When space=time: Controllers grapple with the suspension of TIPH procedures
A summer of record flight delays in 2005 and the continued diminishing staffing numbers are just two of the reasons air traffic controllers are baffled by a recent Federal Aviation Administration policy change: the curtailing of the taxi into position and hold (TIPH) procedure, which most airports have used for decades as a method of minimizing intervals between takeoff and landing operations.
The TIPH system allows controllers to place departing aircraft into position on the runway to await takeoff clearance, rather than instructing them to wait on taxiways. The procedure increases airport efficiency by decreasing the amount of time between departing flights, and also increases airport capacity as flights next-in-line for departure can clear taxiway asphalt for additional flights.
The procedure especially helps smaller airports remain viable, functional facilities even as air traffic volume increases exponentially over time. As a one-runway operation that does 200,000 ops a year, we use TIPH all day, every day, said Carlsbad Palomar Tower (CRQ) Controller James Richards. Taking it away would bring our currently efficient operation to a grinding halt.
Under the FAAs TIPH policy change, only the busiest airports will be allowed to continue operating TIPH procedures. Facilities that are able to prove they regularly operate high-level traffic will be issued a waiver for the new TIPH restrictions, while all other facilities may no longer institute the procedure.
For an agency that reportedly wants to create a more efficient air traffic system, the FAA is taking a step in the wrong direction with the elimination of TIPH procedures. According to NATCA Director of Safety and Technology Doug Fralick, the new restrictions will decrease airport efficiency and capacity. The likelihood is that spacing between finals will have to be increased, again decreasing airport capacity while the FAA continues to do everything it can to accommodate more traffic.
Furthermore, recent tracking of the time intervals between departures at Burbank Tower (Calif.) proves Fralicks theory correct. We already know how long it takes for planes to go from the approach end to holding short to the departure end, reported Burbank Tower Controller Kevin Sherwood. Without TIPH, we discovered that it takes approximately twice as long (40 seconds versus 80 seconds). With intersecting runways and then trying to hit departure holes, it gets even worse.
The FAA reports that its intention in eliminating TIPH is to decrease runway incursions. However, according to Fralick, eliminating TIPH also affects ground safety by removing the predictability factor for controllers, and inherently increases safety risks.
With TIPH, a controller knows exactly how much time exists between takeoffs, Fralick said. Without the procedure, suddenly the controllers are at the mercy of each pilot and his aircraft, and the time between takeoffs will depend entirely on how much time that pilot needs to maneuver his aircraft onto the runway. That unpredictability is going to increase operational errors.
Controllers are finding the reduced-runway-incursion reasoning equally puzzling, reporting that runway incursions are far more likely attributed to pilot or controller-pilot communication errors, not glitches in the TIPH system. In the 12 years Ive worked at CRQ, weve never had a TIPH-related operational error, Richards reported.
Also looking to figure out how TIPH is affecting runway incursion rates, Fort Wayne Tower (FWA) Controller Robert Sawyer decided to ask his coworkers directly. Our records dont go back very far, but I polled our controllers one of whom has been here since 1972 and our facility hasnt had a single safety incident that was attributed to TIPH, Sawyer said. So wheres the safety issue?
NATCA President John Carr is not only puzzled by the reasoning, but also concerned about how eliminating TIPH operations avoids more pressing safety issues. While the FAA asserts this is to improve runway safety, the likely outcome is that busy airports will eventually get waivers, he said. That leaves real safety concerns like understaffing and outdated equipment unaddressed at these major airports. Meanwhile, facilities that arent granted the waiver will have to operate under unnecessary restrictions.
Further complicating the elimination of TIPH, the FAAs General Notice (GENOT) added that TIPH waivers would not be issued to facilities that could not staff a local assist or cab coordinator position to ensure safe TIPH coordination. Additionally, positions may not be combined in order to meet these staffing requirements.
But even at larger facilities, for which the waiver was apparently intended, the current staffing crisis means that there still arent enough bodies to staff the new additional positions required to run TIPH. Wed be far better able to meet the terms of TIPH elimination if we had the staff, said Nashville Tower Controller Rodney Turner. But so far, the agency hasnt provided us with the proper staffing as outlined in its own GENOT.
Doug Wicker, a controller at El Paso Tower, sees an additional problem related to partial elimination of TIPH: one that will greatly affect future controllers.
Five years from now, the controllers whove been working where TIPH has been eliminated will be bidding on the busier facilities, the ones with waivers, Wicker noted. But when they get there, theyll lack the skills to work TIPH because they were never allowed to apply it before. Suddenly, TIPH errors go through the roof because newer controllers were never trained for it.
Overall, it seems what the FAA is declaring a step toward safety will actually be a cause of chaos at the nations airports. As Carr noted, Pilots will have no effective way of knowing where this rule is in effect and where it has been waived. The actual reasons for runway incursions will have been ignored. And the FAA will have expended untold resources to create the appearance of safety management without doing anything that actually enhances the safety of the system.
