SECURING THE FUTURE OF U.S. AIR TRANSPORTATION
A System in Peril
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract No. NASW-99037 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-09069-5 (Book)
International Standard Book Number 0-309-52738-4 (PDF)
Available in limited supply from the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, (202) 334-2858
Additional copies of this report are available from the
National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICS RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY FOR VISION 2050
RONALD R. FOGLEMAN, Chair,
Durango Aerospace, Inc., Durango, Colorado
JACK CLEMONS,
Lockheed Martin Air Traffic Management, Rockville, Maryland
WILLIAM B. COTTON,
Flight Safety Technologies, Inc., Mount Prospect, Illinois
EUGENE E. COVERT,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
WILLARD J. DODDS,
GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati
WILLIAM W. HOOVER,
United States Air Force (retired), Williamsburg, Virginia
S. MICHAEL HUDSON,
Rolls Royce North America (retired), Indianapolis
NANCY G. LEVESON,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
RICHARD MARCHI,
Airports Council International–North America, Washington, D.C.
RICHARD R. PAUL,
The Boeing Company Phantom Works, Seattle
AMY R. PRITCHETT,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
ROBERT J. RAVERA,
RJR Aviation, LLC, Reston, Virginia
SANFORD REDERER,
Aviation Planning and Finance, Arlington, Virginia
HERBERT H. RICHARDSON,
Texas A&M University System, College Station
RUSSELL D. SHAVER III,
RAND, Arlington, Virginia
DAVID D. WOODS,
Ohio State University, Columbus
Staff
ALAN ANGLEMAN, Study Director
KARA BATH, Senior Project Assistant
BRIDGET EDMONDS, Senior Project Assistant
JENNIFER PINKERMAN, Research Associate
GEORGE LEVIN, Director,
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD
WILLIAM W. HOOVER, Chair,
United States Air Force (retired), Williamsburg, Virginia
A. DWIGHT ABBOTT,
Aerospace Corporation (retired), Los Angeles
RUZENA K. BAJSCY,
NAE, IOM, University of California, Berkeley
JAMES BLACKWELL,
Lockheed Martin Corporation, Marietta, Georgia
ANTHONY J. BRODERICK,
Aviation Safety Consultant, Catlett, Virginia
SUSAN COUGHLIN,
Aviation Safety Alliance, Washington, D.C.
ROBERT CRIPPEN,
Thiokol Propulsion, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
DONALD L. CROMER,
United States Air Force (retired), Fallbrook, California
JOSEPH FULLER,
Futron Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland
RICHARD GOLASZEWSKI,
GRA Incorporated, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania
JAMES M. GUYETTE,
Rolls-Royce, North America, Chantilly, Virginia
JOHN L. JUNKINS,
Texas A&M University, College Station
JOHN M. KLINEBERG,
Space Systems/Loral (retired), Redwood City, California
ILAN M. KROO,
Stanford University, Stanford, California
JOHN K. LAUBER,
Airbus North America, Inc., Washington, D.C.
GEORGE K. MUELLNER,
The Boeing Company, Seal Beach, California
DAVA J. NEWMAN,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
JAMES G. O’CONNOR,
NAE, Pratt & Whitney (retired), Coventry, Connecticut
MALCOLM R. O’NEILL,
Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland
CYNTHIA SAMUELSON,
Logistics Management Institute, McLean, Virginia
KATHRYN C. THORNTON,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville
HANSEL E. TOOKES II,
Raytheon International, Inc. (retired), Falls Church, Virginia
DIANNE S. WILEY,
The Boeing Company, Long Beach, California
THOMAS L. WILLIAMS,
Northrop Grumman, Bethpage, New York
Staff
GEORGE LEVIN, Director
Preface
In the past few years, the current status and future vision of the U.S. air transportation system have been examined in numerous studies. NASA’s recent Aeronautics Blueprint notes that the United States and the world are becoming “more dependent on the ability to move goods and people faster and more efficiently by air…. Over the last century, aviation has evolved to become an integral part of our economy, a cornerstone of our national defense, and an essential component of our way of life…. Americans per capita use aviation more than any other country in the world, … [and nonbusiness] personal travel accounts for more than 50 percent of commercial air transportation.” 1
What is needed now is vigorous action to refine and achieve the broadly held future vision of an air transportation system that can meet consumer demands for safety, security, comfort, and convenience; public demands for environmental compatibility; and national economic demands for a globally competitive civil aeronautics industry. Achieving this vision will not be easy—and will not be possible without strong national leadership. Fortunately, sometimes the flow of history leads to a confluence of events that creates an opportunity to meet great challenges. As suggested by this committee in a letter report dated August 14, 2002,2 the 100th anniversary of powered flight, which will take place in December 2003, provides an excellent opportunity both to create a bold new vision for air transportation and to initiate vigorous action by government agencies and private organizations to pursue that vision. Allowing this opportunity to pass without action would be a tragic mistake.
