond FFP1. In both the near- and the long-term, the FAA is working to expand FFP1 capabilities geographically and to increase functionality. Building on the frame-work of FFP1, the FAA also seeks to increase the level of integration among various FFP1 components to achieve greater efficiencies, redesign the airspace, and add further procedural enhancements. Among current research and development efforts underway are:
FAA Air Traffic Control Facility
FAA Air Traffic Control Facility.
* Flight Management System/Area Navigation Routing (FMS/RNAV)-will provide shorter paths to the runway to minimize flight time variations caused by vectoring and airport delays. This program utilizes advanced equipment in aircraft cockpits. (The figure below illustrates the route definition tool under development.)
* Flow Management Restriction Reduction: Designed to reduce the level of restrictions in place in the NAS at any time. Analyses are being performed to determine which restrictions can be safely eliminated.
* Enhanced En Route Conflict Resolution Capabilities: To assist controllers in constructing flight plans more quickly, especially in situations of heavy workload or complex traffic patterns. Work is underway to develop and evaluate this logic, building on existing URET capability.
* Collaborative Decision Making (CDM): Continued research to better provide common information that enables traffic flow managers and airspace users to make more informed decisions. Multiple activities are underway to develop tools that will be needed beyond FFP1.
* Operational Concept Development: Provides a structural set of relational responsibilities and actions for controllers, traffic flow managers, pilots, and users' operations centers to achieve a desired operational enhancement. The concept is used to define required procedures, information flows, communication bandwidths, and decision support systems required for the successful evolution of the NAS.
* Traffic Flow Management Impact Assessment: Will assist traffic flow managers and airspace users in understanding the potential results of proposed TFM actions on a NAS-wide basis. A fast-time simulation capability is under evaluation to identify requirements and to develop a prototype capability.
* Collaborative Routing Coordination Tools (CRCT): Provides information for traffic flow managers and airspace users to recognize, analyze, and resolve traffic flow problem situations. (The graphic below illustrates a small segment of CRCT capabilities.)
FAA POC:
Diane E. Boone
703-883-5861
dboone@mitre.org
FAA's Aviation Weather Research Program
The FAA's Aviation Weather Research (AWR) program focuses on mitigating the effects of winter weather, turbulence, inflight icing, ceiling and visibility, and convective weather on aviation. The AWR program provides more accurate and accessible weather observations, warnings, and forecasts. It is structured through a team approach to performing the research work. There are currently eight meteorological product development teams (PDTs), each targeted toward solving specific prioritized operational weather problems. Products are implemented on systems within the National Airspace System and on operational platforms of the National Weather Service (NWS).
FAA POC:
Dave Sankey
202-366-8985
dave.sankey@faa.gov
Web Site:
http://www.faa.gov/aua/awr
Winter Weather Research
Aircraft and runways require de-icing during winter weather conditions for safe operations. De-icing operations typically reduce the airport capacity by a factor of two, resulting in delays. Lack of accurate, real-time and forecast winter weather information results in unnecessary delays. Snowfall rate during previous de-icing accidents was found to be highly correlated with the liquid equivalent rate, rather than snow intensity based on visibility. Holdover times of de/anti-icing fluids (critical safety consideration) also correlate with liquid equivalent rate.
The solution to these problems is WSDDM, a winter weather forecasting system that provides real-time and 30 minute forecasts of winter weather information, to include: liquid equivalent snowfall rates every minute and the vector location of snowbands every 30 minutes. WSDDM allows better planning for intense periods of de-icing , more effective use of de-icing fluids, improved decision making on holdover times, and greater shared situational awareness. These benefits as well as increased safety and capacity have been demonstrated at New York's LaGuardia, Denver International, and Chicago's O'Hare airports, and is presently operational at LaGuardia.
WSDDM technology has recently been transferred to a commercial vendor that will make the system available to airlines and airports. Future research that will be incorporated into WSDDM includes improved detection and real-time reporting of precipitation rate and type; 1- to 12-hour forecasts of snow and other precipitation; detection and real-time reporting of in-flight icing and ceiling and visibility in the terminal area.
FAA POC:
Dave Sankey
202-366-8985
dave.sankey@faa.gov
Turbulence
Clear-air turbulence is hazardous to passengers, crew, and aircraft and is the number one cause of injuries in non-fatal plane accidents. Unexpected encounters can cause structural damage to the aircraft. Avoidance of light and moderate turbulence results in a more comfortable ride. Current forecast products give a broad view in time and space. Large regions potentially containing turbulence are warned. Forecasts are made every 6 hours, with updates triggered by pilot reports. Unfortunately, pilot reports are few and sometimes ambiguous.
