Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA257387504; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:58:24 -0700 Return-Path: <geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis> Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA248097501; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:58:21 -0700 Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f158.hotmail.com [216.32.181.158]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with SMTP id TAA15942 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 43162 invoked by uid 0); 3 Sep 1999 02:57:21 -0000 Message-Id: <19990903025721.43161.qmail@hotmail.com-DeleteThis> Received: from 166.90.43.86 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 02 Sep 1999 19:57:17 PDT X-Originating-Ip: [166.90.43.86] From: "George Haye" <geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis> To: geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis Subject: Wall Street Jnl and SF Chronicle Articles on Technology/Windsurfing Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 19:57:17 PDT Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Below - Links and the Text of:
(1) Wall St Journal Article Sep 1, 99
(2) SF Chronicle Article Sep 2, 99
--------------------------
(1) Here's the great article on airline technology in the WSJ:
(No need for new runways at SFO?)
HERE'S THE LINK
http://interactive.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB936132964167379074.htm
HERE'S THE TEXT:
September 1, 1999
Aiports Seek Wider Use
Of New Fog-Beating Tool
By JEFF D. OPDYKE and SHIRLEY LEUNG
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
With the worst on-time performance of any major U.S. airport, San Francisco
International has been arguing that it needs to expand its runways to reduce
delays. Now, a new technology suggests that SFO's problem can be solved --
at least in part -- by changes in the cockpit.
Seattle-based Alaska Airlines wants to introduce to SFO a new onboard
technology it has developed for seeing through fog in its namesake state.
Required navigational performance, or RNP, promises to keep planes landing
even when San Francisco's infamous mist descends.
If RNP arrives, travelers everywhere could benefit. SFO is a hub for United
Airlines, California's dominant carrier, and delays there disrupt traffic
across the state, particularly at Los Angeles.
Alaska Air's technology could also embolden people battling SFO's $2.4
billion plan to relocate and expand existing runways by filling in portions
of San Francisco Bay. Airport officials are expected to decide by year's end
how the airport's four runways will be reconfigured.
"In Alaska, the obstacles are weather and terrain. In San Francisco, it's
politics," says Stephen Fulton, a pilot for Alaska who helped the carrier
create RNP.
RNP proponents say the system is a faster, cheaper way to achieve what new
runways promise: increased capacity in inclement weather. RNP doesn't
require installation of ground-based equipment.
Industry experts agree that RNP is far more precise than ground-based
navigational aids, and once in widespread use would allow planes to safely
operate closer together. The technology "will be standard cockpit equipment
of the future," says Dennis Harn, the Federal Aviation Administration's
principal operations inspector assigned to Alaska Air.
But for all the acclaim, takeoff isn't imminent. The carrier, which uses RNP
at three airports in Alaska, must win approval from the FAA, air-traffic
controllers and other airlines in order to implement it in San Francisco.
(The airline also proposes using RNP at Seattle-Tacoma airport.) Talks start
next month.
"People say you need more runways, but perhaps because they're difficult to
build and painful to deal with, maybe we should look at more efficient uses
of runways," says Mike Adams, technical manager for Alaska Air's flight
operations.
Various groups at SFO are backing different pet projects to combat the fog,
which among other reasons made SFO the most delay-ridden airport last year,
according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. (SFO's 64.2% on-time
arrival rate compared with a national average of 76.7%.)
Air-traffic controllers, for instance, think the solution lies in a new,
$10.5 million high-definition radar system -- more accurate than current
radar technology, say industry people, but less accurate than RNP --
scheduled to go in late next year. In the pipeline before RNP came along,
it's expected to keep the airport's second runway open longer in foggy
conditions.
Meanwhile, the airport and other carriers are pushing plans to build two
runways extending into San Francisco Bay as a way to increase arrival
capacity during poor weather, reduce noise impacts on nearby neighborhoods
and accommodate larger aircraft in the future.
But technology "could address the capacity problems that new runways are
supposed to fix," says David Lewis, executive director of Save the Bay, a
citizens group in Oakland. For that reason, Mr. Lewis, who isn't familiar
with RNP, says Save the Bay is pushing the airport to "study new
technologies and operational changes as alternatives' to building new
runways.
SFO officials say fog is only one reason for modifying the runways, now just
750 feet apart. The new runways would be 3,400 feet apart -- the minimum for
simultaneous landings in poor weather. SFO spokesman Thomas Gwyn says
"technological fixes don't" address all of the issues.
Nonetheless, United Airlines is eager to test RNP technology at SFO. The
unit of Chicago's UAL Corp. accounts for more than half the flights
traversing the airport, and is working alongside Alaska Air on the RNP
pitch. If RNP gets any planes onto a fog-bound second runway, "that opens up
more slots for us" on the first runway, says Dave Jones, United's manager of
air-traffic initiatives in San Francisco. United strongly backs the new
runways and other fog-fighting plans being considered.
Several Concerns
Mr. Jones concedes there are several concerns about RNP, not least its cost.
