Study Tour of California Airports Report

Ansett sent Captain John Dorward – Manager, Line Operations, while the Australian International Pilots’ Association was represented by a Qantas First Officer – Sandy Howard. The Australian Aircraft Owners’ and Pilots’ Association was represented by its President at that time, Mr Bill Adams, while a Navair-Hazelton Airlines Captain, John Smith, went along on behalf of the General Aviation and Commuter Airline communities. Prior to becoming a professional pilot, John was a Trainee Air Traffic Controller and is therefore perhaps more qualified than most to assess ATC systems overseas and relate them to our own systems.

On his return to Australia from California with the group, John set about writing a detailed report on his observations of operations by ATC at a number of Californian airports; a report which became twenty-three pages of rational, logical significance to our own ATC procedures.

It’s interesting to note that as a result of the United States Air Traffic Controllers’ Strike in 1981, and current economic conditions, activity at all the airports John visited with the team was down on pre-strike levels. John tells me that all facilities visited had a large proportion of trainees on the microphone. Personnel who had been FAA controllers pre-strike were in the distinct minority, and now generally hold senior or supervisory positions. Nevertheless, the operations observed by the team were in John’s words ‘most impressive. . . with movement rates at the busier airports visited in excess of that obtainable under Australian procedures. ‘ The point is that the system in Australia has reached its peak, and cannot really accommodate more traffic under our existing Australian procedures. John felt that the systems themselves must be changed before any significant increase in traffic, and any substantial reduction in controller workload in Australia at primary airports can be achieved.

John’s report includes a package of 13 recommendations that pertain directly to possible improvements in the system used currently by ATC at primary airports right around Australia. We will look at some of these recommendations after we’ve dissected John’s report in a little more detail. It’s my opinion that in order to fully appreciate the significance of the material, the information would be best presented in the form of an interview between John Smith and myself.

The interview with John Smith of the G. A. A. was recorded by Robert Bell in late 1982, just prior to the pre-Christmas announcement by the Department of Aviation of ‘big changes at Sydney Airport, to ease congestion. ‘ Examination of the ‘new procedures’ by John Smith has revealed that in fact the changes are largely ‘cosmetic’, and in fact little ground has actually been gained in the fight by Commuter Operators and GeneralAviation for a better deal at Sydney. Aircraft departures south of the intersection on Runway 16, to allow simultaneous arrivals or departures on Runways 07/25 are welcomed by John, but he adds that in the manner that the departures will be carried out, there may be restrictive problems due to wake turbulence separation standards.

A high-speed taxiway between taxiways ‘foxtrot’ and ‘charlie’ is seen as a progressive innovation which will greatly assist light traffic to rapidly exit the runway, leaving it free for following high-speed traffic on short-finals. There is still much to be done, as this highly informative interview will reveal.

RB: John, how many visits have you made to the US on behalf of the industry?

JS: This was my second study tour of US airports. The first was as a GAA representative on the tour which resulted in the introduction of general aviation airport procedures at secondary airports. I’ve also flown extensively within America when doing delivery flights.

RB: What was the main purpose of the trip?

JS: It was to examine US standards and procedures in light of various proposals for parallel-runway operations and traffic management options at Sydney. I’ve not limited my recommendations to the Sydney case.

RB: Which airports did you in fact visit?

JS: We looked at John Wayne-Orange County Airport, Los Angeles International, Hollywood-Burbank, San Francisco, San Jose Municipal and Oakland International Airports.

RB: Let’s start with John Wayne Airport. How many movements would be handled annually?

JS: Six hundred and eighty thousand in fact, with one hundred and four thousand of those being IFR movements. It handles a majority of GA aircraft, mixed with airline aircraft, up to 727 standard. In comparison, Sydney is around one hundred and ninety thousand, and Bankstown three hundred and forty thousand per annum.

RB: How many runways?

JS: Two parallels. 19R/01L and 19L/01R, with a centreline spacing of 500 feet. The operation is typical of that at US airports with close-spaced parallel runways. Two Tower controllers on separate frequencies control a runway each, with contra-rotating circuits. It’s a system familiar to Bankstown users.

RB: How do they handle problems like wake turbulence, where they have 727s mixed with GA aircraft?

