Runway Incursion System to Be Installed

MolaKule

Staff member
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
25,098
Location
Iowegia - USA
"The Federal Aviation Administration has announced that as part of the February 2023 Safety Call to Action to improve runway safety in the United States, it will install a runway incursion device at 74 airports nationwide.

On March 19, the FAA disclosed that it would be rolling out a technological safety feature at a total of 74 airports and their air traffic control (ATC) towers.

Specifically, the regulator will be installing Runway Incursion Devices (RID) across 74 airports in the US, which is one of the three fast-tracked initiatives launched out of the February 2023 ‘Safety Call to Action’ initiative to improve runway safety..."

https://simpleflying.com/faa-install-runway-incursion-system-74-airports/
 
Good. But more importantly -

1. Expand controller hiring and training.
2. Upgrade communication capabilities, including CPDLC.
3. Replace outdated systems architecture, including traffic management and communications.

This system isn’t quite re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but it’s close. It’s a system install that makes it look like the FAA is taking action, when the action it is taking is ancillary, while the bigger, more important issues remain unaddressed.
 
It's not just about hiring more, they've already been caught cheating by giving out the answers to minority candidates to help their pass rate.
The mandatory retirement age, coupled with limited class size, and a failure to hire during Covid have led to breathtaking controller shortages.

I’m not advocating for lowering standards, and I am not aware of the cheating to which you refer, but the simple fact is that we need to hire more than we have been to re-fill the ranks. Fix the class size and hire more.

Got a link to a credible news source that substantiates your claim of cheating?
 
I have heard of a very high failure rate for air traffic control candidates in Canada as well. I'm not sure a 90% failure rate for candidates for training (as reported in the link) can be justified.

When I went to engineering college they took almost anyone with grade 12 graduation (which was not easy to achieve in those days) and if you didn't catch on quickly or didn't do the work you failed. Simple as that. I knew very smart people who didn't do the work and failed. If you failed you had to take a year off before you could try again. There was at least a 25% failure rate, mostly in the first year of our 4 year course, probably higher. But people who graduated made good engineers. In fact everyone in my graduating class could have been trusted to take on and complete a difficult project. The guy who graduated top of my class barely qualified for entry.

Why such a high barrier to entry to air traffic control training?
 
I have heard of a very high failure rate for air traffic control candidates in Canada as well. I'm not sure a 90% failure rate for candidates for training (as reported in the link) can be justified.

When I went to engineering college they took almost anyone with grade 12 graduation (which was not easy to achieve in those days) and if you didn't catch on quickly or didn't do the work you failed. Simple as that. I knew very smart people who didn't do the work and failed. If you failed you had to take a year off before you could try again. There was at least a 25% failure rate, mostly in the first year of our 4 year course, probably higher. But people who graduated made good engineers. In fact everyone in my graduating class could have been trusted to take on and complete a difficult project. The guy who graduated top of my class barely qualified for entry.

Why such a high barrier to entry to air traffic control training?
Why? Because, unlike engineering, or other analytic pursuits, the pace of operations is very fast, and mistakes are very costly.

So, we need quick thinking, error free, controllers. It’s part of why we have such an early mandatory retirement age for them.

Several recent near miss incidents were due to ATC errors.
 
Why? Because, unlike engineering, or other analytic pursuits, the pace of operations is very fast, and mistakes are very costly.

So, we need quick thinking, error free, controllers. It’s part of why we have such an early mandatory retirement age for them.

Several recent near miss incidents were due to ATC errors.
It would be interesting to know how people who cheated on the entry exam have done as air traffic controllers.
 
The mandatory retirement age, coupled with limited class size, and a failure to hire during Covid have led to breathtaking controller shortages.

I’m not advocating for lowering standards, and I am not aware of the cheating to which you refer, but the simple fact is that we need to hire more than we have been to re-fill the ranks. Fix the class size and hire more.

Got a link to a credible news source that substantiates your claim of cheating?
All of this.

The big boomer-exit-for-retirement is catching a lot of businesses and agencies alike asleep at the wheel. Business just assumed the Chuck and his 30 years of experience would be around forever, and it turns out nobody was replacing Chuck at all. Or that they were bringing in someone whose qualifications lie outside their test scores and interview merit.

It's a recipe for a shortage of skilled people.
 
Wondering out loud if a simple change in communication systems would alleviate lots of confusion. Why, in this day of digital communication are we still using AM radio freqs where a “Stuck” mic will grind ground functionality to a half. ForeFlight airport diagrams and maps have helped greatly but the actual relaying of instructions seems a bit archaic to this old NBD SEL PP. jeepers we can see ADSb reports on the ground yet can’t get clear instructions to the AOG.
 