The program is investigating new methods of detecting turbulence, developing better algorithms and systems for 1- to 9-hour forecasts, and establishing innovative techniques for disseminating weather information.
The AWR program has developed a means of getting quantitative turbulence measurements without the use of pilot reports, using a algorithm integrated in the ACMS software for commercial aircraft. It has been installed on several United Airlines' 737s and 757s, and will be installed on approximately 100 by the end of the physical year. ICAO has approved this in-situ algorithm as an international standard. This will result in aircraft being guided out of the way of clear air turbulence. Another product under development is the Integrated Turbulence Forecast Algorithm, which combines multiple. complex numbers of observations and diagnostic information into a more precise and accurate turbulence forecast product for use by commercial and general aviation.
FAA POC:
Dave Sankey
202-366-8985
dave.sankey@faa.gov
SOCRATES
Turbulence in the airspace system presents one of the greatest dangers and capacity constraints to air transportation. Project SOCRATES addresses technologies necessary for the development of sensors and instruments for the detection, location, and tracking of aircraft-generated wake turbulence, clear-air turbulence, and other related turbulence phenomena. Project SOCRATES applies acousto-optic techniques, previously developed for undersea warfare, to the detection of air turbulence hazards in aviation. Solutions for minimizing these hazards have been difficult to achieve in the past, in part due to the lack of sensors suitable for operational deployment. A solution to the wake turbulence problem will be required in any future airport capacity enhancements. An all-weather wake turbulence sensor capable of locating the vortices generated by landing or departing aircraft is essential.
In 1998, an early SOCRATES system was installed at JFK airport where it demonstrated its ability to detect acoustic signals from aircraft wake vortices. It has since been recommended that the SOCRATES project support the planned closely spaced parallel runways at the San Francisco International airport. The FAA is working closely with NASA and other partners (Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and Lincoln Laboratories) to research and validate the SOCRATES sensor technology.
FAA POC:
Dr. George C. Greene
757-864-1905
g.c.greene@larc.nasa.gov
In-Flight Icing
In-flight icing is a factor in numerous fatal aircraft accidents and causes significant disruption to domestic flight operations. Current products do not adequately control these dangerous and disruptive events. Avoidance of in-flight icing would be possible with improved high-resolution forecasts of aircraft icing conditions.
The solution is the in-flight icing diagnosis algorithm, IIDA, which presents a gridded depiction of current or forecast in-flight icing. The IIDA depictions include icing characteristics, such as severity and type and the probability of icing in a specified region and is currently available on the aviation digital data service at the Aviation Weather Center. Recently, IIDA was demonstrated/evaluated successfully for the regional airlines, Air Wisconsin and Atlantic Coast Airlines. Other recent successes in the in-flight icing program include:
* A collaborative research effort with NASA Glenn Research Center on supercooled large droplet research produced improved diagnosis and forecasting and documented the severe aircraft performance degradation in freezing rain. The results will be used to develop specifications for de-icing and anti-icing equipment.
* Remote icing sensing methods developed in the FAA-supported Winter Icing and Storms project will be evaluated at Mt. Washington Observatory (NH) this spring.
Benefits to the Aviation Community:
* More accurate and timely information for flight planning and icing avoidance
* Detailed routing by flight dispatchers is possible using higher-resolution IIDA output
* Remote sensor research to lead to ground-based terminal area or airborne ice detection systems
FAA POC:
Dave Sankey
202-366-8985
dave.sankey@faa.gov
Ceiling and Visibility
Marine stratus, trapped cool, humid air from sea breezes, in the San Francisco Bay area cause frequent low ceilings at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). During these events, the airport cannot use independent parallel approaches and imposes delay programs to regulate the arrivals. The SFO has the highest number of imposed delay programs in the United States. Marine stratus is also a problem at other major coastal airports.
Operational analysis shows that most of the unnecessary delay and a significant portion of the holding could be eliminated if the Traffic Management Unit has accurate 1-hour forecasts of the onset and burnoff of the Marine Stratus. The approach taken is to improve the forecasting capability of the Center Weather Service Unit by providing additional weather information that is critical for better forecasts and an automated forecast guidance system.
Studies indicate that up to one-quarter of the summer delay at SFO would be eliminated by an accurate 1-hour forecast of the time of burnoff. A successful product could annually save $7M of air carrier costs at SFO. In addition, techniques developed will provide the foundation for ceiling and visibility products for several other high-impact coastal airports.