Much of the requisite equipment is standard on the newest jets, but older
planes require substantial retrofitting. United estimates it could cost
almost $500,000 a plane to upgrade its 60 older Boeing 737s used in
California shuttle service. "That's a chunk of change," says Mr. Jones.
Alaska Air is the only carrier allowed by the FAA to use the new system for
arrivals, and in Alaska only. RNP uses typical cockpit fare, but Alaska
Air's Mr. Fulton figured out how to incorporate features that tell a plane
exactly where it is and where it should fly in relation to latitude,
longitude and altitude, the speed at which it should travel and the angle of
descent. The system also knows the precise location of such obstacles as
mountains.
Alaska Air has proved RNP's safety and effectiveness in places such as
Juneau, where harsh weather once routinely disrupted schedules throughout
carrier's network. The airline, a unit of Seattle's Alaska Air Group Inc.,
has flown RNP approaches into Juneau since May 1996. Dave Miller, Juneau's
airport manager, says "missed approaches are now about one-quarter of what
they used to be."
But flying into San Francisco is different. In Juneau, the issue is
separating planes laterally from surrounding mountains when low clouds hide
the city's single runway. At SFO, the issue is separating planes from one
another on parallel approaches to dual, narrowly separated runways. United's
Mr. Jones says that "raises safety concerns not addressed in Alaska."
Under FAA rules, to maintain adequate separation when landing on parallel
runways, pilots must be able to see other planes with their own eyes. San
Francisco halts side-by-side landings when clouds sink to 3,500 feet and
visibility to less than five miles. Using only one runway cuts arrivals from
nearly 60 an hour to about 30.
SFO officials say their planned new radar system should drop the ceiling to
about 1,600 feet and increase fog-bound arrivals by about 15%. Airport
administrators think they can boost the rate further by at some point
installing a special navigational radio beam and instituting a so-called
offset approach, in which some planes line up not in the usual parallel
fashion but at offset angles, tracking the beam. Emerging from the clouds,
they then manually align themselves with the runway.
Same But Safer
RNP also uses the offset idea, but Alaska Air's Mr. Adams says it is safer.
RNP maps the entire path to the runway and allows the plane to fly by
auto-pilot. What's more, Alaska Air estimates RNP can keep San Francisco's
second runway operational with fog levels as low as 1,000 feet and
visibility of just three miles.
There is, though, a hurdle to overcome: small, horizontal vortices formed in
a plane's wake. Moving outward and downward, they can upend a trailing
jetliner. For that reason, the FAA mandates certain separations between
planes. United's Mr. Jones says an east-west crosswind at SFO could push a
vortex from one runway into the path of a plane arriving via the offset
approach on the other.
Alaska Air's Mr. Fulton says RNP allows the staggering of planes vertically
so as to avoid each others' wakes. "This technology gives you tremendous
flexibility we've never had before in navigation," he says. "The issue now
is to develop a strategy to get it in place in San Francisco."
-----------------------
(2) The SF Chronicle Article (Sep 2)
The article can found online at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/09/02/SP102407.DTL
THE TEXT:
Windsurfers' SFO Runway Protest Takes Off
Bay users say airport needs to study issues
Paul McHugh, Chronicle Outdoors Writer Thursday, September 2, 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At Coyote Point on a breezy weekend, scores of windsurfers' sails scoot
across San Francisco Bay, bright triangles looking like a mob of
butterflies, fluttering over a field of lupine. It's estimated that more
than 300 windsurfing enthusiasts turn out to ride Coyote Point winds on days
when conditions are favorable.
However, if San Francisco International Airport gains approval to build more
than five miles of new runway on bayfill just to the north, windsurfers
claim their colorful scene will fade to gray. That's why they're organizing
to battle SFO's expanded runway project.
``The southernmost runway, more than two miles long, would kill Coyote Point
as a launch site,'' said Bill Robberson, president of the 1,600-member San
Francisco Boardsailing Association. ``It would cut off our main navigation
route. Sailors would be running into runway and landing lights.
``That runway, and the other ones planned, would create problems at five
other launch sites as well. Things like loss of route, wind disruption,
break-up of waves, more siltation and build-up of sandbars.''
Windsurfers voiced strong objections at recent meetings which airport
officials convened to collect public feedback on their runway proposal.
``I was advised windsurfers would make their feelings known. We were not
surprised,'' said Tom Gwyn, communications director for the expansion
project. He said airport planners have come to be ``very much aware'' of
windsurfer concerns.
``Environmental law requires us to look at recreational resources,'' Gwyn
said. ``Clearly, in this part of the bay, we'll have to get scientific work
done on the likely impacts of bayfill on water circulation, and the effects
on wind currents.''
Although the expansion plan was announced last year, Gwyn said SFO has not
selected consulting firms to conduct those studies, and he had no prediction
as to when the studies might be completed.
But when they are released, windsurfers, relatively new players in the Bay
Area's high-stakes development games, will be ready to give them painstaking
scrutiny.