JS: In instrument conditions, controllers apply wake turbulence separation standards which are similar to but slightly less than ours. In visual conditions, however, which is of course the majority of the time, pilots are responsible for their own wake turbulence separation. This enables them to have airline jets landing 19R simultaneously with GA aircraft 19L. Of course, a wake caution advice is passed to the smaller aircraft. Also, GA aircraft may depart 19L simultaneously with a jet off 19R. The standard procedure here is for the GA aircraft to turn away from the jet’s path as soon as becoming airborne. Another problem at John Wayne is jet aircraft at the 19R holding point causing a jetblast over the 19L threshold. In this situation, aircraft landing 19L are given a jet-blast advisory and land long, flying over the blast.

RB: I understand there is a military base only four miles north of John Wayne. How is this traffic separated from John Wayne Airport traffic?

JS: Well, helicopters operate from the military base, and they’re separated from aircraft on a straight-in instrument approach to 19R because they operate under a letter-ofagreement, which binds them to track east of a prominent roadway.

RB: Los Angeles International Airport is a four-runway operation, with five hundred and eleven thousand movements per annum using the all!LS-equipped runways. How are these movements broken up?

JS: Well, Air Carrier movements account for three hundred and eighty-nine thousand, General Aviation one hundred and nineteen thousand, and the military three thousand movements.

RB: What sort of structure is the Terminal Control Area in LA?

JS: LAX is operated within a Terminal Control Area of inverted wedding-cake shape, similar in concept to the Sydney Control Zone and Control Area Steps. To operate within a terminal control area, aircraft must be equipped with a transponder and VOR receiver, and the minimum pilot qualification is a PPL. The terminal control area is much smaller than the Australian equivalent. It has an upper limit of 7000 feet, above which VFR aircraft may operate uncontrolled. Uncontrolled aircraft may also transit the TCA between 2500 and 5000 feet via a north-south VFR lane, which actually overlies the airport. The separation between runway complexes permits simultaneous IFR arrivals, and each complex has a separate Tower control frequency.

RB: How do they handle procedures for arrivals and departures?

JS: The normal procedure is for arrivals to land on the outboards simultaneously with departures on the inboards. In visual conditions, the pilot is responsible for all wake turbulence avoidance. Thus, simultaneous arrivals are permitted to the left and right of one complex. Boeing 747s can hold between RW 24L and 24R, which have 700 feet of separation, without resricting operations on either runway.

RB: What sort of equipment have the controllers got in Los Angeles? I presume it’s all computerised?

JS: Yes, even Tower controllers have got daylight-readable radar screens, with computerised labels on the aircraft targets. These show callsign, aircraft type, runway assignment, altitude and groundspeed of the aircraft. The Tower controllers have been given limited approach-departure authority, and once an aircraft is past the outer marker, the Controller can adjust the aircraft’s speed, change the runway, assignment, and process transmitting VFR aircraft without co,-ordination with approach. Similarly, Tower controllers clear departures without prior co-ordination with the departures controller. The only real coordination is a voice notification to the departures coordinator of the callsign. And qu(e often, that’s after the aircraft is airborne. The appropriate strip is then placed in front of the departures controller.

RB: How effectively is visual separation used at LA?

JS: It’s used effectively to speed the traffic flow, and it’s used both for approaches and for initial separation of departures. For example, a southbound aircraft departing from the north complex I remember was advised as ‘traffic’ to a departure from the south complex. Words similar to ‘report sighting a southbound 737 off the north complex. ‘ The south complex departure stated that ‘traffic is in sight. ‘ The controller then said ‘Roger pass behind the 737 . . . clear for takeoff. ‘ This is the sort of procedure that Australian controllers are not allowed to use. I think that they should be able to.

RB: I understand that Hollywood-Burbank could perhaps be related to Sydney more than the others. Why is this?