FAA POC:
Dave Sankey
202-366-8985
dave.sankey@faa.gov
Aviation Digital Data Service
Accurate, timely and user-friendly forecasts of icing, turbulence, thunderstorms, and clouds are required to support flight operations. The Aviation Digital Data Service (ADDS) enables aviation decision-makers to easily and inexpensively acquire graphics, text, and grids of the latest weather observations and forecasts of icing, turbulence, and thunderstorms.
The first version of ADDS is being operated and maintained by the National Weather Service's Aviation Weather Center located in Kansas City, Kansas. This version enables users to access both standard and experimental aviation weather information. Among the experimental information are forecasts of clouds and turbulence. The next version of ADDS will generate graphics of forecasts of icing, turbulence, clouds and thunderstorms for specific flight routes requested by users.
ADDS is a very cost-effective method of enabling aviation decision-makers and automation systems to acquire up-to-the-minute weather observations and state-of the-art forecasts based on techniques developed by the FAA AWR Program and operated by the NWS. The digital format of ADDS facilitates interaction among computers, a key requirement to support free flight. To get timely, accurate, user-friendly aviation weather information via the internet, go to http://adds.awc-kc.noaa.gov/
FAA POC:
Dave Sankey
202-366-8985
dave.sankey@faa.gov
Convective Weather
Convective weather is the primary cause of national airspace delay and is the cause of half of the serious turbulence injuries. Existing operational forecast products are limited, only providing 10- and 20-min extrapolated positions of storms with no accounting for storm evolution and only hourly updates of the manually created Convective Segments.
If users had accurate, automated 1- to 2-hour forecasts of storms, they could use the airspace more efficiently and thus reduce delays. Longer-term (2 to 6 hr) national forecasts are needed for flight planning and traffic flow management.
The solution is to take advantage of FAA-funded research conducted on thunderstorm evolution to provide fully automated storm predictions 1- to 2-hours in advance. The FAA is demonstrating two automated forecast products tailored to user needs, and plans to continue to improve them based on user feedback. The Terminal Convective Weather Demonstration at Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport, begun in March 1998, provides the first automated 1-hour forecast operation. For information contact: webmaster@wx.ll.mit.edu for user-id and password.
June 1998, the FAA began a National Convective Weather Demonstration, which provides enroute advisories of convective weather to airline dispatchers via a webpage interface at: http://www.rap.ucar.edu/projects/awc/awc.html.
FAA POC:
Dave Sankey
202-366-8985
dave.sankey@faa.gov
NASA Aviation Weather Technology Improvements
Atlanta Demonstration Technologies
Atlanta Demonstration Technologies.
NASA's Low Visibility Landing and Surface Operations (LVLASO) program is developing technology to improve the safety and efficiency of aircraft movements on the surface during landing, roll-out, turnoff, and taxi operations.
A flight demonstration of a prototype LVLASO system was conducted in August 1997 at the Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport in cooperation with the FAA. Both airborne and ground-based components were integrated to provide the flight crew and controllers with additional information to enable safe, expedient surface operations. This demonstration validated the concept and enabled assessment of technology performance in an operational environment.
Technologies demonstrated included:
Airborne
* Moving map display
* Head-Up Display
* Data links Global Positioning System
Ground-based
* Surface surveillance systems
* Airport traffic identification
* Data links
* Air Traffic Control (ATC) interface
Benefits
* Supplemental guidance cues and increased situational awareness
* Runway incursion avoidance
* Low visibility surface navigation
* Reduced runway occupancy time and improved braking efficiency
* Reduced controller/pilot misunderstandings (visual display of ATC instructions)
* Improved situational awareness in low visibility
* Reduced controller/pilot misunderstandings (parallel electronic instruction transmissions)
NASA POC:
Steve Young
757-864-1709
s.d.young@larc.nasa.gov
Web Site:
http://tnasa.larc.nasa.gov/lvlaso
Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing
Now, instrument meteorological conditions routinely reduce the capacity of closely spaced parallel runways less than 4,300 feet apart. These capacity losses result in landing delays and inconveniences to the traveling public, interruptions in commerce, and increased operating costs to the airlines.
The Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing (AILS) concept uses flight-deck-centered technology to enable approaches in instrument meteorological conditions to runways spaced as close as 2,500 feet. There are two aspects to the concept: (1) provide accurate flight path management and (2) provide monitoring, alerts, and procedures in the event of an intrusion.
A joint NASA/Honeywell flight test is planned at the NASA Wallops Flight Facility in August 1999. A demonstration at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport will follow in September 1999.