Ronald Fogleman, Chair
Committee on Aeronautics Research and Technology for Vision 2050
1 |
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2002. Aeronautics Blueprint. Available online at <www.aerospace.nasa.gov/aero_blueprint/index.html>. |
2 |
National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Aeronautics Research and Technology for 2050: Assessing Visions and Goals—Letter Report. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Available online at <www.nap.edu/catalog/10518.html>. |
Acknowledgments
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Daniel Brand, Charles River Associates,
Jack E. Buffington, Mack-Blackwell National Rural Transportation Study Center,
Richard M. Carlson, Consultant,
Robert A. Davis, The Boeing Company (retired),
John J. Fearnsides, Lockheed Martin Air Traffic Management,
Gerald J. Iafrate, North Carolina State University,
Ilan Kroo, Stanford University,
Amedeo R. Odoni, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Clinton V. Oster, Jr., Indiana University,
Thomas B. Sheridan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Agam N. Sinha, The MITRE Corporation,
Edmond L. Soliday, United Airlines (retired), and
Bill G.W. Yee, Belcan Corporation.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lester A. Hoel, University of Virginia, and Adib K. Kanafani, University of California, Berkeley. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
The committee also wishes to thank all those who supported the work of the committee, particularly Stephen Godwin, Director, Studies and Information Services, of the NRC’s Transportation Research Board, and all those who participated in the committee’s information-gathering meetings during Phase 1 or Phase 2, either in person or via teleconference:
Andy Anderegg, The MITRE Corporation
Gary Anderson, Army Research Office
Dale Ashby, Sikorsky
Doug Ball, The Boeing Company
Tom Berry, The MITRE Corporation
Alan Bloodgood, Lockheed Martin Air Traffic Management
James G. Boyd IV, Texas A&M University
Steve Brueck, University of New Mexico
Robert Buley, Northwest Airlines
Carl Burleson, Federal Aviation Administration
Philip Carrigan, Raytheon Air Traffic Management
Walt Coleman, Regional Airline Association (retired)
Sarah Dalton, Alaska Airlines
James W. Danaher, National Transportation Safety Board (retired)
Duane Dupon, Federal Aviation Administration
Igor Frolow, IBM Global Services
Pam Gernier, The MITRE Corporation
John R. Hansman, Jr., Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Pres Henne, Gulfstream Aerospace
Richard J. Hill, Air Force Research Laboratory
Urmila Hiremath, The MITRE Corporation
Gerald J. Iafrate, North Carolina State University
Siegfried Janson, Aerospace Corporation
Margaret Jenny, Consultant
John L. Junkins, Texas A&M University
Jack Kerrebrock, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Alexander (Sasha) Klein, Preston Aviation Solutions
Larry Knolhoff, Department of Defense, Office of the National Security Space Architect
Peter Kostiuk, Logistics Management Institute
Ilan Kroo, Stanford University
Frederick Kuhl, The MITRE Corporation
Andrew Lacher, The MITRE Corporation
Richard Lareau, Transportation Security Administration
Timothy Lewis, Air Force Research Laboratory
Robert Liebeck, The Boeing Company
Sanford D. Mangold, Department of Defense, Office of the National Security Space Architect
Lourdes Maurice, Federal Aviation Administration
John McCarthy, Naval Research Laboratory
Jack McGuire, The Boeing Company
Robert E. McKinley, Jr., NASA Langley Research Center
Dennis A. Muilenburg, The Boeing Company
Raja Parasuraman, Catholic University of America
Paul Piscopo, Department of Defense
George Price, NASA Headquarters
Blaine Rawdon, The Boeing Company
Herm Rediess, Federal Aviation Administration
Othon Rediniotis, Texas A&M University
John Rekstad, Federal Aviation Administration
Harold Rosenstein, The Boeing Company
Karlin Roth, NASA Ames Research Center
Lillian Ryals, The MITRE Corporation
Marvin Schmidt, Universal Technology Corporation
Robert Schwab, The Boeing Corporation
Walt Smith, Pratt & Whitney
Ed Stevens, Raytheon Air Traffic Management
Jeffrey M. Stricker, Air Force Research Laboratory
Bob Vilhauer, The Boeing Corporation
Jim Walton, UPS Advanced Flight Systems
Fred Wieland, The MITRE Corporation
Rob Williams, Boeing Phantom Works
Richard Wlezien, NASA Headquarters
Ron York, Rolls-Royce North America
Rick Zelenka, The Boeing Corporation
Andres Zellweger, NASA Headquarters
Dorothy Zolandz, Nationa Research Council
Tables and Figures
TABLES
B-1 |
Comparison of Future Goals and Visions for Civil Aeronautics, |
|||
D-1 |
Fundamental Thermodynamic Cycles (nonregenerative), |
|||
D-2 |
Matrix Summary of Propulsion Taxonomy, |
FIGURES
3-1 |
Generic inputs into an air transportation system performance model, |
|||
3-2 |
Fundamental air traffic management modernization requires analytical approaches with two different starting points, |
|||
4-1 |
Nontraditional aircraft concepts: strut-braced wing, joined wing, and blended-wing-body, |
|||
4-2 |
Unducted fan demonstrator ready for flight, |
|||
4-3 |
Thermal efficiency versus pressure ratio for conventional heat engine cycles, |
|||
4-4 |
Predictions made in 1968 of subsonic thrust-specific fuel consumption, updated with data on operational systems developed since 1968, |
|||
D-1 |
Thermal efficiency of the Otto, Brayton, and Carnot cycles, |
|||
E-1 |
Generic inputs for a model of airport capacity, |
|||
E-2 |
Ratio of expected demand to airport throughput capacity as a function of time (2000 to 2015) and planned airport and terminal area improvements for the 31 largest U.S. airports, |
|||
E-3 |
Influence of runway capacity and number of available gates on throughput at the 30 busiest airports in the United States in visual meteorological conditions, |
|||
E-4 |
Impact of traffic growth on scheduling predictability at a major U.S. airport in visual meteorological conditions for 1997 (real data) and 2010 (projected data), |
|||
E-5 |
Economic losses caused by undercapacity at U.S. airports, assuming that improvements to the air transportation system occur as scheduled, |