Runway Incursions - The Manchester Experiment
 

Here at the Towers we'd like to draw your attention to an interesting proof of concept trial going on at EGCC until the 16th October.

There's a bit of kit in the cockpit that's barely used in anger these days - the marker beacon receiver. The idea is to transmit a pretty tightly focussed voice message adjacent to stop bars at holding points.

Taxying a/c inbound to T2 etc. passing Alpha 6 hold, adjacent the Fire Station, have the opportunity to hear a voice message transmitted on 75 mHz through the Marker Beacon receiver system. This is a demonstration of a technology that may help reduce runway incursions when located at a runway hold and linked to stop bar control software. An aural warning would be triggered if the stop bar was crossed at red.

The actual location and content are not important for this stage of the experiment. It's the re-use of existing onboard equipment for a possible novel safety enhancement that is the crux of the matter.

Feedback here is very welcome indeed.

Regards,
Rob

If it works well, then what a great idea. Improved safety and no additional investment from the end user.

We taxied across it the other day with the marker volume turned half way up (A320) and heard a faint whispering. Quickly turned the volume up to full and just caught the end of the message. Something about ATC clearance.

In theory it seems like a great idea, in practice there will obvioulsy need to be some kind of calibration for different aircraft types, those who use ANR headsets on the ground etc.

Just my 2 cents worth!

Sounds like a good idea. I believe Manchester stopped giving conditional clearances last year as a result of a number of incursions but this slows things up a fair bit, particularly when 23L is in use and the subsequent need to cross 23R. Will be interesting to see the stats at the end. Is there a timescale on this experiment?

Good idea in principle. But if it is only useable when the runway stop bar is lit then daylight operations wouldn't benefit. Also runway stop bars are normally uni-directional so when on the lights are only visible from the taxiway side, would this mean when vacating the runway and crossing the stop bar from the runway side that the message would be heard.
Software would need to cover both Cat 1 and Cat III stop bars if in separate locations.
Vehicle drivers wouldn't benefit unless the equipment was fitted.
When controllers select a lead-on route and suppress the stop bar for an aircraft cleared to enter the runway there is an incursion risk of a following aircraft lining up if the lead-on route is not cancelled quickly.

Why is it that MAN is the only airport with two runways that needs special fixes for problems that don't seem to appear at other similar airports?

'Special Needs' Airport ?

Amazing! An update, probably unknowingly, of the World War II "Balloon Squeaker" system which broadcast a short range signal on a common frequency to alert aircraft straying too near to a balloon barrage. The squeaker transmitters were also placed on certain areas of high ground, such as Snowdonia. End of history lesson.

Did not hear the 75Mhz transmission at MAN due constant RT on Ground movements frequency at the time of passing. Can only be affective if the primary com1 (at least one pilot must be montoring all the time) is quiet. Two or more transmissions at the same time, results in missing one or both messages, unfortunately the Boeing757 with its very noisy flightdeck didn't help either :hmm:

The idea's been around for a while. I think the company behind it did a trial at Bournemouth a few years back. I think the FAA tried it too, maybe 4 years ago.

From what I heard, it's a nice idea but implementation in a complex environment - where it might be particularly useful - is a problem. It will be good to hear how this trial works. Are there more details or a NOTAM about it?

magplug
why do pilots cross red stopbars? you clear an acft to cross a runway, forget to put the stopbar down ,he still crosses , not all but some .
Just trying to improve safety.

magplug,
can you name another dual-runway airport anywhere near as busy whereby every departure (or arrival, depending on runway in use) has to cross an active runway?
I'd say MAN are actually trying to be at the forefront of reducing the associated risks even further, surely that's a good thing if they find a decent solution that can be adopted nationally or even internationally!

Have to echo previous opinions that message too quiet, volume had to be turned to full to make out the content and of course we only had Marker selected at all because we were aware of the trial. Wouldn't think many people not familiar with Manc will have it selected and these are prob the most likely to cause an incursion

Out of interest the marker receiver was the 'fall-back' for complete comms receiver failure in my days in the RAF - and it worked. Airfield towers had an 'emergency' voice TX function available on their console.

> An aural warning would be triggered if the stop bar was crossed at red.

Presumably it also notifies controllers?

BOAC, I think you'll find that the RAF 'Emergency' voice TX function used the ILS Localiser Transmitter. An aircraft with lost comm could hear the controller, rather than the ILS Ident, through a Nav Receiver.