NASA POC:
Wayne Bryant
757-864-1690
Aircraft Vortex Spacing System
AVOSS Facilities
AVOSS Facilities at the DFW International Airport.
NASA's Aircraft Vortex Spacing System (AVOSS) provides weather-dependent wake vortex spacing criteria for maximizing airport capacity while maintaining safety. An AVOSS concept demonstration will be performed at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport in 2000, where an initial version of AVOSS is currently installed.
The AVOSS technology has the potential to reduce takeoff delays as well as increase single-runway throughput by 10 percent or more during conditions requiring instrument approaches. AVOSS project results are being explored for application to proposed instrument parallel runway operations at the San Francisco International Airport.
NASA is responsible for the scientific development of AVOSS, research system integration, and concept demonstration. The FAA and industry will establish safety criteria and implementation priorities. The FAA is developing a plan to facilitate AVOSS technology transfer to the operational environment. Partners and supporters include the FAA, Air Transport Association, Boeing, the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, Lincoln Laboratory, Transport Canada, and Volpe National Transportation System Center.
NASA POC:
Dr. J. Victor Lebacqz
650-604-5792
vlebacqz@mail.arc.nasa.gov
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Because of FAA deregulation created in the 1970's to jumpstart a failing airline industry, (Airline Deregulation Act of 1978) specific hardships are involved with receiving scientific environmental impact studies.
Since the 1970's there has been explosive growth in the airline industry. According to the Department of transportation in 2007, up to a tripling of passengers, operations and cargo by 2025 is predicted. And the DOT has provided no impact statement regarding effects of that judge growth in volume. No risk/gain assessments. No intention of imposing any kind of limits.
With Deregulation, Federal Funding for programs to study the effects of Jet Engine Emissions and Sound Pollution was wiped out. Because the Airline Industry is a driving force in American Politics, any efforts to undermine growth, irrespective of possible damages are considered a threat to growth.
Thus, the onus of protecting the environment falls upon the shoulders of independent advisors, environmental organizations, businessmen, resourceful political action committees and unfortunately litigious action on behalf of impacted communities.
Many times Airlines push this right back onto the consumer via Airport Fees. A symbiotic relationship exists between a City, it's Airport, it's surrounding communities and the Unites States as a whole. Until an environmental organization takes a stand against explosive growth in the industry until further study is conducted on the impacts, the environment will be the most impacted.
Environmental Organizations have been dealt numerous legislative setbacks, thus their focus has been shifted away from this issue. In 1996 the NRDC published damning studies on the effects of aircraft emissions on air quality.
Today however, because environmental groups don't have adequate resources to dedicate to this effort, communities need to take care of their own parks and open spaces. The landowner must pressure his local community leaders to ask for route redirections from the airports or sue for restitution for change in use.
Source: USA TODAY
Date: December 19, 2006
Copyright 2006, USA TODAY
By Gary Stoller
Concern grows over pollution from jets _______________________________________________
Aviation and the environment are on a collision course. The number of airline flights worldwide is growing and expected to skyrocket over the coming decades. Aircraft emissions pollute the air and threaten by 2050 to become one of the largest contributors to global warming, British scientists have concluded.
Much remains unknown about climate change and the role aviation plays, though climate scientists express particular concern about jet emissions in the upper atmosphere, where the warming effect from some pollutants is amplified.
Now, aviation is believed to be less a factor in the Earth's warming than power plants or vehicular traffic. But its emissions are considerable. On a New York-to-Denver flight, a commercial jet would generate 840 to 1,660 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger. That's about what an SUV generates in a month.
With the projected explosion in worldwide travel, air pollution from aviation is a growing concern among scientists, and it's drawing increased scrutiny from governments, particularly in Europe.
"It's an issue that has to be addressed," says Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental advocacy group.
David Travis, a climate science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, says aircraft emissions "are currently one of the fastest-growing contributors to global warming."
The European Union is considering strict controls on aircraft emissions, an action strongly opposed by the White House because of its potential effect on U.S. airlines.
Some members of the British Parliament favor limiting the growth rate in the number of air passengers to the rate at which aviation improves its fuel efficiency. Last month, a local government council rejected a plan to increase flights at London's Stansted airport because of concerns about the environment and global warming.
In the USA, a panel of scientists brought together by NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration agreed in August that the effects of aircraft emissions on the climate "may be the most serious long-term environmental issue facing the aviation industry."
