Teaming with Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Raytheon Corp., and Northrop-Grumman, the FAA has been working for the last several years on a handful of weather-radar technologies to boost controllers' ability to precisely identify where bad weather is -- and isn't -- and direct traffic accordingly. They've especially focused on "wind-shear detection algorithms." There are three major enhancements they've developed:

The FAA's Southwest Region office, which has been testing WPS at Albuquerque, says that WPS is "An add-on to existing aircraft tracking radars [which provides] timely information to controllers and pilots about potentially hazardous microburst and wind shear weather events. The system also improves the management of air traffic in air space near the airport by forecasting gust front-induced wind shifts, detecting precipitation and tracking storms. The result can be increased safety and fewer delays."

A sample of the ITWS imagery available is shown at right, in a snapshot taken from the New York terminal system currently being tested. The thin, black lines show geographic boundaries, airport runways, and airways boundaries; dotted, thin, black range circles show distance from an airport or other focal point. According to MIT, "the cyan lines indicate the location and anticipated motion of a storm cell. Solid lines indicate the leading edge of the storm cell. The dotted lines indicate the projected locations of the leading edge 10 and 20 minutes in the future. Purple lines indicate the size, shape, and orientation of a gust front." Yellow panel lights (three of them, together, at top of the display) warn that lightning is active within 20 miles of each of the three big New York City area airports.

At present, controllers simply give bad weather a wide berth, often causing long delays, complicated re-routing, wasted fuel and time. A few major airports tangled in bad weather on any given day can wreak havoc with the entire national airline network. In response to bad weather at one major airport, area controllers divert pilots to holding patterns or alternate airports, and try slowing and spreading out aircraft, or simply keeping them on the ground at their point of departure -- putting pressure on the air transportation network that backs up and ripples throughout the system.

FAA and MIT's Lincoln Lab claim that the two-fold benefit is "increased safety" as controllers can see bad stuff on their screens and keep planes clear of it, and have the power to "more effectively manage aircraft arrivals and departures when weather hazards are present," allowing them to be more selective in how they direct pilots -- precisely squeezing them through the safe places in the bad weather.

MIT claims gains "in terms of aircraft delay-hour reductions and corresponding dollar benefits. The analysis indicates that these benefits will total approximately $18 million per year, given Year 2000 expected traffic counts at the 34 planned WSP airports" -- 5 times what the system would cost.

Albuquerque's "Sunport" was the first airport to get a "limited production system" WSP, as developed by Northrop-Grumman. Two additional limited production systems are at airports in Austin, Texas, and Norfolk, Va.

MIT says its final testing of ITWS at New York City-area airports (JFK, Newark, LaGuardia and Teterboro) "appears to be a success," adding, "ITWS saved airlines and passengers more than $150 million by reducing 49,000 hours' worth of flight delays in the New York area in 2000."

A statement from MIT says that they...
"...installed it at the New York airports as a demonstration in 1998, with additional funding from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Similar tests were carried out in Memphis, Dallas and Orlando. The scientists introduced several improvements to ITWS in the summer of 1999. It will be replaced for good in 2002, when the FAA's production version, built by the Raytheon Corporation in Lexington, Mass., will be ready."

The FAA's 2000 Terminal Area Forecast and 2001 Airport Capacity Benchmark Report cite New York's JFK airport as "the 7th most delayed airport in the U.S. in 2000 (based on FAA OPSNET reported delays)." The report adds, "Kennedy's current scheduled traffic peaks can be handled efficiently during good-weather conditions, but scheduled traffic exceeds adverse-weather capacity for more than 5 hours of the day.... . On adverse weather days, about 9% of the flights are delayed significantly (more than 15 minutes)." However, ITWS notwithstanding, the FAA reports combine to indicate that "procedure, airspace, and technology improvements" are only "expected to improve good-weather capacity by 2% and adverse-weather capacity by 3% over the next 10 years."

Nevertheless, a report in USA Today (May 21, 2001) cites the Executive Vice President of Dallas-Ft.Worth International airport (DFW), Douglas Crites, describing ITWS as "a big solution [that] is out there just staring us in the face." Crites claims, "In the first year, it saved our major carriers $15 million." If true, this could help protect DFW's status as one of the nation's most important, and growing, airline hubs -- relieving pressure for further costly runway development (at a cost of millions), or airline relocation elsewhere.

In all, about 60 airports are targeted for upgrades - split about 50/50 between the two systems. The key will be Congressional budget authorizations. At present, Congress is sitting on the money, and Congressional hearings are underway to review the air traffic system. Boeing's pending announcement of its development of a satellite-based private ATC system, leaked early -- and the FAA's response touting the new, relatively-cheap radar enhancements -- may both be aimed at influencing Congressional impressions and decisions. Both the House and Senate Aviation Subcommittees have held hearings on aviation delays in the last couple of months, and the pressure is on for answers.

There's a lot at stake. Boeing's approach could make it richer and far, far more powerful in the airline industry -- and in aviation generally. Already the dominant force in airliner manufacturing (especially now that they also own McDonnell-Douglas), Boeing could wind up with the keys to the system. Imagine Boeing airliners being given preference in the Boeing ATC system. That could boost Boeing sales. All Boeing would have to do is declare that Boeing planes have "more compatible systems," resulting in preferential treatment.

But the savings might also be substantial, if the badly-inbred, too-often-self-serving FAA system could be blown away with a blast of fresh air and original thinking from an outside source. Its notoriously archaic systems, and infamously sluggish pace of modernization might do well to be dumped in favor of an enterprising, eager, high-tech company.

NATCA -- the ATC controllers union -- has a major stake, too. Its 15,000 government employees are among the highest paid work force in the U.S. government, and would likely lose a lot if the system was privatized. NATCA is pledged to defend their careers. In a recent Senate hearing, union President John Carr said, "Air traffic control is an inherently governmental function." Defending the U.S. ATC system, he added, "The United States controls over half the world's air traffic," describing the system "as the safest and most sophisticated on the planet."

NATCA says airline congestion is chiefly due to "the core problem of too many planes and too little concrete." In Congressional hearings last month, citing the FAA's 2001 Airport Capacity Benchmark Report as proof, NATCA reps said that "continuing upgrades, and new technology and air-traffic procedures, while ensuring a safe, reliable system, will only increase capacity a fraction as much as the construction of new runways."

Meanwhile traffic congestion continues to grow as airlines continue to consolidate and coalesce around a handful of overburdened hubs at key airports -- mostly in densely populated urban areas with little room for expansion.

  ~RH