Opnot said:
Every pilot knows that you cannot cross red stop-bars without explicit clearance - this is day one stuff. Pilots don't ignore stop bars but they do miss them because they are inconspicuous. Stop bars are very effective at night simply because they ARE very conspicuous. A number of airports have stop bars that they expect pilots to see by day under varying levels of daylight that changes in direction according to the time of day and I'm afraid it simply just does not work.

So you are effectively issuing a mixed message and then wondering why the pilot got confused? That's not a difficult one.

NudgingSteel said:Firstly MAN is not so busy... but since you asked.....
Heathrow
Amsterdam
Frankfurt
Barcelona
Lyon
Toulouse
Milan Malpensa
Nice
Las Palmas - Gran Canaria

I frankly can't see why Manchester even needed to build a second runway given the low level of traffic. Gatwick manages more movements with one runway (246k p/a) than Manchester (225k p/a) manages with two. The residents upwind of 24L could have been spared the grief and the pilots would have been spared the BS of your SIDS that get busy with close-in turns just as you are at high-workload after take-off. The reason that Manchester built another runway was simply a political one.

If only a little thought had gone into the design of 24L/R the sacrifice of a couple of hundred metres of one end of 24R could have provided an off-runway crossing point to ensure arriving & departing traffic never conflicted.

I continue to find the agressive & inflexible attitude of controllers at Manchester airport quite remarkable, I have heard the same from other colleagues around Europe. Please spare us the multiple readbacks of clearances and other whacky ideas...... Go and spend some time at Heathrow or Gatwick to see how the pros operate. I'm absolutely no fan of the BAA but perhaps some real expertise is needed in Manchester.

I think NudgingSteel was making the point that EVERY aircraft has to cross the active runway at MAN when 23L/05R is in use whereas at the other airports this isn't always the case. Most of the airports listed have terminals in between runways thus alleviating this problem. MAN is quite poor in design in this respect. I'm sure that if this trial proves a success it will soon be adopted by other airports.

Mea Culpa, forget - you are indeed correct. I look forward to trying this one.

I haven't found this to be the case. Admittedly I'm not a regular visitor but on the many occasions I've ended up diverting there with a less than substantial amount of fuel left in the tanks ATC at MAN have been very flexible, and patient when we get lost amongst the mess of taxiways they have to deal with day in day out. I think it is very easy to forget that these guys have a tough job - if they are being inflexible on occasion there will be a very good reason for it.

If this trial is successful then great, but the feedback I'm getting from mates who are MAN based is that the voice is difficult to make out.

Magplug - MAN's taxiway and stand infrastructure would never enable 05L/23R single runway to achieve Gatwick runway movement figures at peak times. Flexibility at holding points is limited therefore difficult to achieve best departure sequencing. Runway exits may not be ideally positioned for arriving aircraft to minimise runway occupancy times. Some parking stands very close to runway causing congestion etc etc. MAN's taxiway layout looks constrained and complex therefore ATC need to be certain pilots fully understand which route they have been cleared. I'm sure any wrong turn must cause major headaches for GMC.

One big attraction of a second runway is that in the event of one runway not being available the airport can continue operating, albeit at reduced capacity. This means a lot to the big carriers who look very closely at contingency in the event of an unplanned runway closure. What better to have another runway available. That's why LGW has a standby runway, maybe not the same as the main runway but over many years it has served a purpose.

Magplug,
you should be an airport designer with your ingenious solutions!
simply build a taxiway that goes around 23R... im sure the fully loaded air china cargo would appreciate seeing an emirates 773 crossing beyond the far end of the runway as he attempts to stop the thing! Have you ever heard of a stopway? Maybe just shorten 23R to what, lets pluck a number, 1500 metres.
Every airport is different. Gatwick has lots more taxiways, Heathrow departures from T1,2 and 3 do not have to cross any runway (excluding 23!).
The taxiway system at MAN is complex and cramped, therefore it merits the introduction of any reasonable trial which is aimed at improving safety.
quote magplug:
"Every pilot knows that you cannot cross red stop-bars without explicit clearance - this is day one stuff." - Day 1 of what? The course on how to be an imbecile?
Hands up any Heathrow ATCO or LPO who has never had an a/c cross a red stop bar!
Quote:
"Go and spend some time at Heathrow or Gatwick to see how the pros operate."
There are quite a few ex LL & KK ATCOs at manch, being employed and trained by the same company.
Finally, since when does the number of a/c movements dictate how likely you are to see a runway incursion?
I have no evidence to support this theory but I believe it is exactly at times when the airfield isnt maxed out and the ATC workload is just simmering down that you are likely to relax and hence risk an incursion.
(getting bored and wont bother with details):zzz:

In 1990, eight years into my FAA air traffic controller stint and immediately following the NWA DC9/727 collision on the ground in KDTW, I suggested a similar idea to the FAA (in writing). In fog, the NWA DC9 had inadvertently taxied onto runway 3C, thinking they were still on a taxiway, and collided with the 727 on departure roll. My suggestion was pretty simple: I suggested that a 75 mHz transmitter/antenna be wired to the runway or taxiway lighting and thus only transmit during night and/or low-vis ops in a narrow beam at the hold short line. All the transmission would have to say would be something like, "runway three center" over and over again.

I thought the idea was elegant because the transmitter would be powered during the periods when it was needed because the lights already were required to be on during those periods, and on the other side, any aircraft operating during low-vis operations would be equipped to hear the transmission. All the FAA would need to do would be to require crew to listen to the receiver during ground ops. Admittedly, it was neither interactive nor high-tech. It was simply an extra tool which provided an additional safety net at very low cost.

It was rejected out-of-hand by the FAA. First, I couldn't get them to respond to me at all, so I contacted my Congressman with the story, and his staff called the FAA (yes, I set my Congressman upon my employer). Finally I got a call from someone (a surveilance program manager) in DC who explained that this was a stupid idea because no pilot would ever comply with such a rule ("we'll never get the pilots to do it"), and, to the extent they WOULD do it, it just increased the pilots' workload. I explained that in the case of the DC9/727 collision at DTW, it might very well have prevented the incursion in the first place. He said that that was a unique case and it was unlikely to happen again. "Anyway," he told me, "we've got a new system in the works that will use SSR data to tag aircraft on the ground and display them to the controller."

If you think I'm still irritated by this, you're right. And in the years since, I've not found the FAA to be any more willing to listen to subject-matter experts than they were back then. :ugh:

Dave

That's interesting. The performance computer I mentioned in another thread recently was to work in exactly this way in its original form. It was to have announced the feet to go during take-off and landing.

The inventor wanted to sell the receivers, but I pointed out that there was a little used receiver in almost every aircraft in the world.

That was in the mid seventies.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...er#post2151778

maplug,
couple of points here: firstly, I don't know the layout of many of the airports you quote but I do know LHR pretty well and as B&B has mentioned, three terminals are between the departure and arrival runways so the runway crossing is not so much of an issue there.
Yes LGW do a bl00dy good job as the busiest single runway airport in the world, although they presumably require 5 or 6 mile spacing to allow departures - I don't know if that results in regular holding delays for the inbounds, compared to 3 or 4 mile spacings permitted by dual runway ops. I guess you will have a better idea than me on that one.
I'd suggest it's a bit harsh to criticise the MAN ATCOs for inflexibility if you're referring to the requirements to obtain extra readbacks of holding points, given that it's now an operational requirement under their procedures. The last runway incursion I witnessed at my airport was unpleasant to say the least, probably more so for the crew of the 767 on short finals just before they went around. Don't tell me it's just ATCOs that want to ensure crews on the ground understand exactly where "hold short" means, and don't assume that an extra "hold position" is of as little use to all crews as it might be to you.

Seattle (KSEA) is potentially similar (moderately busy, two parallel runways, must cross 16L/34R to reach terminal from 16C/34L) - but there does not seem to be serious incursion issue here.

- Robin

NudgingSteel said:
Apart from 100% of the traffic going to/from Terminal 4 ?

OK maybe I was a little harsh... I don't sit in Manchester tower and I am sure they are just another bunch of pro's doing their best. But where do all these P-I-T-A 'Special' measures come from that they are peddling that clearly are not needed at other medium-busy provincial airports NATS management? MAN Airport PLC?

Thats why its a trial, in order to determine whether its a genuine improvement or a P-I-T-A as you put it.