The FAA projects that the number of U.S. airline passengers will nearly double from 739 million last year to 1.4 billion in 2025. Air traffic controllers are expected to handle 95 million flights by all types of aircraft in 2025, compared with 63 million last year. Worldwide, a growing middle class with the means to travel is spawning new airlines and big orders for new planes. China plans more than 40 new airports to accommodate the growth.
By 2050, emissions from planes are expected to become one of the largest contributors to global warming, according to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, an independent group of scientists that advises the British government.
Although the USA is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide ? a pollutant that scientists believe is a major contributor to global warming ? the Bush administration refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. That 1997 agreement is limiting emissions from such big polluters as power plants and automobiles in more than 160 countries. President Bush says the agreement would hurt the economy. He also says it's unfair because it exempts China, another major polluter.
Aviation emissions are not part of the Kyoto Protocol. Emissions from planes were considered a minor problem when the agreement was negotiated, but several scientific studies have since shown otherwise, says European Commission spokeswoman Barbara Helfferich.
In the USA, aircraft emission standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency mirror those of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the group that sets worldwide standards. The FAA enforces the EPA's standards.
Environmentalists and many state and local air pollution officials argue that the standards are too weak. The EPA says limits now in place will slow the growth of aircraft emissions, but more stringent standards "will likely be necessary and appropriate in the future," says Margo Oge, director of the agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
Proposed changes
Last month, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey proposed changes in air traffic control procedures and expansion of U.S. airports to accommodate the projected increase in commercial flights, a strategy widely decried by critics.
"The FAA protects its customers: the airports and the industry," says Jack Saporito, executive director of the Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, a Chicago group that opposes plans to expand O'Hare airport. "It does not protect the public, their families' health or our environment, though it pretends to."
In written answers to questions from USA TODAY, the FAA says aircraft emissions "are not expected to be the fastest-growing contributor to global warming."
Don Wuebbles, a University of Illinois professor of atmospheric science who chaired the panel of scientists brought together by NASA and the FAA, says the projected growth in aviation could make aircraft emissions one of the fastest-growing contributors. But he acknowledges many uncertainties, including aviation's role in global warming and the growth of other pollution sources abroad.
What is known, he says, is that it's "much harder" to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from aviation. Jet engines are already energy efficient, and technology to significantly reduce carbon dioxide from them isn't as far along as it is for land-based pollution sources.
Besides carbon dioxide, jet engines emit many pollutants into the atmosphere, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, soot and even water vapor. Carbon dioxide and water vapor are called greenhouse gases, because they trap heat and contribute to global warming.
Though planes contribute to air pollution while on the ground, scientists studying global warming are most concerned about pollutants emitted when a plane is airborne. Jets are the major source of emissions deposited into the upper atmosphere, where some pollutants have a greater warming effect than when they are released in the same amount from the ground, according to a 1999 scientific report sponsored by the United Nations.
Some pollutants emitted from engines during flight warm the Earth by adding to the heat-trapping gases, both natural and man-made, already in the atmosphere. Also, jet contrails ? the vapor trails they leave in the sky ? add to cloud cover and may contribute to the warming of the planet. A contrail forms when water vapor from the engine cools and mixes with air and the humidity becomes high enough for condensation.
NASA scientist Patrick Minnis has studied contrails and believes they may have a prominent role in global warming. A 2002 report by the British scientific commission agrees, concluding that "aviation-induced cirrus clouds will be a significant contributor to warming." But Minnis says another NASA study concludes that the contrails have little effect
on global warming. Further research is being done.
Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas that can remain in the atmosphere about 100 years. Scientists say planes' engines emit up to 3% of all carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming, but the figure appears to be on the rise.
'Significant uncertainties'
University of Washington scientist Richard Gammon says carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft are rising more rapidly than those from any other source.
Nitrogen oxides emitted from aircraft engines react with other gases in the air to form another heat-trapping gas, ozone. Their effect on global warming is unclear because nitrogen oxides have another effect that may be beneficial: They remove methane, which can cool the air.
Except for carbon dioxide's contribution to global warming, "There remain significant uncertainties on almost all aspects of aircraft environmental effects on climate," according to the report this year by Wuebbles and other scientists.
Though uncertainties about global warming abound, there's no doubt that jet engines must have stricter emission standards, says the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents pollution control officials in 49 states and 165 metropolitan areas. The group is suing the EPA.
The EPA has failed "to put stringent controls on aircraft emissions," says William Becker, the group's executive director. In its court filing, the EPA says it meets international law by adopting standards that "are at least as stringent" as ICAO's.
