Safest Airport in the USA vs. Busiest Airspace Region in the World?

[Victor Squawk]

If someone wanted to conduct an web-based investigation into the facts and data that could answer either/both of those questions, what would they actually measure?

To be clear, though the answer is interesting (and would like to know), the focus of this post is to seek the principles of safety for aviation and, in tandem, methods of aviation data generation.

The two focuses might be random, and sorry about that, but it seems like a good idea at this time.

 

[BobDDuck]

What does "safest airspace" mean? What metrics?

And busiest would be the US. But keep in mind that not all FIRs and controls report traffic statistics the same way.

 

[Victor Squawk]

What does "safest airspace" mean? What metrics?

And busiest would be the US. But keep in mind that not all FIRs and controls report traffic statistics the same way.

The phrasing in the question is about the safest airport, rather than airspace.

Some ideas I have about that are: stable climate with good weather conditions for takeoffs/landings; long runways; well controlled but less busy;...

These are the notions I have. I'm even more curious about what safety experts or experienced pilots might say makes one airport safer than another.

 

[ASpilot2be]

Safest airport is a broad term. Like @BobDDuck was saying, there's a lot of different metrics. In reality, the safest is the airport that gets no flights. Are we talking incidents per number of flight hours? Or total number of incidents?

 

[Victor Squawk]

Safest airport is a broad term. Like @BobDDuck was saying, there's a lot of different metrics. In reality, the safest is the airport that gets no flights. Are we talking incidents per number of flight hours? Or total number of incidents?

Ah. I see my question was too vague. I meant more like what principles promote safety best.

Best SOPs, facilities, technology, environmental conditions, practices, regulatory presence...?

If my question is unanswerable then never mind (and my apologies). I'm just asking novice stuff that has come to mind, since I have little experience with the actual flying part of airport operations (whether internal or external).

 

[ASpilot2be]

Ah. I see my question was too vague. I meant more like what principles promote safety best.

Best SOPs, facilities, technology, environmental conditions, practices, regulatory presence...?

If my question is unanswerable then never mind (and my apologies). I'm just asking novice stuff that has come to mind, since I have little experience with the actual flying part of airport operations (whether internal or external).

I don't think it's unanswerable. I haven't seen anybody post those kinds of reports. What you could do is look at incident reports and kind of piece together that info.

I will add that the airports where I had issues were usually airports that try to mix small GA aircraft and airliners. They just don't sequence well together.

 

[ahw01]

Statistically likely to be military

 

[form810]

If someone wanted to conduct an web-based investigation into the facts and data that could answer either/both of those questions, what would they actually measure?

To be clear, though the answer is interesting (and would like to know), the focus of this post is to seek the principles of safety for aviation and, in tandem, methods of aviation data generation.

The two focuses might be random, and sorry about that, but it seems like a good idea at this time.

It's "foci", not "focuses". We should do a regression analysis on that, too.

If yer gonna use Latin, use it correctly. Just sayin'. Yeah, I'm an ass.

EDIT: (much to your chagrin) Whoa! I just noticed! It's YOU. Double EVERYTHING I just stated. (in before 10. Hooray!)

 

[Victor Squawk]

I don't think it's unanswerable. I haven't seen anybody post those kinds of reports. What you could do is look at incident reports and kind of piece together that info.

I will add that the airports where I had issues were usually airports that try to mix small GA aircraft and airliners. They just don't sequence well together.

Thanks for the pointer on where I might find good info + the thought about GA with airliners. The aerodrome where I work allows GA (so I'm told, though I only ever see airliners and the occasional dark-colored jet doing touch-and-goes on the runway we use to get planes out). It makes sense that the mix could cause variability and that could then increase the risk factor for incidents or worse.

Statistically likely to be military

Well that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Victor Squawk]

It's "foci", not "focuses". We should do a regression analysis on that, too.

If yer gonna use Latin, use it correctly. Just sayin'. Yeah, I'm an ass.

EDIT: (much to your chagrin) Whoa! I just noticed! It's YOU. Double EVERYTHING I just stated. (in before 10. Hooray!)

Thanks, form810 ... I should use "foci" from now on. Sorry I learned English second so I have a hard time separating the Latin and Greek etymologies (or French ones either). To me it's all part of the same vocabulary.