I havent read the feedback questionnaire yet so dont know what they are asking, but I guess one of the key items NATS are looking for is do pilots see the real value, ie. will it help or hinder or have no affect whatsoever?

magplug
its not a bunch of atcos doing their best which cause rwy incursions, its a bunch of pro pilots who are not doing their best, which cause them. We are doing are best to prevent them.
correct me if I am wrong ,the last time I flew from Heathrow ,T4 departures on easterlies depart on 09R therefore no rwy crossing issue.
I see your location is EGLL/KK could that be Virgin

Bitmore right rudder

Thank you for that

Opnot,
what you are forgetting (or omitting) are all the T4 inbounds plus countless towers that cross 09R when it is for departure.

pilotmike, The trial cell is at Alpha, abeam the Fire Station. The message is triggered in one direction only; by arriving aircraft heading North towards the terminal. Message is 'Approaching Holding Point Alpha 6. Check ATC clearance'.

Magplug and Geffen - the original point was that when on westerlies at Manch, then every dep has to cross 23R and on easterlies every arrival has to cross 05L, whereas at LHR - it is a portion of the traffic that has to cross an active runway.
I don't know which procedures have got your goat Magplug - but maybe it would be more productive if you raised your specific issues with a Manch person. I think you're being a bit harsh to suggest every Manch atco is aggressive and inflexible without understanding why some of the procs have been brought about.
Just a thought :p

louby

GEFFEN
I did not "forget or omit",your words
I used the words" correct me if I am wrong" a very heavy way of correcting someboby.

BA fit station box in G-CPE* series, no marker audio!

Opnot,
You were not wrong, in fact I would go as far as to say you, subject WIP and LVP's, are absoulutely correct.
However, I was only pointing out that a lot of traffic still crosses the runway when 09R is for departure.

Nudging Steel:

"Can you name another dual-runway airport anywhere near as busy whereby every departure (or arrival, depending on runway in use) has to cross an active runway?"

Well, unless things have changed a lot since I was based at JFK some years ago, that is exactly what happens every time 22L/04R and 22R/04L are in use and JFK is a hell of lot busier than Manchester.

Ditto Newark.

Magplug

Nothing to do with annual movements but with busy hour movements and aircraft mix. When the second runway was being planned and built the peak hour movements especially in the morning were pushing the limits of the single runway in the peaks. The configuration of the old 06/24 in those days had a limited number of Rapid Turn Offs and holding capacity. Movements were being constrained although declared capacity eventually reached the high 40s/hour in some hours. The fact that this was actually achieved is tribute to the skills of ATC at MAN especially with a much bigger variety of aircraft types than LGW.

The fact that peak hour slots were so hard to get actually stopped the development of some new services. When R2 opened in 2001 these constraints were removed but of course the timing wasn't good as life changed after Sept 11th.

In the last couple of years annual movements have been falling but I don't have any info on the demand for peak hour movements. Just shows the business risks that Airports have with major infrastructure. Between committing to R2 @ £250m and completion was 10 years with construction taking 3 years. In that time the world can and did change. By contrast airlines can add (and dispose) of aircraft capacity relatively quickly.

Good to see MAN trialling something which hopefully can be built on to help prevent runway incursions.

Suzeman

Sorry, I should have been more specific....of course there are many airports worldwide with multiple runway crossing configurations and much higher traffic flows than we see at most UK airports. I was only thinking about UK airports as so many of our procedures are very different from the USA that direct comparison doesn't apply.
I should have been clearer; thanks to those who took the time to reply and not call me stupid (out loud);)

a-a-a-nd Back To The Topic...

Listened to it myself and yes it is audible. But.. unless it becomes SOP to select the marker ident at all times then, for my tuppence-ha'pennyworth, the kind of series of events that lead to r/w incursions would not be stopped by selecting marker audio. Or in Dunspeak... Would the KLM skipper in Tenerife bothered with such a "trivial distraction"?

Suzeman
There is a marked difference between declared capacity and achieved rates. Achieved rates were regularly well in excess of 50/hr in the late 90s with a record hour of 60 between 8 and 9am one fine September morning. :ok:
Declaring 44/hr and adding ATC flow control into the mix, often meant that departures from the 7-8 hour were pushed back into the 8-9 hour when most of the arrivals were scheduled. With just one runway, this meant lineups for departure and airborne holding. Airborne holding was more regular and prolonged back then, so there was definately a perceived benefit to having two runways even if the capacity didn't go up much.

Magplug
Just because Gatwick doesn't use two runways shouldn't mean that anywhere quieter can't build a second one. What's the magic number?

IMHO the runways shouldn't have been built with the stagger but I'm not a planner just a worker. All over the world parallel runways are built closer and not offset like this (e.g. YYZ 1000'/300m centreline to centreline vs MAN 390m). This would have made a difference in that you could always land on the outer and depart the inner. You'd also have taxiways to the end of both runways.