This sounds too good to be true. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This article was sent to you by someone who found it on SFGate. The original article can be found on SFGate.com here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/c/a/2006/04/27/EDGNSGUC73= 1.DTL --------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, April 27, 2006 (SF Chronicle) A shorter runway solves a long problem Stanford M. Horn A solution to San Francisco International Airport's flight-delay problem could be at hand. San Francisco's fog-prone airport has adequate capacity to handle some 60 arrivals an hour on parallel runways in good weather but, once the fog rolls in, it must shut down one runway because the runways are too close together to land two planes safely, thus halving landings to 30 arrivals an hour. This results in multi-hour delays for SFO passengers that ripple across the U.S. air-transportation system. Suppose, on foggy or cloudy days, that the Federal Aviation Administrati= on closed the initial 2,000 or 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 feet of SFO's very long runway 28R and had planes begin their landings near the runway's midpoint, that is, with 10,000 or 9,000 or 8,000 or 7,000 feet of runway remaining. Then the federal rule requiring 4,300 feet of horizontal separation between planes shouldn't be a problem, because planes approaching the right runway would always be hundreds of feet above those approaching the left runway. SFO's runway 28R -- one of four runways -- is about 12,000 feet long, wi= th an additional 1,000-foot buffer zone at the end. Many major airports in the United States and elsewhere have 6,000-foot or shorter runways with smaller or no buffer zones and safely land thousands of planes daily. These airports include busy Chicago Midway (as short as 5,100 feet), John Wayne in Orange County (5,700 feet), Burbank (5,800 feet), Salt Lake City (5,900) and Reagan Washington (4,900). Reno's is 6,100 feet long. New York La Guardia -- one of the nation's busiest airports -- has 7,000-foot runways. Almost every domestic plane scheduled into SFO actually could land comfortably on runways of those lengths, and they do so safely elsewhere every day. What makes this idea timely is that, just last year, the FAA changed its rules to allow more closely spaced aircraft in flight. The FAA now allows two planes, each traveling toward the same mid-air intersection, to be separated vertically by just 1,000 feet. In SFO's case, the two approaching planes would never cross each other's paths (because they would be traveling parallel to each other) and would never close on each other (because they would be traveling at about the same speed). Their altitudes, when abreast of each other, would be many hundreds of feet apart. So planes headed toward runway 28R would have no traffic flying near the= ir altitude on their left. Planes headed toward runway 28L would have no traffic near their altitude on their right. Therefore, the 4,300-foot separation rule -- which envisions planes approaching at the same altitude to different nearby runways -- shouldn't logically apply. A favorable FAA interpretation of the rule could safely solve a big problem both here and nationwide -- and should be able to be put into effect in days or weeks. This is a solution that avoids filling the bay to create new runways (as proposed in the past), or embarking on more time-consuming and hugely expensive studies on the delay problem (as done in the past to the tune of $75 million). A second Instrument Landing System and a second approach-lighting system could guide aircraft to the shortened-runway when it is in use. During periods of shortened-runway use, the extra-long 28L runway would always be available at its full length for landings by planes that need the full distance, and both would be available at full length for takeoffs. Bay Area communities situated below the landing flight path could expect less airplane noise because of the higher landing altitudes. Most important, the assurance of on-time operations could bring airlines and passengers that have spurned SFO back. The airport -- in contrast to the rest of the Bay Area's improving economy since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- continues to suffer from a 20 percent drop in passengers. The loss of 8 million travelers over five years is one of the worst records in the world. The cost of implementing this idea would be zero, in terms of heavy construction. There would be a very small cost for approach lighting, a second instrument landing system part-way down the runway and a few gallons of paint. In an emergency, the Armed Forces typically do that sort of job in few days. The airport spent millions on consultants and studies during the past six years to try to solve the flight-delay problem, but came up with no solution. It should get behind this proposal and, drawing on the influence of the Bay Area's congressional delegation, lobby the FAA to promptly authorize its adoption. Stanford M. Horn writes on Bay Area transportation and development issue= s. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 2006 SF Chronicle