JS: Hollywood-Burbank has RW 07/25 and 15/33, whereas Sydney has RW 07/25 and 16/34, so as you can appreciate their runway layout is very similar, with their runways intersecting. The most interesting aspect of the operation at Burbank was to see simultaneous operations on the intersecting runways! Propeller-driven aircraft of up to twelve thousand five hundred pounds maximum all-up-weight can be cleared to land on RW 07, with 3700 feet to the intersection, or RW 15, with 4400 feet to the intersection, with instructions to hold short of that intersection. This allows aircraft regardless of size to land or depart on the conflicting runway, simultaneously! Specific traffic Information was given to both aircraft, for example. . . ‘Clear to land 07, hold short of the intersection after landing. . . traffic 727 short-final 15. ‘ The controller would then address instructions to the landing aircraft on RW15, with ‘Clear to land, traffic King Air landing 07 will hold short. ‘

RB: Does the system work efficiently?

JS: This procedure seemed to work well, and with the longer distances available to the intersection, it’s a procedure that could be developed to cater for the traffic mix in Sydney. DoA was considering a similar concept for Sydney, but I believe it has been shelved.

RB: You went to San Francisco. What kind of operation do they have there?

JS: Well, it’s similar to Los Angeles, with Tower controllers having limited approach-departure authority. Simultaneous arrivals and departures from parallels are permitted in visual conditions, and general aviation aircraft departed from intersections about midway along RW 28R, permitting closer spacing of arrivals on RW 28R. Boeing 747s can hold between the runways, and general aviation aircraft are given speed requirements to hold until short-final, to allow sequencing with jets that are arriving.

RB: How many movements does San Jose Municipal Airport handle annually?

JS: In 1981, three hundred and seventy-five thousand, a figure considerably lower than the 1978 figure, when there were four hundred and ninety thousand. Air Carrier traffic accounts for forty-one thousand up to DC-10 size, with general aviation at three hundred and thirty-four thousand. Military movements total one thousand annually.

RB: Tell me about the procedures there.

JS: The airport is surrounded by flat built-up areas, and noise abatement procedures there require aircraft on final for RW 30 to approach on or above the glideslope-vasi. RW 30L threshold has been displaced 1500 feet for noise abatement, and it’s aligned with the RW 30R threshold. As well as the Airline Terminal, there are numerous other facilities there, including workshops, sales centres, GA terminals, corporate aircraft headquarters, and flying schools. There is another airport about six miles east of San Jose called Reid Hillview. It’s a Bankstowntype operation, and in addition to that the Moffet Field Naval Air Station has two squadrons of Orions located seven miles to the west. San Jose Tower has got two Tower Control positions, and a ground control and clearance-delivery position. This has a keyboard-printer for input-output to the ATC computer at Oakland Centre. The Tower is equipped with bright-display radar, which presents primary non-computerised radar information. Touch-and-go operations utilise RW 29 and 30R, and RW 30 left and right were used for most of the itinerant traffic. IFR aircraft were vectored by Bay Approach for a straight-in approach on RW 30L, the centre of the three parallels. The San Jose controllers don’t have limited approach-departure authority because of their non-labelled radar. As San Jose is not situated in a TCA, arriving VFR traffic does not have to contact approach, but can call the Tower directly approximately ten miles out for clearance, similar to VFR arrivals at Bankstown. The radar was used effectively as an aid to visual control methods, and it enabled the local controllers to pass specific traffic information to aircraft they didn’t have to sight. It also enabled them to establish a landing sequence at an earlier time than is possible using purely visual methods, and IFR arrivals as is standard throughout the US were given radar traffic information on unidentified VFR traffic by approach and the Tower.

RB: They make extensive use of landmarks in the US for ATC purposes. Is this noticeable in San Jose?

JS: Oh yes, controllers use landmarks in issuing directions to aircraft. For example, an aircraft on right downwind departure from RW 30 may be instructed to ‘fly to the right of Highway 101,’ and this will separate them from traffic from Reid Hillview.

RB: How do aircraft obtain IFR clearances there? Do they have to submit prior details?

JS: IFR clearances can be obtained for many flights without submitting prior details, which in any case is done by telephone. What we term ‘Sydney Control’ they would call ‘Sydney Centre’. If an aircraft does not wish to enter the Centre’s airspace, and will only require a clearance from approach-departures, then he only needs to contact clearance delivery prior to taxiing. After notifying the aircraft type and equipment carried, which they identify with a one-letter code, the clearance-delivery controller coordinates with the approach cell via computer to obtain a transponder code and clearance. Similarly, airborne aircraft can contact an approach with requests for an IFR clearance. After being identified, they’ll be vectored and sequenced for the requested approach. The mixture of Air Carrier aircraft and GA aircraft, with simultaneous operations on parallel runways, seems unremarkable to the US controllers. I did notice that GA aircraft made curved approaches, rolling onto the final at low altitudes. Similarly, on takeoff, early turns kept them well separated from simultaneous jet movements.