Unlike European governments, the FAA doesn't see an immediate threat. "Compared to other sources of emissions, aviation represents a relatively small source" of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, the FAA said in response to USA TODAY questions. "Cars and trucks generate seven times the amount of emissions that aviation produces."
American Airlines (AMR), the world's No. 1 carrier, would not comment, referring all questions about its planes' emissions to the Air Transport Association, the main trade group representing U.S. carriers. The ATA says U.S. airlines reduced greenhouse gas emissions by improving fuel efficiency 23% since 2000 and 70% in the past 30 years.
"Our record demonstrates that we are committed to managing our growth responsibly," says John Meenan, executive vice president.
But those gains don't offset the effect of more travel, scientists say.
More-efficient engines and fuel savings from improved flow of air traffic "will not fully offset the effects of the increased emissions resulting from the projected growth of aviation," the 1999 scientific report by the U.N. concluded.
Jet manufacturer Boeing (BA) says it's working with engine manufacturers to develop more environmentally friendly engines. Technological advances, says Bill Glover, Boeing's director of environmental performance, could reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other pollutants emitted from jet engines.
Whether climate concerns will require limits on the growth in aviation is not for his company to decide, he says. "There's great economic value in aviation," says Glover. "Society has to decide where to cut emissions and how to retain the lifestyle we enjoy."
Nobody sees easy solutions for reducing aircraft emissions. Wuebbles, the Illinois professor, says more money for research is part of the answer.
Piers Forster, a professor at the University of Leeds in England, suggests putting additional taxes on jet fuel, using alternative fuels and redesigning aircraft. Britain's Royal Commission
on Environmental Pollution says high-speed rail could replace short-haul flights.
Boeing is studying new fuel-cell technology that can power an aircraft and reduce emissions by combining hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity. Such technology may be 10 years away, says Glover. Until then, "Our role is to keep building the most efficient, best airplanes on the planet."
Other possible solutions
Some other areas where solutions may lie:
?Jet engines. The most modern engines on new jets have reduced carbon dioxide emissions, but they've increased nitrogen oxide emissions. A 2003 report by the Government Accountability Office estimates that some new engines emit at least 40% more nitrogen oxides than older engines they're replacing. NASA is developing technology that would permit
Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 jets, in 2018, to burn 25% less fuel and reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 80%.
?Airports. Environmentalists and some European lawmakers and government agencies say airports should not be allowed to expand to accommodate more flights. The FAA disagrees. "Providing sufficient airfield capacity increases the efficiency of operations and tends to reduce, rather than increase, emissions," the FAA said.
U.S. airports are not going to lose business and halt runway or terminal expansion plans because planes are emitting pollutants, says Dick Marchi, senior vice president of Airport Council International-North America. Instead, the federal government "needs to adopt more aggressive standards on emissions," he says.
Virgin Atlantic Chairman Richard Branson, an activist for moving aggressively against global warming, favors constructing jet parking bays closer to runways and using tugs to tow them.
University of North Carolina professor John Kasarda, who consulted in the design of airports in Detroit, Bangkok, Brazil and the Philippines, says a new approach to airport design could reduce emissions.
He said he sees merit in an untried design by Illinois inventor Jim Starry, who conceived the design while flying back to the USA from England in the early 1980s.
Starry envisions parallel runways ? on an upward slant for landing and a downward slant for takeoff ? leading jets directly onto, or off, the roof of a circular passenger terminal and parking garage. The design, which was first proposed by Starry to the FAA in the mid-1980s, reduces a jet's taxi time, cutting emissions and saving fuel.
"I see brilliance in the ideas," says Kasarda, who plans to work with Starry to refine his design and make it commercially viable.
?Individual action. Some European environmentalists are pushing programs that enable passengers to pay a fee to mitigate their share of the damage from the carbon dioxide emitted during each flight. A Welsh company, Treeflights.com, uses the money to plant trees, which remove carbon dioxide from the air. British Airways has an "emissions calculator" on its website that determines how much carbon dioxide is emitted and how much each passenger can pay to another company, Climate Care, to offset it.
But Forster, the professor from Leeds, says there is one foolproof way to reduce aircraft emissions.
"The best answer, of course, is to fly around less," he says.
Reference material applicable to Air Traffic environmental actions:
The following source material is provided for creating a broad and complete base for approaching the various environmental policies and procedures considered for Air Traffic actions:
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 The basic operating charter of the FAA is to provide for the regulation and promotion of civil aviation in such manner as to best foster its development and safety, and to provide for the safe and efficient use of the airspace by both civil and military aircraft, and for other purposes.
