THE RISE IN AIR TRAFFIC

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29401, 31 December 1960, Page 4

THE RISE IN AIR TRAFFIC

strictly defined avenues in the sky—where their progress is continuously monitored from the ground by radar, even in clear weather. The pilot is regularly instructed as to the movements he should make by the ground controller, who has in front of him what the pilot cannot have —a detailed overall picture of the traffic situation in the area concerned. In these “airways,” the distances between aircraft, both vertically and laterally, are strictly controlled, and more aircraft can sometimes be fitted in as radar control and air navigation techniques are improved, enabling distances between aircraft and aircraft to be reduced. At the same time, the airways themselves can be expanded to provide extra room, although there are limits to this expansion in a country the size of the United Kingdom. All civil and military aircraft in the United Kingdom through the airways are already under the control of civil air traffic control centres until they reach 25,000 feet. But there are always the “funnels” through which all these aircraft must be fed on landing and taking off, and it is here that the problem of air traffic control is particularly acute.

will have to be paid it in the future.

The growing problem of air traffic control can also be partially eased by introducing more air traffic controllers. An increase in the number of radar and communications channels and an improvement in the available equipment in an effort to eliminate the ever-present possibility of human error is also helping. The same applies to enlarging airports, making more runways available; and even building more airports, further apart, to spread the expanding load over a bigger area. In New York, for example, where there are already four major airports—ldlewild, La Guardia, Newark, and Peterboro —provision of a fifth airport has been suggested to ease the strain on the others. The four New York airports are expected to handle 24m passengers a year by 1965, with Idlewild alone handling Um, and expansion at Idlewild is already costing 150 m dollars, while at La Guardia it is costing more than 30m dollars. United Kingdom airports are already handling over 5m passen-' gers a year. In the London area, London ariport alone is expected to handle 211,000 aircraft movements and 12,750,000 passengers

by 1970. It is becoming increasingly clear that much more use will have to be made of Gatwick, whether airlines like it or not, and that soon serious consideration will have to be given to developing a third major international airport, perhaps at Southend.

These developments essential, not only because of the rising volume of traffic, involving more passengers and more aircraft movements, but also because those increases in turn are throwing an ever greater burden on to the airways pattern and the air traffic control system. Expensive But these measures will also certainly be expensive, and some of them—such as spreading airports out —may also involve some inconvenience to passengers. The point is that air traffic control is not a problem by itself but an integral part of the whole world-wide civil aviation scene, and no-one who flies can expect the benefits of maximum safety without enduring some measure of inconvenience. Various attempts have been, and are being, made to improve air traffic control techniques over areas other than those in the immediate vicinity of airports. In the United States the Federal Aviation Agency, together with the Civil Aviation Administration, has been testing what is known as “area control”—a system controlling traffic spread over a wide area instead of in comparatively restricted airwavs. The area chosen covered 110.000 square miles spanning eight midwestern States, involving the air space above about 25.000 feet Called “Operation Pathfinder.” the test was intended to provide more accurate control over highflying Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 jet airliners, together with high-altitude military aircraft such as B-52 bombers. F-10" fighters and others. Three air traffic control centres, at Chicago, Indianapolis and London, Ohio, covered the area, with subsidiary sector controllers, using augmented radar and communications equipment. The experiment began on October 15 and after the first 30 days I it was reported to have been successful. Only one near-miss was reported, when a 600 m.p.h. B-52 bomber flew to within two miles of a 600 m.p.h. Boeing 707. On one representative busy day, there were oyer 800 operations in the area, with 507 being handled bv the Chicago centre alone, without strain. Convention Signed

In Europe a similar area control system is on the way. The Eurocontrol Convention was signed in Brussels last week by the United Kingdom, France. Western Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg. It provides for the joint control by those countries of the use of their upper air space (over 25,000 feet) both by civil and military aircraft.

Pending ratification of the convention by the parliaments

concerned, a planning body is being set up to study the air traffic control techniques and types of equipment to be used in implementing the plan. How it will work is not yet clear, but what is obvious is that it wil’ cost a good deal of monev, and involve sacrifices by all the countries concerned in the common interest.

Mr Peter Thorneycroft, United Kingdom Minister of Aviation, who signed for the United Kingdom, summed up the situation: “In the years to come we shall he moving faster and faster and higher and higher. The task of safety and traffic control is extremely complex, and now that a country can be crossed in 20 minutes the old frontiers are obsolete. We shall need sophisticated equipment and we can all learn a great deal from the experience of others.” Air traffic control is a neverending duty. As fast as one new type of aircraft is digested into the system, another arrives to start the struggle all over again. The system is now being tailored to meet the demands of the big lets, but supersonic transport is looming on the horizon with the problem of fitting its 1500-m.p.h. (or even 2000-m.p.h.) bulk into the airways pattern. How that will be solved, no-one at present qan tell. Everyone is too busy with the tasks on hand today.

Ave. no. Passengers Miles Passenger Hours miles carried flown miles flown flown per mill. mill. mill. mill. passenger 1959 .. 96 1,875 59,000 8.6 615 1958 .. 87 1,810 53,000 8.7 606 1957 .. 85 1,750 50,500 8.7 593 1956 .. 77 1,570 44,000 7.9 575 1955 .. 68 1,415 38,000 7.3 562 1954 .. 58 1,275 32,500 6.7 556 1953 52 1.195 28,500 6.4 553 1952 46 1,095 25,000 6.0 547 Source: International Civil Aviation Organisation.