Thursday, October 25, 2007

Increase capacity or build more runways/airports?

We often hear commentary that air traffic control systems need to be modernised to increase capacity, but what actually limits capacity, poor air traffic control equipment, low numbers of air traffic controllers, complex airspace structures and rules, or available bitumen to land and depart aeroplanes?

As demonstrated in a recent European Parliamentary Report, tabled on 11 October this year, whilst ‘optimising existing capacity’ plays an important role, growth figures for Europe of 5.2% per annum, mean that additional airports are going to be required. The report calls for 25 new airports, 10 majors and 15 medium size aerodromes, to be fully operational by 2025, according to Eurocontrol.

This growth rate means that in 2025 demand will be 2.5 times the amount of movements compared to 2003 levels.

The lead in time for a major airport is approximately 8 years; this means that within 10 years the developments must commence.

The report called for a Master plan to be developed by 2009 to "promote and co-ordinate any national and cross-border initiatives for building new airport capacities". 

"Airports are so congested that if one flight gets slightly delayed, it affects many other airports. The lack of airport capacity is therefore not just a national problem - it is a European problem", pointed out Danish Liberal MEP Anne Jensen, who drafted the report. 

The report adds that building new capacity would also be a first step towards averting unnecessary air pollution caused by en route or ramp congestion, but says that additional measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions and noise - such as including aviation in the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme taxing fuel or differentiating airport charges according to environmental performance - would be necessary. 

But what about capacity now, well there are limitations imposed on routings and sector through put right now; a way to increase capacity is to bring online new technologies, such as airborne procedures, where pilots are assigned separation responsibilities relating to other aircraft, but these are still years away from being operational and are based on ADS-B technology, including ADS-B-IN where aircraft receive information about other aircraft in the vicinity and display that to the pilots; currently ADS-B-OUT is in use, where by aircraft transmit information based on satellite derived positions.

Other Air Traffic Control technology including separation or conflict detection tools may increase capacity because controllers will become more reactionary rather than planning forward to avoid conflictions. But this needs to be 100% accurate, at present the algorithms are getting close, it’s still not good enough; one slipping through the “cracks” is one too many.

Surveillance (including ADS-B, Multilateration and radar) and synthetic displays are the way of the future; but who pays for all this infrastructure? So far the airline industry is equipping themselves with ADS-B; but what use is it while light aircraft have access to the same piece of the sky without requiring the technology?

To use all this equipment, and develop it, it requires bodies at the coal face. We have significant anecdotal evidence that there is a world wide shortage of controllers. In the USA we have seen retirements far exceed the forecasts, mostly down to poor industrial relations with the employer, this is exacerbated by the fact that eligible to retire controllers may receive higher ‘pension wages’ and bigger annual increases in retirement than staying in the workforce.

Elsewhere we have seen limited recruitment campaigns where pass rates are still globally measured around 60%. Most ANSPs are becoming or have become privatised, or if not are run as separate profit making divisions (government owned businesses, run in business models). In order to return profits, staffing levels are reduced to the core requirements (or below them) and recruitment's are undertaken to meet the retirement forecasts and little else.

So who will be available to implement and develop this new technology? Who will be able to perform increased ATC duties at additional facilities (aerodromes) that will be built to meet current growth forecasts? Ask your managers what is being done to cater for long term growth? In some parts of the world growth is in the double % digits.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Anecdotal evidence of a controller shortage? You are too kind!
We have facts on the ground straing us all in the face that we are desperately short of controllers - the only real obstacle is the willingness of the ANSP to spend money and invest in their own future, and future survivability. We need to recruit like we mean it - this means good remuneration to retain our existing experienced people, and attract new talent.

Don Brown said...

And we retired controllers live longer too. :)

I just found your site and I like what I see. I hope y'all don't mind that I've sent some traffic your way.

http://gettheflick.blogspot.com/2007/11/its-all-oz.html

Keep up the good work.

Don Brown
Retired - Atlanta Air Route Traffic Control Center
Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
http://gettheflick.blogspot.com/

Unknown said...

Terrific blog. Like Don, I'm adding it to our web site here Stateside at www.faafollies.com