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 This was enacted to provide assistance to airport operators to prepare and carry out noise compatibility programs, to provide assistance to assure continued safety in aviation, and for other purposes.
Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 Provides for the phased elimination of Stage 2 aircraft in the contiguous United States after December 31 1999. It also establishes criteria for noise and access restrictions at U.S. airports.
FAA Aviation Noise Abatement Policy Provides a synopsis of the national noise abatement policy and summarizes the key responsibilities of each participant and highlights the federal action program. Provides the analysis of the noise and financing problems that led to the formulation of this policy, the legal foundation upon which the policy rests, and the specific explanation of how certain timing, noise levels, and policy conclusions were reached.
FAA Order 1050.1,Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts Establishes FAA policies and procedures for the preparation of CAT-EX, EA, EIS, FONSI, and ROD for FAA actions. Implements the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
FAA Order WP 1050.2, Western Region Environmental Program Provides instructions and procedures for implementing the regional environmental program. Provides region level guidance in the preparation of CAT-EX, EA, EIS, FONSI and ROD.
FAA Order WP 1050.4, Noise Abatement Program and Airport Restrictions Designates the Airports Division as the office for coordination of the regional noise abatement program. Defines regional coordination and lists responsibilities of regional division staff and field offices for noise abatement program management.
FAA Order 1050.11, Noise Control Planning Prescribes FAA policy and procedure and internal responsibility in relation to the review of airport noise control plans and programs, including noise abatement procedures and compatible land use controls around airports in accordance with FAR Part 150.
FAA Order 5050.4, Airport Environmental Handbook Prescribes guidance to Airports personnel, airport sponsors and others involved in airport actions, on the format and content of FAA environmental assessments and impact statements. Self contained document which includes the information essential to meeting procedural and substantive environmental requirements as set fourth by the council on Environmental Quality in its regulations implementing NEPA. Compliance with the FAA Order 1050.1 is for airport actions.
FAA Order 7110.22, Arrival and Departure Handling of High Performance Aircraft Establishes procedures for the control of IFR arriving and departing high performance aircraft which will result in improved fuel economy, reduce time these aircraft are exposed to the more congested low altitude terminal environments, and provide noise relief for airport neighbors.
FAA Order 8400.9, National Safety and Operational Criteria for Runway Use Program Provides Safety and operational criteria for runway use programs. These criteria are applicable to all runway use programs developed for turbo-jet aircraft. Provides parameters in the form of safety and operational criteria which must be used in the evaluation and/or approval of runway use programs.
FAA Advisory Circular 36-1, Noise Levels for U.S. Certificated and Foreign Aircraft Provides noise level data for aircraft certificated under FAR Part 36. Noise level data is provided for foreign airplanes certificated to ICAO Annex 16 standards as well as all U.S. certificated aircraft.
FAA Advisory Circular 36-2, Measured or Estimated (Uncertificated) Airplane Noise Levels This circular provides estimates of noise levels or measured noise levels from airplanes not certificated to FAR Part 36.
FAA Advisory Circular 36-3, Estimated Airplane Noise Levels in A-weighted Decibels As described above in Advisory Circular's 36-1 and 36-2, this circular provides a listing of estimated airplane noise levels in units of A-weighted sound level in decibels (dBA).
FAA Advisory Circular 36-4, Noise Certification Handbook This handbook provides a guidance to promote uniformity for implementing the noise certification requirements of Part 36. The handbook presents technically acceptable tests, analysis and documentation procedures for subsonic turbojet airplanes that may be used by applicants for demonstrating compliance with Part 36.
FAA Advisory Circular 91-36, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas The circular encourages pilots making VFR flights near noise-sensitive areas to fly at altitudes higher than minimum permitted by regulation and on flight paths which will reduce aircraft noise in such areas.
FAA Advisory Circular 91-53, Noise Abatement Departure Profiles Provides technical analysis and description of a generally effective standardized noise abatement departure profile that is consistent with the FAA's safety responsibilities. It describes safe standard noise abatement departure profiles for turbo-jet powered airplanes with a maximum certificated takeoff weight over 75,000 pounds, consistent with FAR
91.87 and the Aviation Noise Abatement Policy, dated November 18, 1996.
FAA Advisory Circular 91-66, Noise Abatement for Helicopters Presents guidelines intended to assist pilots, operators, managers, and other interested persons in the establishment of effective noise reduction procedures when operating helicopters.
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports Provides guidance for Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for airports under FAR Part 150 and the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979. It is intended for use by airport operators, state/local planners and other officials, and interested citizens who may engage in noise control planning.