RB: I understand that you also visited Terminal Radar Facilities in some areas. What were some of the things you saw that impressed you most?

JS: Well, we toured three TRACONS, which are Terminal Radar Control Facilities. They were at LAX, Burbank and Oakland. I was impressed by the sophistication and the versatility of the FAA’s computerised radar, called ARTS II/A. Aircraft are given discreet transponder codes, enabling the computer to label radar returns with information including callsign, altitude, groundspeed, runway assignment, aircraft type, and also symbols identifying the controller in communication with the aircraft.

RB: How does this affect the individual controller’s workload?

JS: Controller workload per aircraft is obviously much less than in Sydney. In particular, the coordination between controllers is much reduced. Handoffs from one controller to another can be achieved without voice communications, as are required in Sydney. Aircraft can be altitude-separated on the basis of their altitude readout. VFR aircraft are given a common ‘squawk’ code of ‘1200’, and these can be given as traffic to other aircraft in communication with the controller.

RB: What are the radar separation standards within a terminal Control Area?

JS: Well, IFR to IFR traffic, it’s the same as ours, which is three miles or 1000 feet. However, between an IFR and a VFR aircraft, it’s reduced by half to one and a half miles, and 500 feet. The same applies to VFR and VFR. Helicopters are not separated from each other. However, American controllers continually pass radar traffic information to pilots, even though radar separation is being applied. Once a pilot has traffic in sight, he may assume separation responsibility himself. This is one of the major reasons that Americans can handle the high traffic volume which would be impossible here under our rules.

RB: Are you saying that if the American procedures were applied at Sydney, it would have increased capacity?

JS: Undoubtedly. Even the Department would admit that.

There are several reasons why Americans handle traffic more efficiently. As I said before, they have much greater flexibility than us because of their use of visual separation and their reduced wake turbulence requirements in visual conditions.

Their runway separation standards seem to me to be far more sensible than ours. For instance, a King Air-sized aircraft cannot be cleared to land at Sydney if another aircraft is still on the runway, even if it is two miles down the runway. Now we all know that aircraft of that size need less than 3000 feet to pull up. In the States, if the preceding aircraft was 4000 feet down the runway, the King Air would be cleared to land. Indeed, the Americans use this standard to maximum advantage by asking the first ‘plane to land long, and the second to land at the threshold. Two landings in the time we take for one!

American controllers can request pilots on final approach to maintain a speed on final, they can instruct pilots on which taxiway to take after landing, or to hold short of a runway intersection. They also have sophisticated radar displays. At the moment, I believe that Sydney is at the bottom of the list for this sort of equipment.

RB: How much extra capacity would American procedures give to Sydney?

JS: In visual conditions, I think a 50 per cent increase would not be unobtainable!

RB: The Department of Aviation has recently announced plans for a new runway at Sydney. Do you agree with this?

JS: Most certainly! My first recommendation in my report was for a close-spaced parallel runway capable of handling medium jets. This is exactly what the Minister has announced will be built, and he deserves the full support of the Industry. There are many problems to be overcome before the completion of the runway, which might not be before six to eight years. In the meantime there is an urgent need now for positive action to relieve the present congestion.

RB: The Department has proposed a change in the operating procedures at Sydney. Do you think this will be an improvement?

JS: This proposal is a very much watered-down version of one put forward in mid-1982 which showed great promise. It involved nearly all departures from RW 16 to be from a taxiway south of the intersection with RW 07. Thus, aircraft could arrive on RW 07 independent of departures on RW 16! It also included a procedure where simultaneous arrivals could take place on different runways, with one aircraft instructed to hold short of the runway intersection. The AFAP refused to consider the intersection departure proposed, even though the length remaining is almost exactly what they will be using when the new runway is built. Under the current proposal, the only major change is the GA aircraft who will depart RW 16 from south of the intersection which means they can operate independently of arrivals on 07 but will incur even greater wake turbulence separation requirements. I reserve my judgment until I see it in operation. Then there’s the splitting of the Tower frequencies to allow a separate controller for departures and arrivals.