A few of our aircraft have RAAS ( runway awareness alerting system ….” Approaching runway 24 left” automated voice.

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2008/07/15/honeywell-raas-system-is-airbus-option/
As a Honeywell product, it’s available on just about any airplane.

It was a factor in the Emirates crash of a 777-300, in which the crew went around on the basis of a RAAS caution - neglecting to advance the throttles, though they selected the TOGA switch.
 
Wondering out loud if a simple change in communication systems would alleviate lots of confusion. Why, in this day of digital communication are we still using AM radio freqs where a “Stuck” mic will grind ground functionality to a half. ForeFlight airport diagrams and maps have helped greatly but the actual relaying of instructions seems a bit archaic to this old NBD SEL PP. jeepers we can see ADSb reports on the ground yet can’t get clear instructions to the AOG.
Yeah, well, FANS (Future Air Navigation System) was introduced on the 747-400 in 1992, making the airplane capable of direct datalink air traffic management in 4 dimensions (position, altitude, and time) using CPDLC.

As a new hire flying the airplane in 1998, we used FANS/CPDLC with countries like Fiji.

CPDLC just started with Boston Center in 2024.

About 32 years behind the rest of the world, and the airplane manufacturers themselves.

So, yeah, the protocol and technology to reduce frequency congestion, to eliminate transposition errors in ATC instructions, eliminate the language barriers for foreign carriers, have existed for 30+ years, but most of our ATC is still using radios built in the 1960s.

It’s like the airplanes have an iPhone, and ATC is using copper wires with a party line.

That’s what I am talking about - upgrading communications. Yes it would help.
 
As a Honeywell product, it’s available on just about any airplane.

It was a factor in the Emirates crash of a 777-300, in which the crew went around on the basis of a RAAS caution - neglecting to advance the throttles, though they selected the TOGA switch.
Two difffent systems on our fleet - RAAS ( advises when approaching a runway on the ground ) , and ROPS ( none io our aircraft have this system ) which warns pilots in the air on final approach, if the system predicts a long landing and to go around.

They decided to do the low enery GA BEFORE the "long landing" warning went off to comply with company policy ( must touch down in the TDZ ).

I notice a big increase with tail strikes ( botched low energy GAs ) when ROPS warns “ long landing” despite lots of runway left in some cases.

I am not 100% but I think that “ long landing” warning goes off just because you reach the end of the touch down zone and not because there isn’t enough runway to still land safely.

As I have said before to people, doing unexpected low energy GAs can be risky.

Same thing with AF hitting the tail in Toronto just because it had ALREADY touched down at the end of the TDZ.

The problem with the Emirates accident was 100% pilot error and automation complacency. It wasn’t the long landing system , it was the fact they didn’t understand what happens when you push the TOGA buttons after floating and touching down.

If your airline has strict policies that make it mandatory to do a low energy GA just because you touch down at the end of the TDZ on a 14,500 runway, make sure you fully understand how you will perform the low energy GA and understand how the automation works.

That GA proved to be far more dangerous than continuing with the landing on a runway they all knew was 14,500.

My airline policy.....SHOULD touch down in the TDZ , but not mandatory. I have the final say.

SW made that low energy GA look easy but its a risky maneuver if not flown and handled properly ( tail strike, holding the pitch until speed increases despite the fact the GA bars are telling you to raise the nose, retracting the flaps too early until speed increases ).

I won't be calling for any low energy GA's just because we touch down close to the TDZ on a 10,000 runway, bare and dry but I will call GA if we are not stable prior to landing to comply with the stable approach policy.

Now, when we land on 7000 runways, thats a different story.

Edit: corrected a few typos ( hospital called while typing the first time ).

Anyone interested, google the article below.

 
Last edited:
It's not just about hiring more, they've already been caught cheating by giving out the answers to minority candidates to help their pass rate.
I do know there are published study manuals for the entrance exam (which I linked in another thread), but I would not call that cheating.

The question is: Were Snow's answers correct? The exam question pool is most likely changed periodically.
 
Last edited:
A good video on a Honeywell RAAS-type system. I wish I had it on the 737s I fly. And FWIW, the 737s I fly have used enroute CPDLC since 2019. I think it was just Indianapolis center we could use it on initially. They’ve slowly added more centers over the last few years.

 
Apparently, CPDLC is part of the DataComm initiative by the FAA:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/DataComm
Good.

One of the problems with the FAA, is that they are underfunded, and while they have a great number of initiatives, those initiatives get re-prioritized with changes in administrations, and administrators, and so they are horribly inefficient in implementing technologies that have been around for 30+ years, like CPDLC, which is only now getting fully implemented.
 
Back
Top Bottom