DREADLE - A Runway Incursion Solution?
 

http://www.iasa.com.au/dreadle1.gif

http://www.iasa.com.au/dreadle.html

Good idea.................... :D
I wonder what the BAA response would be?
The only objection I can see any other airport operator having to it is the cost - even though it's projected cost is siginificantly less than the consequences of a runway incursion. Still, for the most part, we've got away with it so far.....
:rolleyes:

isn't risk/cost assesment a wonderful thing, still waiting for SMR, working CCTV.... :D :D :D

Interesting idea
I think the cost estimate is way out, though, and far too high.
With current elecronics, all units could be built as "standard" units, and just laid over the surface of the taxiway, not embedded. Would only need to be half an inch thick, presumably not enough to worry/damage the tyres etc. The units could be simply secured at either end, locked into place, making changing faulty units a five minute job.
The elctronics could be simlified, and run off a single 2 core cable looped around the place inside existing ducting, that would cut down the holes to be dug.

I know you probably wouldn't want another screen in the tower, but a simple computer interface would allow you to draw (on the screen which was displaying a map of the layout) a route from landing runway to gate, and have the system protect against any incursion of that route, not just runway incursions.

Only drawback I see would be superimposition of the warning on existing communications- sods law says it would happen just as you were trying to get some important piece of info across, but I am sure there is a solution.

Don't laugh, but I used a similar system on a model railway to track trains!!

[ 16 July 2001: Message edited by: stickyb ]

We tested something similar in the US. We found what you would think simple not always so. The lights would burn out, stick or just not function from time to time. This caused pilots to not trust them or ignore them... The system was not a roaring success.

regards

IRT to Scott Voigt (NATCA Safety)

I think you can say that technology can be prone to failure, unreliable and untrustworthy either because of its concept or unreliable due to its (in situ) design features.

You seem to be saying the latter i.e. criticising its hardware implementation. I recently spoke with a local Highways Dept Engineer who uses the treadles for traffic counters. They tell me that, short of vandalism, they've found that their pressure-sensitive traffic-counter treadles last very well, with service call-outs in times per year (vice times per month).... and that must equate to all sorts of weather conditions and a huge amount of traffic over them.

Dreadle sounds to me as though it would work (A-B/B-A etc). It would tend to eliminate the human factors failings that are always present in unmonitored surface radar displays.

I wouldn't like to be the FAA Administrator after the next big one, having declared (together with the NTSB) that runway incursions are their number one safety priority) having to say publicly: "What's Dreadle? Never heard of it."

The FAA is evaluating solutions to the runway incursion problem. Check the FAA website (www.faa.gov and under the Working with the FAA, Contracting Opportunities) search for

Evaluation of New and Emerging Technologies Aimed at Vehicle Tracking On Airport Movement Areas - Phase 1

Further links of interest have been added to the bottom of the original URL above (i.e.

a. what the FAA's version is planned to be as reflected by their call for tenders and,

b. the problem child that is AMASS Radar.

Dreadle is also featured in the July 16th issue of Air Safety Week (ASW)