RB: What about a Closed-Spaced Parallel commuter runway?

JS: The arguments against this proposal cannot be substantiated in view of the US operations we observed. The Department claims, among other things, that the proposals for Sydney would not allow aircraft to hold between the parallel runways; and that simultaneous arrivals and departures could not be carried out. Of course, these things are all the things that the Americans do as a matter of course. The new medium-jet runway that the Minister has decided will be built is the best choice for the longterm, because it offers more flexibility. But in the interim, a Commuter runway would be a quick and cheap method to give capacity relief, especially if it comprised part of the taxiway network for the new jet runway.

RB: Wouldn’t the introduction of the US visual and wake turbulence standards mean a reduction in safety standards?

JS: I think one of the biggest myths ever is that the Australian Airways System is safer than the American system. First, consider the incredible traffic densities they handle there. There are more aircraft based within 30 miles of San Francisco than there are on the Australian Register! In terms of movements, there are approximately 200 US airports with more annual movements than Sydney, at which they regularly mix GA and Airline jets. Now consider their terrible winter weather, their summer storms and tornadoes, the vast mountainous areas in the Central and West US regions, and they have a GA accident rate better than ours! They must be doing something right.

RB: Despite this high traffic density that they handle, I think you said earlier that the Control Area at Los Angeles is smaller than Sydney’s.

JS: Yes, that’s correct. In fact, the control-zone equivalent at LA is about half the size of the Sydney zone. I see little advantage in the Sydney zone extending north of the harbour; an area which is pretty much the province of airwork-flights anyhow. Releasing it would ease the workload on approach controllers, and allow much better access for airwork-flights. RB: How do you feel about Sydney not having computerised radar, and Adelaide Airport already having it fitted to their ATC radar centre?

JS: Apparently Sydney is at the bottom of the list for the installation of computerised radar displays, as I think I mentioned earlier. This shocked the industry representatives on the tour, who were unanimous in the opinion that this priority should be reversed. It’s essential that Australia’s major airport and busiest terminal area be equipped with automated radar as a number one priority, and without further delay. ‘t appears the equipment is being installed on an alphabetical.

RB: What is your opinion of high-speed exit runways?

JS: A visit to US airports is not necessary to understand the value of high-speed runway exits. Nevertheless, the visit certainly removed any doubt that group member might have had of their value in improving runway capacity. Their introduction at Sydney would seem to be a low-cost methodbf improving capacity. In particular, a small exit suitable for Commuter aircraft located on AW 16 between taxiways ‘charlie’ foxtrot’ would be of immediate benefit.

RB: What other improvements would you like to see adopted here?

JS: In the US, controllers provide radar services to all aircraft, and to VFR aircraft on request. In Australia, we’ve seen,’ rapid growth in GA activity in the past 15 years, particularly in IFR and Commuter operations. The Department’s approach in catering for this growth has been based on policies and an ATC system evolved in the fifties and sixties!

Aircraft departing Sydney are given maximum protection while in the Control Area, but the moment they leave the CTA they are cast into the wilderness of high-speed military jets and student trainees, with traffic information being provided on the basis of planned time intervals. The Department’s answer to the problem is to ever increase the size of the Control Area. The sane and simple answer is to provide radar services to traffic operating OCTA, in the same manner as the US ATC system!

RB: Finally John, what are your recommendations as a whole, as a result of the trip?

JS: A close-spaced medium-jet parallel runway and close-spaced Commuter runway as an acceptable interim measure, traffic management with departures from RW 16 south of the intersection, high-speed runway exits, US wake turbulence standards to be adopted here, US visual separation standards to be adopted here, Tower controllers to be granted limited approach-departure authority, and controllers should be able to give more authoritative instructions to pilots.

In addition, VFR separation standards should be removed, and replaced by traffic advisories. IFR/VFR separation standards should be reduced to the US standard. Sydney should be given first priority for the introduction of computerised radar displays, and radar services should be provided to aircraft operating OCTA. Also the Department of Aviation should undertake a close and ongoing study of the implementation in the US of the new National Airspace Plan, with a view to the application in Australia of new technology now being evolved.

RB: John, thank you for your time.