 

[greg1016]

All else being equal (number of operations, training, procedures, etc) the safest airport is going to be the one that mitigates the most risks. Risky operations include wake turbulence (runway proximity), runway crossings, simultaneous operations, intersecting runways. intersecting flight paths, taxiway layout and proximity, hotspots, etc etc etc. The objectively safest airport design-wise will eliminate as many of these as possible. From a controller standpoint, if I never have to instruct an aircraft to cross an active runway or land on the same surface another aircraft is departing from, that lightens my workload considerably. If my workload is lessened that means I can push more tin and pay the most attention to the most important aspects of my job. While you hear about runway incursions and close calls at airports like SFO, JFK, BOS, and DCA quite frequently, you very rarely hear about them at airports like DEN, ATL, IAD, and DFW, which are equally, if not more, busy.

 

[Victor Squawk]

All else being equal (number of operations, training, procedures, etc) the safest airport is going to be the one that mitigates the most risks. Risky operations include wake turbulence (runway proximity), runway crossings, simultaneous operations, intersecting runways. intersecting flight paths, taxiway layout and proximity, hotspots, etc etc etc. The objectively safest airport design-wise will eliminate as many of these as possible. From a controller standpoint, if I never have to instruct an aircraft to cross an active runway or land on the same surface another aircraft is departing from, that lightens my workload considerably. If my workload is lessened that means I can push more tin and pay the most attention to the most important aspects of my job. While you hear about runway incursions and close calls at airports like SFO, JFK, BOS, and DCA quite frequently, you very rarely hear about them at airports like DEN, ATL, IAD, and DFW, which are equally, if not more, busy.

Airports designed for risk mitigation - this helps me focus what I'm thinking about. That's the sort of idea I had in mind about safety, I just hadn't looked at it through the lens of actively designing a layout to eliminate risks.

Then, for me this is an exciting question, but would you say that (since it's true for airports like DEN, ATL, IAD, DFW) having a busy local airspace doesn't necessarily increase risks (or decrease safety) in general?

Or is there another factor that makes those airports less incident/accident prone, such as convenient weather or the fact that they have larger airline companies invested in those locations?

My idealistic question is if it's reasonable to believe that an airport could be designed to safely maximize traffic (and I mean maximize it in a big way). Hopefully what I'm asking makes sense...

 

[greg1016]

Airports designed for risk mitigation - this helps me focus what I'm thinking about. That's the sort of idea I had in mind about safety, I just hadn't looked at it through the lens of actively designing a layout to eliminate risks.

Then, for me this is an exciting question, but would you say that (since it's true for airports like DEN, ATL, IAD, DFW) having a busy local airspace doesn't necessarily increase risks (or decrease safety) in general?

Or is there another factor that makes those airports less incident/accident prone, such as convenient weather or the fact that they have larger airline companies invested in those locations?

My idealistic question is if it's reasonable to believe that an airport could be designed to safely maximize traffic (and I mean maximize it in a big way). Hopefully what I'm asking makes sense...

There are outside factors that contribute to airport operational complexity besides just the layout of the airport. For one, with the exception of IAD, all the airports that I listed as having fewer newsworthy incidents are primary airports in relatively uncongested airspace (compared to the northeast anyway, yes I know DEN, DFW, and ATL all have busy GA airports close by, but they are subservient to the primary airport) Whereas the NY area has 3 major airports within about a 20nm radius, plus it has BOS, PHL, and the DC Metro all relatively close by. This increases the complexity at the airport when it comes to things like weather and traffic management flow control that airports like DEN, DFW or even ORD do not have to deal with since their next closest major airport neighbor is orders of magnitude farther away than the cluster in the northeast megalopolis.

 

[Victor Squawk]

There are outside factors that contribute to airport operational complexity besides just the layout of the airport. For one, with the exception of IAD, all the airports that I listed as having fewer newsworthy incidents are primary airports in relatively uncongested airspace (compared to the northeast anyway, yes I know DEN, DFW, and ATL all have busy GA airports close by, but they are subservient to the primary airport) Whereas the NY area has 3 major airports within about a 20nm radius, plus it has BOS, PHL, and the DC Metro all relatively close by. This increases the complexity at the airport when it comes to things like weather and traffic management flow control that airports like DEN, DFW or even ORD do not have to deal with since their next closest major airport neighbor is orders of magnitude farther away than the cluster in the northeast megalopolis.