Windsurfers emerged as a force to reckon with last year on the shore at
Burlingame, a short distance south of Coyote Point. A developer announced
plans for 636,000 square feet of high-rise office buildings on the 16-acre
site of the Burlingame Drive-In.
Board sailors, who already had complained about wind turbulence caused by
the old drive-in movie screens, said larger structures would create a zone
marred by higher turbulence and streaks of dead air.
Enthusiasts from the Bay Area and around the world were rallied via Web
sites and use of e-mail. Subsequently, a deluge of e-mails and faxes hit the
Burlingame City Hall and Planning Commission, burning out one fax machine.
As a result of the outpouring of concern, the building proposal was tabled,
and the environmental impact report has been revised two times. The
developer, Glenborough Properties, plans to return with a reduced, 480,000
square- foot proposal and curvilinear buildings placed so as to minimize
wind disruption.
``When someone applies to build a project, it's not unusual for a citizens
group to comment,'' Burlingame city planner Meg Monroe said. ``But we were
surprised by the windsurfers. No one had thought about the effect of shore
structures on wind. They made us aware of that potential.''
Monroe was impressed by the technical expertise windsurfers brought to the
table. ``Many of them are engineers, physicists, computer programmers,'' she
said, ``and far more computer fluent than we are here.''
Not all the expertise was technical. Windsurfers also showed the political
savvy to unite with Burlingame and San Mateo citizens worried about traffic
flow.
With regard to the SFO runway issue, that instinct for the expedient
alliance has led them to link up with Save The Bay, a conservation group
which has fought ecologically unsound construction since 1960.
``Our strategy has four parts,'' Robberson said. ``The first is outreach. We
want to educate our members and other windsurfers from all over who value
this place. Next, we need to dig into issues, so we can use accurate data to
oppose the project. Hooking up with Save The Bay is important, since they
have legal expertise in these matters. Finally, if it does come to
litigation, we have a decent reserve chest. We don't want to blow it all on
this, but we will if we have to.''
George Haye, 30, a banking analyst who windsurfs at Coyote Point four times
a week, helped stoke Web site broadcasts and e- mail appeals that stymied
the Burlingame development. He said the burst of international clamor was
small compared to what new SFO runways would inspire.
``Surfers all over the world see this as a special place,'' Haye said.
``Once we let them know what's up, there will be a huge storm of outcry.''
It may not seem that windsurfers harbor much empathy for concerns of airport
officials, who cite a World War II-era runway design as the reason SFO is
the second-most ``flight-delayed'' airport in the nation. When thick fog
rolls in, officials say, the number of landings- per-hour often must be
chopped in half, from 60 to 30.
In 1998, the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations gave
SFO a ``Black Star'' as one of the world's 15 most hazardous airports. The
reason: during some hours of operation, pilots must fly very close to each
other while making simultaneous landings on parallel runways.
The situation is supposed to worsen. If current trends persist, SFO
passenger traffic is expected to grow from a current 40 million a year to 51
million by the year 2010.
Some windsurfer technical expertise does extend to the aviation realm.
Robberson, 46, flew Navy P-3 Orion sub-hunter planes for 18 years, as well
as corporate aircraft out of SFO.
``Yeah, lateral separation on those runways could be greater,'' Robberson
concedes. ``But with improved technology and more mindfulness on the part of
the air traffic controllers, they can be safe and still handle high volume.
``The thing is, they don't yet have a good enough reason to dump in fill,
change the hydrology and ecology of the bay, and lose all these beneficial
uses. Not when other solutions are available.''
Both Robberson and Haye said research should be conducted into the synergy
which could result if other regional airports -- Oakland, San Jose, or even
Moffet Field -- were linked with SFO by ferry, BART tube, light rail or
helicopters.
``San Francisco International is basically an airport with no land,'' Haye
said. ``For SFO to try to serve our whole, sprawling Bay Area is not
appropriate. We should discard that notion immediately. The focus must be on
regional, long-term solutions.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WINDSURFING INFO
The City of San Francisco is creating an Environmental Impact Report on the
SFO runway expansion plan. Public comments must be received by September 9.
Mail to: Ms. Hilary Gitelman, Environmental Review Officer, San Francisco
Planning, 1600 Mission St. San Francisco, CA 94103.
--WEB SITES -- Four sites offer good places to start on researching the
sport and this issue: www.sfba.org is the official site of the San Francisco
Boardsailing Association; www.windcall.com offers up-to- the minute weather
and has links to topics of concern; www.savesfbay.org holds Save The Bay's
information on the Bay Area's aquatic health; www.sfoairport.com reports on
SFO airport operations and history; data on expansion plans should be posted
by October.
--SHOPS -- Four shops provide services near Coyote Point (inquire about
lessons and rentals): Windsurf/Bicycle Warehouse, South San Francisco, (650)
588-1714; Advanced Surf Design, Burlingame, (650) 438-8485; Helm Ski and
Windsurf, San Mateo, (650) 344-2711; California Windsurfing, Foster City,
(650) 594-0335.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:36:09 PST