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6, Airport Master Plans Provides guidance for the preparation of Airport Master plans, pursuant to the provisions of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. The goal of a master plan is to provide guidelines for future airport development which will satisfy aviation demand in a financially feasible manner, while at the same time resolving the aviation, environmental and socioeconomic issues existing in the community. Chapter 8 of the circular provides guidance for addressing the environmental considerations of the proposed planning efforts.
FAA Notice 7210.360, Noise Screening Procedures for Certain Air Traffic Actions Above 3000 Feet AGL Provides guidance to air traffic managers for identifying air traffic changes that will result in an increase in aircraft noise exposure and the subsequent action to be taken. These procedures were computerized with the introduction of the Air Traffic Noise Screening Model (ATNS), Version 2.0, dated January 1999.
FAA-AEE-00-01 (DTS-34), Consideration of Air Quality Impacts by Airplane Operations at or Above 3000 feet AGL Explains why airplane operations at or above 3000 feet AGL should be considered a Categorical Exclusion for modeling of local air quality impacts.
FAR Part 36, Noise Standards Prescribes noise standards for the type certification of subsonic transport category airplanes and for the type certification of subsonic turbojet powered airplanes regardless of category.
FAR Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules Prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft which are governed within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast. Flight Rules such as minimum safe altitudes, operating on or in the vicinity of Class E and G airspace, operating in Class A, B, C and D airspace, along with Visual and Instrument Flight Rules. 91.129 addresses Noise Abatement Runway Systems. 91.119 discusses minimum safe altitudes, often necessary in responding to low flying aircraft complaints. FAR Part 91 does not apply to military aircraft.
FAR Part 91, Subpart 1 Known as the "Fleet Noise Rule" this Subpart mandates a compliance schedule under which Stage 1 aircraft were to be retired or refitted with hush kits or quieter engines by January 1, 1988.
FAR Part 91, Amendments Pursuant to the Congressional mandates in the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, the FAA established amendments to FAR Part 91 setting a schedule for the phase-out of all Stage 2 aircraft exceeding 75,000 pounds from the fleets of all commercial airlines. The regulation requires airlines to phase-out Stage 2 aircraft by December 31, 1999. This amendments also carries two alternatives. The first is described in terms of the phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft; the second in terms of the phase-in of Stage 3 aircraft.
FAR Part 150 Implements the requirements of ASNA Act of 1979. Prescribes the procedures, standards, and methodology governing the development, submission, and review of airport noise exposure, maps and airport noise compatibility programs, including the process for evaluating and approving or disapproving those programs. It prescribes single systems for measuring noise at airports and surrounding areas that generally provides a highly reliable relationship between projected noise exposure and surveyed reaction of people to noise; and determining exposure of individuals to noise that results from the operations of an airport. This part also identifies those land uses, which are normally compatible with various levels of exposure to noise by individuals. It provides technical assistance to airport operators in conjunction with other local, State and federal authorities, to prepare and execute appropriate noise compatibility planning and implementation programs.
FAR Part 161 This regulation sets forth requirements for notice and approval of local restrictions on aircraft noise levels and airport access. It applies to local airport restrictions that would have the effect of limiting operations by Stage 2 or Stage 3 aircraft. These include direct limits on State 2 or Stage 3 operations, limits on maximum noise levels, nighttime curfews, and special fees intended to encourage changes in airport operations to lessen noise.
Environmental study on the plan commissioned by Westchester on the Proposed impact to Pound ridge:
“As shown in the second figure, the DEIS predicts that the shift in traffic will increase levels between Pound Ridge and Stamford, CT by five decibels or more, with aircraft noise associated with the proposed action at levels of 40 dB DNL or greater. Once again, this unfamiliar procedure is very likely to be noticeable and annoying to residents.”
Download PDF File
Westchester's Independent Environmental Impact Study of the FAA's FEIS
La Guardia Airport: Can the Airport and the Community Coexist by Rep. J. Crowley
Aircraft noise disturbs the normal activities of airport neighbors -- their conversation,
sleep, and relaxation -- and degrades their quality of life. Depending on the use of land
contiguous to an airport, noise may also affect education, health services, and other
public activities.
In response to the issue of noise pollution in the communities surrounding LaGuardia
airport, members of the Queens Congressional delegation introduced legislation that
would mandate quieter aircraft engines. The Silent Skies Act of 1999, called on the
Department of Transportation to the standard for Stage 4 aircraft - the next generation of
quieter engines and mandates that all aircraft to in compliance with Stage 4 noise levels
no later than the year 2012.
</