Then, theoretically, a county without a major airport presence could design a risk-mitigated airport layout in a region that doesn't compete for airspace with other major airports, and (assuming steady and viable growth of demand for its gates) turn itself into a major hub that distinguishes it as a "most-safe civil airport in the country"?

(Thats supposing, for convenience's sake, that the the climate is stable and conducive to reliable takeoffs/landings, no crazy winds, minimal bodies of water nearby, separate GA from Airlines, experienced airport personnel, etc)

I'd like to thank you for answering my questions too. I keep asking more and don't mean to act incessantly, but I am curious about the possibilities so if you don't mind sharing your expertise I look forward to another reply. If not, that's OK, and thanks for offering me as much time as you have already. I appreciate it.

 

[greg1016]

Then, theoretically, a county without a major airport presence could design a risk-mitigated airport layout in a region that doesn't compete for airspace with other major airports, and (assuming steady and viable growth of demand for its gates) turn itself into a major hub that distinguishes it as a "most-safe civil airport in the country"?

(Thats supposing, for convenience's sake, that the the climate is stable and conducive to reliable takeoffs/landings, no crazy winds, minimal bodies of water nearby, separate GA from Airlines, experienced airport personnel, etc)

I'd like to thank you for answering my questions too. I keep asking more and don't mean to act incessantly, but I am curious about the possibilities so if you don't mind sharing your expertise I look forward to another reply. If not, that's OK, and thanks for offering me as much time as you have already. I appreciate it.

That is exactly what Denver did when they built their current airport. If I am not mistaken it is the newest major airport in the US (not including renovations). It is also the second largest airport by area in the world. Places like NY, Boston, Philly, DC, LA, San Fran don't have the luxury of unlimited amount of land.

 

[Victor Squawk]

That is exactly what Denver did when they built their current airport. If I am not mistaken it is the newest major airport in the US (not including renovations). It is also the second largest airport by area in the world. Places like NY, Boston, Philly, DC, LA, San Fran don't have the luxury of unlimited amount of land.

So it's real. That makes me want to go check it out. A followup question, though, is whether the airlines helped boost Denver's ascendancy. Were they a significant factor of development for the airport, or was it more like they were attracted to its growth (and added a constructive feedback cycle to it)? I guess I'm just wondering how demand for routes to a given location can be generated, because I don't understand why an airline might bid for routes to an airport otherwise.

 

[greg1016]

So it's real. That makes me want to go check it out. A followup question, though, is whether the airlines helped boost Denver's ascendancy. Were they a significant factor of development for the airport, or was it more like they were attracted to its growth (and added a constructive feedback cycle to it)? I guess I'm just wondering how demand for routes to a given location can be generated, because I don't understand why an airline might bid for routes to an airport otherwise.

That question is out of my wheelhouse but I imagine it plays a factor, along with the fact that as hubs go, you'd be hard pressed to find an airport anywhere that is both more centrally located and a draw in its own right. According to wikipedia, the US center of population is near Hartville, MO. MCI is probably the closest large airport. But no one is going to Kansas City on vacation.

 

[Victor Squawk]

That question is out of my wheelhouse but I imagine it plays a factor, along with the fact that as hubs go, you'd be hard pressed to find an airport anywhere that is both more centrally located and a draw in its own right. According to wikipedia, the US center of population is near Hartville, MO. MCI is probably the closest large airport. But no one is going to Kansas City on vacation.

That works for me. You've given me a ton of useful insights and I'm thankful to you for that. Best of all, I have a tangible location which I can visit and see for myself, a reason (excuse) to travel and some confirmations for my thinking. Looks like I should go explore Denver.

 

[ahw01]

Merrill c meigs is pretty safe.

Santa Monica is trending that way…

 

[Victor Squawk]

Merrill c meigs is pretty safe.

Santa Monica is trending that way…

More travel spots for me to investigate. I could even drive to one of those. It's interesting that both of those are in busy cities too.

I can see that Santa Monica is for GA however I'm reading that Meigs Field was bulldozed overnight without notice by a Chicago mayor in 2003...?